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

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 2:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy FB, there was a point in one of these threads where KY ranted about my not providing any proof or research, despite my having done so. Then he opined that he is not going to (I used the term intellectually lazy) provide source material proving that I failed to do so. You can provide him links and he wont bother to look at them. 1. I don't "rant". 2. As normal, your words are factually incorrect, vague, and intentionally insulting. 3. The only links that you have provided to me is the one about "25 reasons to impeach Bush" (that was a rip roaring hoot) and the link to the University of Kentucky's educational programs (which was intended as an insult). Any and all other assertions of facts you have given and I've questioned, you have failed to source, support or address. For details, see this post. You simply insult, straw-man, and attempt to change the topic. FB, there was a point in one of these threads where KY ranted about my not providing any proof or research, despite my having done so. Then he opined that he is not going to (I used the term intellectually lazy) provide source material proving that I failed to do so. Nope. Another false statement on your part. At least very much skewed and misleading. An attempt at insulting. I gott admit sin, you are quite good at obfuscation. But your insults aren't that funny: you're no Don Rickles. But getting facts straight is certainly one of your weaknesses. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 4:14:20 AM)
Ok FB, went and read the transcript. Nothing about a "wall" in Baghdad that I could find. Did I miss it? I did skim a little, so it's possible. So, what the hell is all this stuff you are carrying on about a "wall in Baghdad"? On partisanship: There are other important issues than just the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership in their stance in Iraq. I think the most important one, is the utter lack of adherence to deciding the best policy for all Americans, and supporting that policy and plan - whatever it is. Their policies are reactive, not proactive. They are sacrificing their higher moral obligations and duties to the nation on the alter of expediency simply because of the personal lust for political power and control. Allowing such people in charge of our government is - to me - the sure path to the destruction of our nation, and the loss of our freedoms. The inability or lack of desire on the part of their supporters to call them on it also points to a moral and societal weakness that is both deleterious and systemic in our Western culture. Kinda reminds me, from the other side, of your comments in post 241: It's sad. Like the Commies, giving allegience to their Party first, rather than their State. And your comments in post 246: Therefore I only insulted those who a) Are Neoconservatives and b) Put The Party before Their State. Just change the political labels, and I think you might just be looking into a mirror. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 7:32:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Let's say that I stipulate it. It's PARTISAN. Ok. SO? What's your fucking point? The Dims can have balls, and play hardball sometimes too? No, my point was quite clear. You and others are accusing Bush of taking the actions he has for reasons of self interest. His, and his "class". That's called partisanship. And you bemoan, castigate and decry his lack of intelligence, morals and motivations for doing so. Yet, even when you admit that "your side" is doing exactly the same things, for exactly the same reasons - it's ok. There is a name for that, yah know. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: 2. Your casuality figures are bogus. That's the LOW range of the Johns Hopkins/MIT study. Say what you will about it, and if you have a BETTER STUDY, I'd love to see it. You go to war with the studies you got, to paraphrase some loser... Do you have a link to your source? Guy, that's the Johns Hopkins/MIT casualty study. You haven't been living under a rock, so why pretend you're not familiar with it's claims. You may not have read it, and checked it's methodology, but it's a standard accepted protocol, so I don't see that as an issue. http://web.mit.edu/CIS/lancet-study-101106.pdf Wow. The MIT study is on MITs website. Do you realize how fucking dumb you look asking for it? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: 4. How in the world did a discussion about "Walls" get into this? I'm guessing you didn't read my earlier response to that point. Go read my response in an earlier post.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 7:50:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ok FB, went and read the transcript. Nothing about a "wall" in Baghdad that I could find. Did I miss it? I did skim a little, so it's possible. So, what the hell is all this stuff you are carrying on about a "wall in Baghdad"? See earlier response. quote: On partisanship: There are other important issues than just the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership in their stance in Iraq. I think the most important one, is the utter lack of adherence to deciding the best policy for all Americans, and supporting that policy and plan - whatever it is. That would be obedience to the LAWS of The United States and adherance to The Constitution. Since Bush did NOT obey the Laws of The United States or The Constitution, we need to address those alleged crimes first, shouldn't we? Otherwise, what of your Laws and Constitution? Did you see Dick Durbin mention how the Iraq AUMF is obsolete and irrelevent now? What LAWFUL BASIS exists for Bush's actions then? " Their policies are reactive, not proactive." That's because the GOOD GUYS don't hit first. FWIW, GOOD GUYS don't torture prisoners in their custody, and provide an arraignment with representation, and a trial. You may have forgotten that lesson when you accepted torturing prisoners in your name, and denying due process. "They are sacrificing their higher moral obligations" From someone who doesn't seem to have a problem with torturing prisoners, denial of due process, and permitting high crimes to go uninvestigated? "the sure path to the destruction of our nation, and the loss of our freedoms." Like the way Bush is having all internet usage and phone usage monitered without a warrant, as indicated in the court documents in evidence in EFF v. AT&T? And don't deny it's happening until you go read the ads from the comany selling the technology to the feds to do it. See core router? See tap on core router? See packets copied to Feds? quote: It's sad. Like the Commies, giving allegience to their Party first, rather than their State. And your comments in post 246: Therefore I only insulted those who a) Are Neoconservatives and b) Put The Party before Their State. Just change the political labels, and I think you might just be looking into a mirror. Not at all, as a Traditional Conservative, i've always opposed the actions of the Conservative Party as they sucked up the the RNC, and consequently the RNC's cocksucking of the Neocon Nuts. You think I hate Bush because he's a Conservative. Wrong. I hate Bush because he's always PRETENED to be competent, and the Neocon Party Whores enjoyed the pep rallys so much it didn't matter if he would wreck the economy, and destroy our privacy, freedom, and liberty. The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 8:56:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. My discussion with you is now over. So long, and thanks for all the fish. FirmKY PS. How's that for legalese? [sm=biggrin.gif]

pahunkboy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 9:07:12 AM)
wonders why we dotn give the keys to saudi arabia

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 9:17:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY 2. Your casuality figures are bogus. That's the LOW range of the Johns Hopkins/MIT study. Say what you will about it, and if you have a BETTER STUDY, I'd love to see it. You go to war with the studies you got, to paraphrase some loser... quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Do you have a link to your source? Guy, that's the Johns Hopkins/MIT casualty study. You haven't been living under a rock, so why pretend you're not familiar with it's claims. You may not have read it, and checked it's methodology, but it's a standard accepted protocol, so I don't see that as an issue. http://web.mit.edu/CIS/lancet-study-101106.pdf Wow. The MIT study is on MITs website. Do you realize how fucking dumb you look asking for it? Ahhh .. the Lancet study! Lordy, that old rag! I've debunked it so many times, I can almost remember the links! Short version: 1. It has nothing to do with MIT (or even John Hopkins, I don't believe). 2. The methodology is screwed up. 3. The author has admitted he rushed it to publication in order to try to have an impact on the 2004 election. If you feel competent enough to understand the details about why it's screwed up, I'll share it with you. It does take some understanding of statistics and sampling procedures however. FirmKY PS I don't buy that you are anything approaching a "Traditional Conservative" btw.

Sinergy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 10:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 3. The only links that you have provided to me is the one about "25 reasons to impeach Bush" (that was a rip roaring hoot) and the link to the University of Kentucky's educational programs (which was intended as an insult). Any and all other assertions of facts you have given and I've questioned, you have failed to source, support or address. Only links? Just off the top of my head I can recall providing links to articles in Discover, Scientific American, Popular Science, Rolling Stone, Random Lengths, Science, etc. I can recall providing links to American Theology, Cobra II, Fortunate Son, The Bush Dyslexicon, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, The Bad Popes, etc. I can also recall providing links on subjects like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Unionization of Indian Sex Workers, Oil exploration, refinement, and infrastructure, etc. I can go on. You can a search on any of those subjects and get the post numbers. The following are often used to increase mental acuity and memory. http://www.4naturalhealing.com/product_info.php/products_id/453692934 http://www.southnatural.com/300323.html quote: For details, see this post. That is funny. To prove a point in this post, you point us to a post you made where you expound endlessly with unsubstantiated claims and insults. I dont recall ever reading an academician who proved their point using the research technique of self-referencing their own work. Seems rather circuitous to me, but I am a longshoreman so what do I really know about anything. Fair enough, I am no Don Rickles Do the world a favor and don't quit your day job and go into academics or research. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 10:20:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. My discussion with you is now over. So long, and thanks for all the fish. FirmKY PS. How's that for legalese? [sm=biggrin.gif] Historians and lawyers were comparing what happened after 9-11 to what happened in Germany because the Patriot Act so resembled the Enabling Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act I wrote a paper in my law and culture course, fully referenced, and received an A on it... although the professor noted I was extremely opinionated unnecessarily, as the facts spoke for themselves[:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 10:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ahhh .. the Lancet study! Lordy, that old rag! I've debunked it so many times, I can almost remember the links! Short version: 1. It has nothing to do with MIT (or even John Hopkins, I don't believe). 2. The methodology is screwed up. 3. The author has admitted he rushed it to publication in order to try to have an impact on the 2004 election. If you feel competent enough to understand the details about why it's screwed up, I'll share it with you. It does take some understanding of statistics and sampling procedures however. Back up here a little. I'm referencing the 2004 Lancet report, not, apparently, the latest one by the same man in 2006. And, he does work for John Hopkins. When I get time, I'll reivew this report, but his original one was certainly flawed, and if he used the same methodology, I've no doubt this one is as well. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 10:37:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 3. The only links that you have provided to me is the one about "25 reasons to impeach Bush" (that was a rip roaring hoot) and the link to the University of Kentucky's educational programs (which was intended as an insult). Any and all other assertions of facts you have given and I've questioned, you have failed to source, support or address. Only links? Just off the top of my head I can recall providing links to articles in Discover, Scientific American, Popular Science, Rolling Stone, Random Lengths, Science, etc. I can recall providing links to American Theology, Cobra II, Fortunate Son, The Bush Dyslexicon, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, The Bad Popes, etc. I can also recall providing links on subjects like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Unionization of Indian Sex Workers, Oil exploration, refinement, and infrastructure, etc. I can go on. You can a search on any of those subjects and get the post numbers. Slowly now .... "The only links that you have provided *to me* ..." I don't have any idea how many links you have provided to anyone else, in any other thread you may have, nor whether they were important, accurate or even pertinent to your conversations with the individuals in those threads. I've no interest in tracking you, stalking you, or searching out your "words of wisdom". It just when you appear in a thread that I'm interested in, and start making shit up, I call you on some of it. You're having a hard time with that, I understand. As far as self referencing, well ... happens fairly commonly. I was referencing a post where I listed a multitude of your earlier fabrications, confabulations and factual errors, and to which you never responded. You still haven't. All the rest of your above post is just insulting BS, trying to get my goat. shrugs Aint' working too well. Come on, sin ... we all screw up from time to time ... just admit it. It'll free you from a lot of anxiety. [:D] FirmKY

Sinergy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 12:20:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY "The only links that you have provided *to me* ..." Thank you for clarifying that this entire thread is about you. Sinergy edited to add that I find it rather odd that the only links you seem capable of or interested in providing to the thread are links to your own previous posts.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 1:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY "The only links that you have provided *to me* ..." Thank you for clarifying that this entire thread is about you. Sinergy edited to add that I find it rather odd that the only links you seem capable of or interested in providing to the thread are links to your own previous posts. Sinergy, Just out of idle curiousity, do you even know how to have an adult conversation? Or are juvenile name-calling, playground insults and sophomoric sarcasm the only techniques you know? You are just an utter riot. [sm=biggrin.gif] I feel like I'm back in 7th grade sometimes when I try to engage you. Thanks for making me feel young again. [:D] FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 1:35:18 PM)
Pot - Kettle - black... please refer to Luke chapter 6

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 2:35:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Boy, do you know how much of an idiot you appear when you attempt to appear intelligent? "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." [1]? quote: My discussion with you is now over. Why? Because the probability of a comparison with Nazis or Hitler has reached One? That's retarded.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 2:46:22 PM)
Hello julia, I wondered when you'd come and poke your nose in. [:)] Please, if you want to try that old "pot-kettle-black" truism, let us then proceed to compare and contrast my words and attitudes in this thread (or any other, take your pick) about your dom and your doms words and attitudes about me in the same thread. I'll admit, I'm sure he has felt insulted at times, simply because I have challenged his statements and opinions. I have used such words "confabulation, skewed, false facts and factual errors" and such. Those terms are descriptive of his arguments and positions, and not an attack on him in sarcasm. So, tell you what. You list all the times that I have attacked your dom personally, and I'll make a list of all the times he has attacked me, and we'll compare lists. What do you say? [8D] FirmKY PS. The term "making shit up" isn't an insult either. Truth is an utter defense against libel, and stuff, ya know.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 3:02:10 PM)
quote: Those terms are descriptive of his arguments and positions, and not an attack on him in sarcasm. How much credit do you give someone who posts a CITATION to the Wikipedia article supposedly supporting their childish emotional outbursts, without even reading it and understanding the citation isn't appropriate to his actions?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 3:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Boy, do you know how much of an idiot you appear when you attempt to appear intelligent? "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." [1]? quote: My discussion with you is now over. Why? Because the probability of a comparison with Nazis or Hitler has reached One? That's retarded. You broke the law. Shouldn't you be indicted? [sm=biggrin.gif] *** Just learned about Godwin's Law, huh, FB? I'm an old hand in internet discussions, I'm afraid. I enjoy introducing new people to the customs and history. You learn something every day, if you pay attention. You guys are an absolute hoot, too. But what more is there to talk about in this thread, really? More about the elusive de la Vega? I think I've got a few more posts about her, if you insist. Or you can always give me those three examples about the laws Bush broke, and should be indicted for? I'm game. I'll suspend my invoking of Godwin's Law just this once, just for you, if ya want. FirmKY

losttreasure -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 3:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So, tell you what. You list all the times that I have attacked your dom personally, and I'll make a list of all the times he has attacked me, and we'll compare lists. What do you say? [8D] FirmKY Oh come now, dear... everyone knows that you've insulted her and her daddy's relationship at every available opportunity. It's as plain to see as all your straw-man tactics. [sm=biggrin.gif]

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 3:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The trashing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was an unpleasant surprise. I had thought the pathetic remains of the Republic left after Lincoln's assassination would be resistant enough to it, but hey, before Hitler the Germans were "Democratic" too, eh? Fools and the Weak Willed and Minded live in every nation. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Boy, do you know how much of an idiot you appear when you attempt to appear intelligent? "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." [1]? quote: My discussion with you is now over. Why? Because the probability of a comparison with Nazis or Hitler has reached One? That's retarded. You broke the law. Shouldn't you be indicted? [sm=biggrin.gif] I broke Godwin's law by making the statement predicted by Godwin's Law? Here's an example of your inability to participate at an adult level. Maybe you meant to be humerous? Maybe you are that dumb that you don't really understand english. You just come off like a fool in any case. quote: I'm an old hand in internet discussions, I'm afraid. I enjoy introducing new people to the customs and history. You learn something every day, if you pay attention. Didn't know enough to USE IT CORRECTLY. But hey, you didn't use the phrase "Broke the Law" correctly either in your last post. Maybe a course in remedial english would help? You seem to be functionally illiterate. You know what WORDS mean, but you can't seem to be able to tie them together enough to follow a thread. quote: I'll suspend my invoking of Godwin's Law just this once, just for you, if ya want. How do you invoke a law? You can cite a law. You can break a law. You can prosecute violations of a law. Again, you seem to be beyond your ability with the english language. Perhaps I should dismiss you from the discussion again?

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625