RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted

RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Damn! He did edit it, didn't he! Thanks for catching that, merc. FirmKY And perhaps re-edited it back. Like a candidate who switches between positions to suit the audience and personal agenda; you can't take them serious once they are disclosed.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Damn! He did edit it, didn't he! Thanks for catching that, merc. FirmKY And perhaps re-edited it back. Like a candidate who switches between positions to suit the audience and personal agenda; you can't take them serious once they are disclosed. Post #170 was NEVER EDITED. Perhaps you're too busy congratulating each other over your own error, you're not following the conversation? TRY to stay focused. My statement was made in post 170, and was never retracted. Now, you got anything to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion of Bush's fraud, or just want to waste more time?

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:26:37 PM)
I guess making up slanderous lies about what people are on record saying is an approved M.O.?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:28:59 PM)
ok fargle, Re: "The Bush fraud" There is nothing in the fantasy "indictment" that isn't either a policy difference, a misunderstanding, the best knowledge at the time, acceptable "ad spin" as defined by the courts, or normal political soothsaying. If you wish to criminalize policy differences, then you are heading to a totalitarian state. Your actions and your desire to criminalize political disagreements is much, much worse than anything .... I say again ... ANYTHING ... that you have accused Bush of doing or saying. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:29:53 PM)
That's AN opinion.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I guess making up slanderous lies about what people are on record saying is an approved M.O.? It would have to be a lie. To go on with the discussion under your terms - we just need to know which laws you feel warrant consideration. A very simple, and fair, question considering your position that we are a nation of laws contradicts with your comparison to enforce them, in the case of aliens having proper documentation to Hitler's Germany. I wouldn't answer your proposition by saying that pursuing President Bush compares to a Vatican "witch hunt" without expecting a challenge. In this case however its the same country just different laws. I don't see anything slanderous in quoting you to point out a position in direct contradiction to position on this subject. Can you explain it?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle That's AN opinion. Sure is. Just like it's your opinion that Bush has committed fraud and conspiracy. It supports your political agenda and belief system. It's not supported by the law. It's an opinion, dressed up in legalese ... which is an attempt to criminalize political disagreements ... which is what I've been saying the entire time. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:33:37 PM)
quote: . Your actions and your desire to criminalize political disagreements is much, much worse than anything Why do you continue your slanderous lie, that I have a desire to criminalize political disagreements. YOU made that up. I don't care about politics. I care about making sure that when someone commits a crime, REGARDLESS OF THE OFFICE THEY HOLD, they are held accountable. If you do the crime, EXPECT to do the time, and being President doesn't insulate you from the legal consequences of your acts, just like being undocumented doesn't insulate you from the legal consequences of your acts. Now, you can go on-and-on about "Political Motivation", however you have not offered up A SINGLE FACT to counter the evidence presented, and that's not a good showing. We're done. You lose. Next Contestant Please.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:36:22 PM)
quote: I don't see anything slanderous in quoting you to point out a position in direct contradiction to position on this subject. If you DID that, that would not be an issue. But you didn't. You just decided I flip-flopped, despite my NEVER CHANGING MY STATEMENT.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I don't see anything slanderous in quoting you to point out a position in direct contradiction to position on this subject. If you DID that, that would not be an issue. But you didn't. You just decided I flip-flopped, despite my NEVER CHANGING MY STATEMENT. The "flip flop" is much simpler. *"This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING."* No matter how many more flips and flops you attempt you are selective in your desire for enforcement. Your comparison to the enforcement of some laws being Hitler-esqe speaks to your agenda. You either believe in what you post or you don't. Obviously you don't - at least in regards to being a "Nation of Laws". It discounts your position dramatically and gives you no integrity to draw upon. Better that you said it was a "bad law" I would have respected that position as a common rationalization. You can't argue against a rationalization, but when someone stands firm on a position where they have to deny, re-explain, or say what they "really meant"; why bother discussing anything. Oh and if this is what makes you feel good and important: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle We're done. You lose. Next Contestant Please. Feel free to use the same self determined conclusion for me too. I need to do a good deed today. Be well - and enjoy yourself.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 2:06:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I don't see anything slanderous in quoting you to point out a position in direct contradiction to position on this subject. If you DID that, that would not be an issue. But you didn't. You just decided I flip-flopped, despite my NEVER CHANGING MY STATEMENT. The "flip flop" is much simpler. *"This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING."* How is that single statement a flip-flop? It is a statement. It's ONE statement, providing an either/or choice for our morality. I don't see where it contradicts anything I've said in the past. If you do see where it contradicts, please post the contradictory statement. "you are selective in your desire for enforcement." Where did I say that anyone should escape prosecution for their alleged crimes?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 2:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: . Your actions and your desire to criminalize political disagreements is much, much worse than anything Why do you continue your slanderous lie, that I have a desire to criminalize political disagreements. YOU made that up. I don't care about politics. I care about making sure that when someone commits a crime, REGARDLESS OF THE OFFICE THEY HOLD, they are held accountable. If you do the crime, EXPECT to do the time, and being President doesn't insulate you from the legal consequences of your acts, just like being undocumented doesn't insulate you from the legal consequences of your acts. Now, you can go on-and-on about "Political Motivation", however you have not offered up A SINGLE FACT to counter the evidence presented, and that's not a good showing. We're done. You lose. Next Contestant Please. 1 ... you have not offered up A SINGLE FACT to counter the evidence presented When you present "evidence" rather than an opinion, I'll counter it or illuminate it, or explain it or accept it. 2. *I don't care about politics.* I call Bullshit. I've read enough of your posts, in this and other threads to know this is completely untrue. Who are you trying to fool? (No, wait a minute ... I'm an American ... therefore I'm "dumb". Maybe you think I'll buy this?) 3. We're done. You lose. Next Contestant Please. Taking your ball and bat and going home, are you? No, you are the one who's arguments and beliefs have been exposed. You just can't take the heat, so you are getting out of the kitchen. Hmmm, maybe that's harsh (but true). The fact is, I think you recognize that you are losing the discussion, and have simply decided to to "call victory" and vacate the field. I went through you first "indictment" post and gave a point by point rebuttal and explanation. Your second long "indictment" post simply gives statements (out of context) and then claims that there was a conspiracy in order to ... what? Go to war for oil? Increase Haliburton's profits? Something nefarious and "bad"? You are assuming bad acts and bad faith. This means that you have a political agenda, and a belief system, and a political endpoint that you wish to see. You cloak it in some legalese looking and moralistic mumbo jumbo about "A nation of law's", but it's about punishing policies that you don't agree with, not enforcing law. The "law" is simply your choosen sledge to hammer your opponents into submission, and to punish them for disagreeing with you. Why is it that people such as yourself, and julia claim not to have a "political agenda" when it's easy to see that you do? Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Or is it an attempt to make yourself somehow "pure" and "non-political" in order to increase your credibility because you are "only doing it out of the goodness of my heart"? FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 2:17:45 PM)
Are you still wasting bandwidth? You've been dismissed. Go home.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 2:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Are you still wasting bandwidth? You've been dismissed. Go home. [sm=biggrin.gif] [sm=boohoo.gif]

MasDom -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 2:35:33 PM)
Wasteing band with? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [;)]Oh ok?....

Sincere2serve -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 5:13:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle There is no need for you to attempt to incite an argument by pretending not to understand clearly written language. Speaking of not understanding clearly written language, why didn't any of you kool-aid drinking, tin foil hat type ever bother to read the UN resolution authorizing ANY member state to end the cease fire with Iraq for non compliance. You dim bulbs can't even figure out it was ending a cease-fire, not an invasion. United Nations New York, New York November 8, 2002 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution [Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002] The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people, Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 5:15:27 PM)
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " When did THAT happen? Are "The Troubles" FINALLY Over? ( Ok, let's just assume they are ) None of that relieves anyone in the Bush Administration from violating 18 USC 371.

WyrdRich -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 5:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy On the other hand, you have previously stated that your approach is to state your opinions without bothering to back them up with empirical information, as well as to avoid researching information which might contradict your (not researched) opinion. Enjoy your sleep. Sinergy Thank you, Sinergy, for your patience and good wishes. Also for the nice belly-laugh in that completely unrelated thread. I'm sure you understand the importance of people who work with dangerous machinery being well rested. Today wound up being a fairly mellow sort of 12 hour day. Actually, I believe what I have previously stated is that I prefer a debate that deals with ideas rather than competing factoids. Lincoln-Douglas, rather than Cross-Ex, in the terminology of my formal debate days. I don't think I've ever suggested I'm unwilling to explore ideas that might change my attitudes. The highlighted sentence above is a statement of opinion. I would hope that by looking at how such a small opinion is reached, we may gain a better understanding of larger things. It begins with a bit of knowledge. You work on the docks. I know this because I've seen you mention it numerous times. What thread title? What post number? I have no freaking idea and no intention of wasting my time looking it up. The information has reached my long-term memory. At a previous phase of my life, I read 150-200 books a year, mostly non-fiction, and I retained a lot of that as well. Could I quote author and title on most of it? No. It's just tucked away as something I know. Is there any evidence for such a bit of knowledge in this particular thread? You referenced your "dockbag" a bit earlier. Likely, you are talking about the bag you take to work with things you might need. I call mine the "truck kit." Far from definitive though. You could just as easily be bragging about 'A Dock,' some trendy bag designer I've never heard of. Far from the empirical evidence you want. It's possible that my knowledge about your employment is wrong. This is the internet. The complete persona of CM's Noble Kilted Sensei-tion could be an elaborate fabrication of, oh let's say, a soft, balding wanker in Mommy's basement somewhere. I choose to take your words and profile at face value until it is demostrated otherwise. To that bit of knowledge, I shall add an impression. You strike me as being pretty intelligent and one who cares about his fellow man. Again, I'm not going to hunt the things that led me to this. Now we get into drawing upon my own personal knowledge and experience. I justify this sort of thing by recalling Musashi's "Book of Five Rings" when he says that if you understand "The Way" in one thing, you understand it in many. The closest I have been to the docks in Long Beach was a couple crossings of the Vincent Thomas Bridge (I think that's the name) and a trip to the "Queen Mary" for a company banquet. I've wandered around, drunk at night, on some commercial docks in Japan, but nothing on the scale of that. I'm well aquainted though, with construction and demolition sites and large indoor and outdoor warehouses. Being around big machines where the operator must contend with confined spaces and limited visibility is part of my life experience. So now we have a few things. You work on the docks, you aren't stupid and the docks can be a dangerous place. Now I have to make a leap. Just a little one, but a leap nonetheless. You understand your workplace is dangerous. You prefer that the people working around you be careful. If a crane operator screws up, some poor union guy is going to get cleaned up with a spatula and sponge. I further leap to the conclusion that you have some understanding of the effects of fatigue on humans, and voila, I have reached an opinion. Facts? I agree with Jaques Ellul that EVERYTHING is propaganda and subject to spin and interpretation. Take your sub (Please! pa-dum-bump). She and I were able to look at precisely the same poll data and reach completely different conclusions. Just more opinion. My methodolgy here is easy to attack. Someone with a higher level of education (plenty of those around here) or better skills at rhetorical criticism might shred this post in moments. But the question is, am I right? If so, the rest is just petty crap. Discussion of opinion is perfectly valid. If you feel it needs a disclaimer, have a look at my sig line (I actually use it for a signature, unlike many others who prefer a more artistic approach). Virtually everything I post contains my self-identification as a "heretic." I like that word. It states that I probably don't operate under the same beliefs and practices as dictated by the norm. I think it also encompasses my irreverence toward the generally accepted sacred cows (BEST burgers!). If that still doesn't work for you, at the bottom of every post is a little red-hand icon. Feel free.

philosophy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 5:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " When did THAT happen? Are "The Troubles" FINALLY Over? ( Ok, let's just assume they are ) None of that relieves anyone in the Bush Administration from violating 18 USC 371. ...er, Good Friday Agreement ring any bells?

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 6:18:30 PM)
quote: ...er, Good Friday Agreement ring any bells? Sure, I stipulated that we should consider it over. And I hope it works out well for them. It's just so weird seeing the U.K., the source of so much of the worlds ills, the Hated British, being held up as any sort of standard. Of course, this tangent doesn't take away from the facts in evidence tending to prove Bush & Cos participation in crimes against the Laws of the United States, and the moral responsibility to ensure their prosecution, and punishment, if convicted of those crimes.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875