One can only wonder what is the point....

[Steel 0]

What is the point of having a discussion when one side is so clearly wrong that they know it themselves and therefore play word games or just flat out lie to defend their position. Examples
We should ban guns because of all the gun violence that occurs.
Criminals don't follow the law and will have guns anyway. If they have to, they will illegally bring them into the country from south of the border.
{20 minutes later talking with somebody else}
We should ban guns because there are so many killed with gun violence.
Criminals don't follow the law and will have guns anyway. If they have to they will illegally bring them into the country from south of the border.

another one
George Bush is a liar, Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
Hey it was Clinton that first made this connection long before Bush was in office.
Oh but there are no WMD's.
Don't you think that with all the warning of the invasion that he would have moved them out into perhaps Iran. And for another wake-up call, it was your buddy Clinton that first said He had weapons of mass destruction. Or did you sleep through 1998.
{twenty minutes later this same lefty tries to pass off this same story that he knows is false to somebody else}

Really whats the point?


.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Rebecca 0]

Am I having deja vu?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Am I having deja vu?

That is the Matrix. the first one at least.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Am I having deja vu?

That is the Matrix. the first one at least.

The original post was way too long. It can be shortened to this:

do;
Individual who can tell fact from fiction: ;

Right winger: It's all Clinton's fault;

loop;

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,589]

There is no point. You should leave quickly, and go where only people who agree with you exist.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[miked10270 0]

Quote

The original post was way too long. It can be shortened to this:

"...whats the point?"

Or even What's the point?"

There you go John... Fixed it for you!

Tscheuss,

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,120]

>Really whats the point?

You tell us. Your opinions are polarized and immovable by your own descriptions above; yet for some reason you post here. Why do you do it?

[Steel 0]

Quote

>Really whats the point?

You tell us. Your opinions are polarized and immovable by your own descriptions above; yet for some reason you post here. Why do you do it?

I do so on occasion when I have some spare time. However, I very much disagree with your assement. I think of myself as somebody with and extremely open mind. If you could prove me wrong about something then I will imediately change my position. However, you like more of the other "clever" lefties here rarely do prove me wrong. You play word games and make statements you know have already been disproven. My question is what is your point? Because you as many others seem to just like to argue /disscuss,(you can call it what you want). I mean I can't remember ever reading one of your posts in which you said oh I see I was wrong. Or at the very least not make a statement that you know you have already had corrected for you. What part of Saddam Hussein offered $25K dollars to that family of suicide bombers do you not understand? Do you deny it? Why do you continue to say that he was not a terrorist and an iminent threat to the U.S.? That is what I wonder.

.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There is no point. You should leave quickly, and go where only people who agree with you exist.

Oh.. kewl .. he needs to get a job in the administration.

That is the only thing that is allowed there...group think. numerous carreer military officers telling them what they need to succeed in a war....
( Administration official)oops that does not agree with our position with what we know will be happening with the Iraqui people pouring into the streets showering our troops with flowers. Oh yes by the way.. you need to retire now and let someone else run this war( who agrees with our omnicient plans)

[billvon 3,120]

>I think of myself as somebody with and extremely open mind.

Of course. And for all I know you _have_ an open mind. But what you post here is extremely polarized. You make it clear from your posts that there are two types of people - idiot lefties and reasonable people.

>If you could prove me wrong about something then I will imediately
>change my position.

If you feel books labeled "TREASON" and "SLANDER" are works of a factual, objective author - then I won't waste the time. (I would feel the same way about someone who defends the author of "FRAUD: The strategy behind the Bush lies" as factual and objective.)

>What part of Saddam Hussein offered $25K dollars to that family of
> suicide bombers do you not understand?

What part of "we found no WMD's" do you not understand? If you can answer that question, you will have the answer for both of us.

>Do you deny it?

That he sponsored terrorism? Not at all. So did we. It's a rather popular way to fight by proxy.

But every single bit of evidence offered that he was an IMMEDIATE threat to the US (grave and gathering threat, imminent danger, whatever you want to call it) has turned out to be false. Portable biological laboratiories? None found. Chemical weapons? None. Drones that can be used to spray biological weapons? Nope. Connections between Bin Laden and Hussein? None. Nuclear warheads under construction? Nope.

Now, you may assert that there were other causes for the war; that's fine. But there was no imminent threat. If anything, our constant bombardment of his military meant he was a MUCH smaller threat in 2003 than during the 1990's.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

...somebody with and extremely open mind ... prove me wrong ... change my position...

OK. Here goes.

George W Bush is a complete and utter dangerous idiot. His administration has caused more harm to Americas place in World Politics than any other in living memory. He is both evasive and incompetent is those evasions. Nathan Bedford Forrest would have made a better President!

Proof can be found on any impartial news agency to the left of Genghis Khan / Fox.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Steel 0]

Quote

>I think of myself as somebody with and extremely open mind.

Of course. And for all I know you _have_ an open mind. But what you post here is extremely polarized. You make it clear from your posts that there are two types of people - idiot lefties and reasonable people.
============================
There are but reasonable people can subdivide into different groups. What they have in common is not necessarily their opinion but that they don't deny facts. This makes for a meaningful conversation. I have already named lefties I consider people that you could reason with, in the past 2 hours even. I know you read those posts but yet you just made this statement you you knew was false.

>If you could prove me wrong about something then I will imediately
>change my position.

If you feel books labeled "TREASON" and "SLANDER" are works of a factual, objective author - then I won't waste the time.
==========================
Ok, so to follow you here, there have never been people who committed Treason or Slander. Or a person who researches why they did this is already an idiot according to you. That to me already sounds like a communist/lefty manifesto. How dare you study such facts and write about them! You racist, you evil capitalist!


>What part of Saddam Hussein offered $25K dollars to that family of
> suicide bombers do you not understand?

What part of "we found no WMD's" do you not understand? If you can answer that question, you will have the answer for both of us.
==============================
Again when Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards stated the same thing you said nothing to dispute it. Kind of makes you sound like a political hack. Besides if I said that I offered $25K to anybody who bombed Perris, then would you not consider me a threat to Perris. How about if I was Shooting a skydiver out of the Perris Sky on occasion would I be a threat to Perris then? In case you know know, Saddam never stopped shooting at the U.S. military jets on the no fly zone. And yes their failure record was not 100%.

>Do you deny it?

That he sponsored terrorism? Not at all. So did we.
================
See that is what I mean by making absurd statements. You know that the there is no way you could compare what we (the U.S.) has done in the past with somebody flat out saying. Hey any suicide bombers that attack the U.S. or Israel, I will give $25K. You know we have never done anything like that. But yet you made this absurd statement.



It's a rather popular way to fight by proxy.

But every single bit of evidence offered that he was an IMMEDIATE threat to the US (grave and gathering threat, imminent danger, whatever you want to call it) has turned out to be false. Portable biological laboratiories? None found. Chemical weapons? None. Drones that can be used to spray biological weapons? Nope. Connections between Bin Laden and Hussein? None. Nuclear warheads under construction? Nope.

Now, you may assert that there were other causes for the war; that's fine. But there was no imminent threat. If anything, our constant bombardment of his military meant he was a MUCH smaller threat in 2003 than during the 1990's.

I don't have time to attack all these false assertions piece by piece and the fact is I already have in the past but you have not rethought your position so what is the point.
.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

...somebody with and extremely open mind ... prove me wrong ... change my position...

OK. Here goes.

George W Bush is a complete and utter dangerous idiot. His administration has caused more harm to Americas place in World Politics than any other in living memory. He is both evasive and incompetent is those evasions. Nathan Bedford Forrest would have made a better President!

Proof can be found on any impartial news agency to the left of Genghis Khan / Fox.

Mike.

such nonsense that it doesn't even deserve a response.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[livendive 8]

Quote

another one
George Bush is a liar, Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
Hey it was Clinton that first made this connection long before Bush was in office.
Oh but there are no WMD's.
Don't you think that with all the warning of the invasion that he would have moved them out into perhaps Iran. And for another wake-up call, it was your buddy Clinton that first said He had weapons of mass destruction. Or did you sleep through 1998.

Clinton didn't trust the intelligence enough to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis over it. The Shrub did.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

...somebody with and extremely open mind ... prove me wrong ... change my position...
OK. Here goes.


George W Bush ... Proof can be found ...

such nonsense that it doesn't even deserve a response.

QED.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

another one
George Bush is a liar, Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
Hey it was Clinton that first made this connection long before Bush was in office.
Oh but there are no WMD's.
Don't you think that with all the warning of the invasion that he would have moved them out into perhaps Iran. And for another wake-up call, it was your buddy Clinton that first said He had weapons of mass destruction. Or did you sleep through 1998.

Clinton didn't trust the intelligence enough to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis over it. The Shrub did.

Blues,
Dave

I congratulate for coming up with that explanation. Its an interesting attempt that seems original. Usually the Clinton supporters just try to spin the issue by claiming that the right blames Bush problems on Clinton. This iseasier for them than really addressing statements that Clinton is on record making.
However, I don't buy it because I think that it had more to do with his concerns in covering up his scandals than the safety of the U.S.
.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,120]

>Ok, so to follow you here, there have never been people who committed Treason . . . .

Like I said, if you honestly think that a book named "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" is an objective piece, and not a book intended to appeal to a certain kind of extremist - then you are welcome to that opinion. I will not try to dissuade you. Read it and feel well informed.

>Again when Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards stated the same thing you
>said nothing to dispute it.

Did you have an answer to my question, or did you figure that by changing the topic you wouldn't have to answer it?

Once again, we did not find any WMD's when we invaded, WMD's we said Saddam had. Do you understand that? (Note that I have made this a yes or no question; "but Clinton said. . . " is not a possible answer.)

There are actually a few people on this board who can answer questions without having to reflexively slam a democrat or republican; I find them interesting to talk to.

>See that is what I mean by making absurd statements. You know
> that the there is no way you could compare what we (the U.S.) has
> done in the past with somebody flat out saying. Hey any suicide
> bombers that attack the U.S. or Israel, I will give $25K.

We gave the Mujahideen BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to kill Russians for us. A billion is a lot more then $25,000. Different time, different situation - but claiming we never do it is a foolish statement.

But to keep with the easier question theme - do you understand that we once paid Islamic terrorists billions of dollars to launch terrorist attacks on soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan?

>but you have not rethought your position so what is the point.

Nor have you. But I see it as very encouraging that a lot of americans ARE rethinking their positions. Most americans now believe that members of the Bush administration intentionally misled the public in making the case for war. If nothing else, that will help prevent them from being taken in again.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK. Here goes.

George W Bush is a complete and utter dangerous idiot. His administration has caused more harm to Americas place in World Politics than any other in living memory. He is both evasive and incompetent is those evasions. Nathan Bedford Forrest would have made a better President!

Proof can be found on any impartial news agency to the left of Genghis Khan / Fox.

Mike.

such nonsense that it doesn't even deserve a response.

QED.

Mike.

I am sorry but it takes time to reply meaningfully and when somebody's arguement is as obviously empty as yours, it just doesn't make sense to waste the time.
cheers,
,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,120]

>I am sorry but it takes time to reply meaningfully . . . .

Especially when there's this big whooshing noise to distract you!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Clinton didn't trust the intelligence enough to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis over it. The Shrub did.

....
However, I don't buy it because I think that it had more to do with his concerns in covering up his scandals than the safety of the U.S.
.

You don't buy it? So you think Clinton DID think the evidence was strong enough to warrant invasion of a sovereign country, massive death and destruction on both sides, and fertilization of breeding grounds for a whole new generation of anti-American terrorists?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,151]

That he sponsored terrorism? Not at all. So did we.

Quote

================
See that is what I mean by making absurd statements. You know that the there is no way you could compare what we (the U.S.) has done in the past with somebody flat out saying. Hey any suicide bombers that attack the U.S. or Israel, I will give $25K. You know we have never done anything like that. But yet you made this absurd statement.

You seem remarkably ignorant of history. Why not try Googling "Iran-Contra".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Why do you continue to say that he was not a terrorist and an iminent threat to the U.S.?

Why do you continue to believe that he was an imminent threat when even the Bush administration admits now that he was NOT.

You ask for proof, but you have some personal definition of proof that is different than everyone else's.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.