Rainjack, saying things like “the number of republicans in congress has expanded” is not really salient to the discussion concerning the relative closeness of votes between the two parties.
Nobody is arguing your point, but your point has nothing to do with the fact. I hope I’m quoting the right bullshit point… or I’ll never hear the end of it. Oh well.
Other than that, what are calling an attack? Did I attack you? Did you attack me? Are you trying to be funny, it is so hard to tell with you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Of course Rainjack knows there is no comparison to Cinton’s rhetoric and bush’s. Clinton was presented intel with caveats, Bush–no caveats, “there is no doubt”, “we know where they are”, etc. It’s ok to be dead wrong Rainjack, and Bush and co. was dead wrong in every regard. Still its possible to right a wrong and perhaps (hopefully) Bush will do exactly that if Iraq can succeed.
This - coming from a guy with such selective memory that he can’t even recall Clinton talking about Soc Sec going broke.
List Clinton’s caveats. Show me the caveats in UN Res. 1441. Show me the caveats in Kennedy’s speeches circa 1998. Shoew me the caveats in Al Gores rhetoric, or John Kerry, or Sheets Byrd. I don’t think there is any such caveat - only inaction. But that’s the MO of the left. Talk is cheap, and evidently forgettable.[/quote]
Eek! Rainjack lies again, you asked somebody to post quotes from Clinton about S.S. going broke, and B.B. posted misleading quotes of dems supporting investing the trustfund in the market (great idea by the way!), but quoted in a way to mislead readers into thinking dems supported privitizing S.S. (bad idea getting worse–see president’s pathetic news conference last week) I never claimed dems aren’t saying insolvent—but of course as a republican you know this and lie anyway. Also rainjack knows caveats were given to Clinton in the intel(as reported in the 9/11 report)—I think his course of action would speak to that(hint: Clinton didn’t say we know where they are, there is no doubt, unmanned planes with wmd attacking us here, and didn’t invade Iraq.)
Of course rainjack knows there’s a big difference in thinking something, and “knowing something”. And rainjack also knows by now that there was doubt, and some intel people were telling the adming don’t say the things your saying–but they said them anyway, I wonder why? Of course this is coming from somebody who didn’t know basic facts about Reagan (less taxes or more taxes Rainjack?)Hilarious!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, saying things like “the number of republicans in congress has expanded” is not really salient to the discussion concerning the relative closeness of votes between the two parties.[/quote]
I didn’t find that particular point in this thread. If you wouldn’t mind telling me where it is in this thread, maybe I could comment on it.
Oh - could it be that that particular argument was in the John Kerry thread? But that couldn’t be - vroom, you would never use apples to support oranges, would you?
You must be quoting the wrong point, because none of mine are ever ‘bullshit’ points.
Who called who out? Who attempted to make an example out of whom in this thread?
Maybe it would be less confusing for you if you would spend more time trying to understand, and less time attempting to shoot from the hip - you’re proving to be a rather bad shot.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
I sort of resent being called an SS Officer by Senor Elk, who lectured me just the other day about how we needed to show respect for each other here.
There you go again Joe, fishing for something to get emotional over. Now judging from the dirt you can sling (one only need reference Powda’s threads) you would think you were a little tougher then that. Predictable you are. You and Veg are getting more liberal and whiney by the minute!
Not emotional and certainly not whining, just idly musing why I have to show respect but you can call people names.
It’s an interesting double standard.
Please stop accusing me of trying to get emotional.
And powda likes it. He actually PM’s me and tells me of some of his exploits…
BTW, have you seen the new Star Wars? Cause you’re into Yoda-speak already, bro!
In all seriousness, though, Elk–why can you say shit about me or Veg…but we can’t return the favor?
I don’t care that much, but it’s an interesting window into the soul of liberal hypocrisy.
I read this after my last post and had ot come back and respond. Knock off your childish bullshit already! You can can say whatever the hell you want to you don’t need to please me.
I made a generalization with the SS comment and you are trying to milk it for all it’s worth. Thunder is more then capable as all can see to take care of himself, but noooo, Joe spots something he thinks he can a make a point with and plays the “I’m the guy who says powda has cum on his chin, but my feelings are hurt cuz someone else was compared to an SS officer,” role!
Cut the phony bullshit and act like a man. Veg, in my opinion brings that shit on himself by acting like he’s the authority on everything.
Rainman has been one of the most abrasive, insulting, maniacs, on the forum and has no hesitation calling someone an ignorant, idiot, coward, pussy, to name a few.
So, again, cut the fuckin cry me a river bullshit and don’t PM me either.
Just like you did with ProfX you PM someone under the guise of let’s be friends and understand each other then like a fucking fifth grader you go spouting off to the forum “So and so said this to me,”. Fucking shameless IMO! [/quote]
The PM shit’s not how it happened. I said stuff to X that he wound up twisting to slam me with. Get your fucking story straight at least.
For the record also, I never said powda had cum on his chin, he did that himself.
I called attention to it is all.
So RJ is abrasive to you, so therefore you can say shit about him while telling me–in public, not private–that I need to be more respectful?
And except for the MAG-10 in you, I’ve got more T in my toes than you have…apparently.
Check the mirror for who’s whining the loudest; it’s usually Elky-baby.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
This is directly to RainJack: what do you think of this response to the article that RSU posted? Be totally honest with me and yourself: Compare this response to the article that RSU posted to the responses JeffR received to the article he posted. Who’s actting like a third grader here (And by “who” I’m not trying to label an entire political party, I’m talking about individuals)? Seriously. Take off your blinders please.[/quote]
Don’t sweat it Moriarty…it’s common knowledge that JeffR is one of the biggest douches around the political forums. He rarely posts anything of value.
JeffR, sorry – in advance – for calling you a name and downgrading the intelligence of your thread.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Vroom, I think rainman’s raging out a little. Think of the battalions of terrorists that could be taken out if you let rainman loose in the middle east! Hand him an M-60 and a bandelaro of ammo and this war would be over.
It’d be nice if we’d allow the troops already over there to do that.
Once again with the if you support the war pick up a weapon and do it yourself mantra?
Doesn’t the left have ANYTHING new?[/quote]
The left doesn’t, and Elky SURE doesn’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Just like you did with ProfX you PM someone under the guise of let’s be friends and understand each other then like a fucking fifth grader you go spouting off to the forum “So and so said this to me,”. Fucking shameless IMO!
Yes, it is. [/quote]
Did you guys get together to plan this lie out, or are you just jumping on Elks back cause it’s another chance to jump on me, O Professor Cyr?
By the sounds of it, you are calling me out.
I’m not trying to make an example out of you at all, but I do think it would be nice if you’d discuss the issues instead of blasting at everything today.
Oh well, fire away. I don’t care.
[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
I think he was trying to state that JeffR is the kind of guy who has difficulty tying his own shoelaces without drooling all over himself. That’s just what I got out of it though.
[/quote]
If that’s what vroom was saying, I’d have to agree.
Good post vroom!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Of course rainjack knows there’s a big difference in thinking something, and “knowing something”. And rainjack also knows by now that there was doubt, and some intel people were telling the adming don’t say the things your saying–but they said them anyway, I wonder why? Of course this is coming from somebody who didn’t know basic facts about Reagan (less taxes or more taxes Rainjack?)Hilarious![/quote]
Nice dodge. But I asked you to prove a few simple lies that YOU told.
Turn the tables if you think that will get you out of having to prove your bullshit - but it won’t work. I’m affraid you are the partisan hack that has been exposed.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Just like you did with ProfX you PM someone under the guise of let’s be friends and understand each other then like a fucking fifth grader you go spouting off to the forum “So and so said this to me,”. Fucking shameless IMO!
Yes, it is.
Did you guys get together to plan this lie out, or are you just jumping on Elks back cause it’s another chance to jump on me, O Professor Cyr?[/quote]
Jeez, you’re insecure get over it already and quit clogging up the thread with twenty posts to comfort yourself! Go flirt with the girls for awhile and you should feel better.
stellar_horizon wrote:
"If that’s what vroom was saying, I’d have to agree.
[b]Good post vroom!"
Hey Stellar!!!
Did you check out some of my religious beliefs?
You must of or you wouldn’t have followed me here.
Admit it, you were intrigued by Big Kane!!!
Malla!!! Malla!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
"If that’s what vroom was saying, I’d have to agree.
[b]Good post vroom!"
Hey Stellar!!!
Did you check out some of my religious beliefs?
You must of or you wouldn’t have followed me here.
Admit it, you were intrigued by Big Kane!!!
Malla!!! Malla!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
there was a laundry list of reasons we wanted to topple Saddam, all public, all available to anyone willing and able to read.
That “laundry list” was presented to the general public as a solution for the crisis that had recently occured. Are you truly going to deny that? Is your position honestly that the War in Iraq was not spun in a way to have anything to do with The Twin Towers? [/quote]
Look, Thunder admits that the most people thought there was a direct connection between Hussein and 9/11:
[quote]Thunder wrote:
I fully believe that the American public was in a vengeful mood - and the polls show that the public thought Saddam was directly involved. But, unlike Pro X, I don’t think those attitudes were ‘leveraged’ in bad faith by Bush.
[/quote]
But apparently he doesn’t think the administration had any part in leveraging and fueling that misconception. There’s nothing we can do to persuade him otherwise, so we should just drop it.
How an intelligent person (which thunder is, from his writing, seemingly intelligent) can come to this conclusion is simply beyond my belief. The fact that people have willfully erased such significant events in history from their minds is Orwellian, to say the least.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You will give 100% credit to the military/intelligence establishment. You will willfully ignore the behind the scenes work going on DAILY by this Adminstration. In particular, the successful reproachment with Pakistan that will ultimately make bin laden’s capture possible.
You will consciously suppress the fact that Pakistan was NO FRIEND of the U.S. prior to Sept 11th. If memory serves, they were the one country that had recognized the taliban government in Afghanistan.
Again, you will not be man enough to give credit to George W. Bush and his administration.
I’d love to be proved wrong!!!
I’ll be watching.
JeffR
Professor X wrote:
Honestly, does Bush even like you licking his nuts like that? You have got to get in the way of his video game play or the use of his Ipod. I doubt any American would avoid rejoicing at the capture of the brain behind what killed thousands of people. To think otherwise is just stupid. Beyond that, I also think we have lost too much in all of this. I feel that lives were lost that should not have been based on false intel. Regardless of the saliva you leave on his jock strap, many people will never forget that. Why would that be wrong? Why would I praise Bush when Bush is not the one in the trenches? I will praise the men and women who have risked their lives looking for him. I will praise the families who lost members due to all of this. I will not praise one man who sent us to Iraq by trying to substitute Saddam for Ben Ladin. Deal with it.
[/quote]
Classic response. I second the professor’s sentiments. If jerff wasn’t some pansy stuck back in the states, he wouldn’t be posting his support for the president’s decision-making abilities.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Who says my points aren’t cut and dried?
Rainjack, saying things like “the number of republicans in congress has expanded” is not really salient to the discussion concerning the relative closeness of votes between the two parties.
[/quote]
Yeah that was in another thread, but you’re right on the money, he and JeffR are doing the same thing here too. “Hey, I think I’ll throw out a random factoid, even though it does nothing to prove my argument”.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.[/quote]
LOL, jerff has a huge fan club on T-Nation doesn’t he… Just thought I’d bump this also…
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
it’s common knowledge that JeffR is one of the biggest douches around the political forums. He rarely posts anything of value.[/quote]
Jerff has a bigger fan club than I thought! Quite the popular dude 'round here… He’s not too welcome in the religious threads either. So he don’t know about religion, he don’t know about politics… I hope he knows more about weight-training (although he could just be some puny, pencil-necked geek just here to make internet friends).
Sorry jerff, I don’t need a dumb friend at the moment.
Brother Elk wrote:
“Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.”
Oh, stop playing hard to get!!! You love me!!!
I like my new ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 nickname: Douche.
Is that French for Jacques Chirac?
It trully is good to see you back, Brother E!!!
You guys ever wonder what it would be like if we ever got together?
I have.
We’d have to clear the room.
We’d have Cream, Rainjack, Zap, Vegita, BB, Thunder, Zeb wearing our “Four more years” shirts on the right side of the table.
There would be lumpy, ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1, Moore-iarty, tme, BrotherE, JTF wearing their “Bush lied, everyone died” shirts.
Off in the corner would lurk vroom. He’d be mumbling something tangential. Maybe, he’d preempt everything by saying, “The world is not black and white, people!!!”
Al Shades would be telling everyone at the table (in his high pitched voice) to look at his fantastic physique!!! He would say, “stop these formal meetings! We must disperse!!! There is too much organization here!!!” Every one of us would take turns looking at him and scaring him into the corner.
Alexander would automatically start lecturing us on the proper way to conduct a meeting. He would say, “My Dad said that there needed to be…”
Chinadoll would ref the whole proceeding. She would occassionaly make a frightening comment about “beheading terrorists.” The room would fall silent for a while before the discussions would resume.
POX would be invited. He wouldn’t come. He’d make some sort of comment like, “I don’t have time for you idiots.”
Boston Barrister would open the proceedings with a call to order. His opening speech would be eloquent and full of wonderful arguments. Thunder would second in equal eloquence.
Lumpy would interrupt with a comment about “sycophantic cheerleaders.” That would prompt me to slam my fist on the table and demand silence. Cream would say, “Amen.”
Justthefacts would bring in a 1983 report on inner city violence in Memphis. Then he would link this current administration to corruption in Sri Lanka.
Brother E, would shake his head and implore all of us to get a grip.
Rainjack would laugh at that. Then he would say, “How about some new ideas from the left side of the table?”
Moriarity would say, “Hey, why am I at the left side of the table? Does anyone have any proof that I belong here? Did you read my posts from early February? I was quite clear that I both love and hate W!!!”
Zeb would say, “Come on Moriarity!!! You are a liberal!!! I can prove it! Whoever can do the most pullups wins the argument.”
At this point, POX would barge in and try to scare all of us before stalking out.
ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 would take the opportunity to point at me and call me a “douche.”
Vegita would say, maybe we should discuss why I feel the Iraq War was justified. He would lay out in extensive detail his true feelings.
Lumpy’s eyes would glaze over.
Let’s all lighten up some. I’d love to hear your ideas on what would happen if we got together!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
By the way, moriarity, please cease the holier than thou attitude immediately.
I have a sneaking hunch you don’t read my posts.
JeffR[/quote]
Can you blame him? Half the crap you post in this thread as well as others is equivalent to a 7th grade level. And as far as the holier than thou vibe that you’re feeling, it’s just Moriarty making you feel stupid and inferior.