Zeb, proof comes in things like the fact that the administration is adjusting it’s stance or statement on how it will deal with any leaks.
Originally the White House stated that anyone involved in leaks would be fired. This was made clear by the gonad that speaks for the president on several occasions.
Now, as things progress, this has been changed to a statement that firing will only occur if illegal actions are proven. This is a far cry from the moral standards the White House has told us they would uphold.
You may not consider this proof, but the statements made before and after are a matter of public record. You can go and look them up, or probably read this thread and see them quoted or discussed.
Your view of those facts, the alteration of the statement, may be different, but at the same time, it is a very good example of how and why I form my opinion of the administration. Cheney swearing during hearings is another reason.[/quote]
It’s not just my view-The above is not criminal behavior and should in no way be compared to John Gotti!
We can agree on this! I was disgusted by some of the photos that came out of Iraq regarding prisoner treatment (even though it was a small group mostly responsible). However, Bush did not order this and was not even aware of it. Anyone who has ever run even a medium size company can tell you that they simply can’t be aware of everything that happens. Again, this is not criminal behavior on Bush’s part.
I think you need to clarify that somewhat. Bush’s critics cannot define the war. They call it “throwing away lives” does that make it a fact? No not at all! I think the President has made his case quite well for the war. I also think when all the shooting is done he will go down in history as someone who helped bring democracy to parts of the Middle East. Naturally, we have to wait that one out.
I would like to think that in the mean time those who oppose the President, like yourself, are not wishing any ill will upon him or the war effort…I doubt you are, but some do.
Yes politics is nasty, but that particular act is certainly not criminal. I would wager every President of both parties have used various “leverage” in order to get their way. President Johnson was the king of such tactics. He was not a criminal either, but he was a democrat.
I agree it was low class and I will even characterize it as dirty! However, no dirtier than the democratic party running adds about how the republicans are going to take away the social security checks of senior citizens. Oh…and let’s not forget other very dirty tactics of the left: running adds claiming that if Bush was reelected that he would institute a draft with in 6 months of taking office. Scare tactics run by the left. Scaring old people and parents…not very nice. Also not very effective as we all found out.
Politics is indeed dirty-Both sides are guilty. However as far as I can see not one of these tactics is “criminal,” if so just about every major politician would be in jail…(hey not a bad idea…)
Ethics? Take a look on the democratic side while you are at it. Both sides practice dirty political tricks, it’s not just one party. Remember Speaker of The House Jim Wright? He was a democrat who had to resign his postion because of ethical problems.
And what about Hillary Clinton and Whitewater? Remember that document that she said she didn’t have which turned up mysteriously several months later?
And I know it was only oral sex, but your man did lie under oath huh? The entire mess was unseemly…
I’m sure you are not nieve enough to think that the democrats are lilly white. Still…nothing criminal about any of the Bush’s actions.
No, actually it’s politics as usual. Certainly no criminal behavior on the part of George W. Bush Commander and Chief!
Ha ha where have you been? They never have! Both parties play politics, it’s been going on for years. If you really want to read about dirty politics take an American political science history class…nothing new …
I think you need to add one more thing: it is also smart to keep the level of debate above that of a pre bar room brawl.
I asked for proof of President Bush crimes you supplied none! There is none! Case closed!
I honestly don’t feel anyones comments are worthy of personal name calling. Quite honestly, I think you are a very bright guy and I have said so on occasion. However, the really bright people can convince others of their cause without resorting to name calling or giving the impression that they are superior in any way. They call those people leaders!
Zeb, I assume you are privately chastising rainman for his execessive name calling as well? Since I haven’t since any posts on it. Or are you again selectively putting individuals who disagree with you under your high moral scrutiny?
Regarding the Gotti comparison, I thought, I fully explained the rationale behind using the analogy… someone getting away with something even though the transgressions are brought to light.
You being the opportunist you are salivated at the idea of “LOOK AT ELK HE HAS COMMITTED A MORAL SIN COMPARING OUR BELOVED LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD TO JOHN GOTTI” and you wish to milk it for all it’s worth.
Because the people that you deal with eat that kind of manipulation up and then ask for seconds.
Well, I’m not one of em and I don’t fall for your moral guilt attempts. I don’t see anything wrong with the comparison made and will do see freely when, I see fit.
If you want to get your pulpit robes ruffled that is certainly your choice.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, I assume you are privately chastising rainman for his execessive name calling as well? Since I haven’t since any posts on it. Or are you again selectively putting individuals who disagree with you under your high moral scrutiny?
Regarding the Gotti comparison, I thought, I fully explained the rationale behind using the analogy… someone getting away with something even though the transgressions are brought to light.
You being the opportunist you are salivated at the idea of “LOOK AT ELK HE HAS COMMITTED A MORAL SIN COMPARING OUR BELOVED LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD TO JOHN GOTTI” and you wish to milk it for all it’s worth.
Because the people that you deal with eat that kind of manipulation up and then ask for seconds.
Well, I’m not one of em and I don’t fall for your moral guilt attempts. I don’t see anything wrong with the comparison made and will do see freely when, I see fit.
If you want to get your pulpit robes ruffled that is certainly your choice. [/quote]
I won’t ask you again for proof that President Bush has displayed criminal behavior. You have made it quite obvious that you have no proof. There is good reason…because no proof exists.
You cannot support this rhetoric with any fact. It was fun watching you squirm and name call for the past several posts …
Thank you for confirming the fact that you will say (and possibly do) anything as long as you can get away with it. Strike another one up for the liberal faction another black mark that is!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, I assume you are privately chastising rainman for his execessive name calling as well? Since I haven’t since any posts on it. Or are you again selectively putting individuals who disagree with you under your high moral scrutiny?
Regarding the Gotti comparison, I thought, I fully explained the rationale behind using the analogy… someone getting away with something even though the transgressions are brought to light.
You being the opportunist you are salivated at the idea of “LOOK AT ELK HE HAS COMMITTED A MORAL SIN COMPARING OUR BELOVED LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD TO JOHN GOTTI” and you wish to milk it for all it’s worth.
Because the people that you deal with eat that kind of manipulation up and then ask for seconds.
Well, I’m not one of em and I don’t fall for your moral guilt attempts. I don’t see anything wrong with the comparison made and will do see freely when, I see fit.
If you want to get your pulpit robes ruffled that is certainly your choice.
I won’t ask you again for proof that President Bush has displayed criminal behavior. You have made it quite obvious that you have no proof. There is good reason…because no proof exists.
You cannot support this rhetoric with any fact. It was fun watching you squirm and name call for the past several posts …
Thank you for confirming the fact that you will say (and possibly do) anything as long as you can get away with it. Strike another one up for the liberal faction another black mark that is!
Then again at this point who can keep track?
[/quote]
Yada, yada, yada, I think you can apply your “will say or do anything” to your beloved administration. Dicky da bull Gravano, how you like that one zeb?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s not just my view-The above is not criminal behavior and should in no way be compared to John Gotti![/quote]
Zeb, maybe it isn’t clear, but the fact other people agree with you has not much to do with whether or not your viewpoint is right. You play this card a lot, especially with respect to how many people PM you to agree with you. It’s a stupid game and it doesn’t mean squat.
You have your opinion, everyone else has theirs. End of story.
The fact that there is not a law against it does not excuse it. Aren’t you the religious man of principles? How come I, the unholy ultra-liberal king of relativism and social liberalism, have more scruples than you in my expectations of behavior from “leaders” than you?
Is there an official sanctioned group that gets to define the war? I don’t think so. I think we all get to make our own interpretation. Again, you feel differently than I do, that is fine. I’ve said many a time on here that I won’t begrudge you your opinion, whether or not I happen to feel it is based on reality.
I certainly don’t have ill wishes towards anybody, and I’ve expressed my support very quickly many times over. However, I think the charge you made, that some would wish it, is just another way to attack those that are not happy with the presidents “leadership”, it is a “anti-patriotic” attack that allows people to dismiss the viewpoint of the person expressing it.
This is also true when you point out the fact I’m Canadian, so people can dismiss my viewpoints concerning America or American politics simply because of my citizenship. Never mind what I’m saying, or the fact I spent many happy years living and working the US, I’m Canadian so my viewpoint is certainly worth dismissing.
Silly games that I find to be low on the morality scale.
I think it is very repugnant to base campaigns on negative, slanderous and dismissive tactics. It doesn’t matter who uses such tactics – you should be disgusted when you see them, not gleeful that they actually work for your chosen candidate. Where is your righteous indignation when you own viewpoint is forwarded via such shameful methods? Where is your strength of character to voice opposition to those that would do such things?
So, you feel that because you don’t like the tactics used elsewhere, that you are free to use those tactics? Why aspire to higher standards, as you repeatedly have asked me to, if you don’t have any concern about achieving those standards for yourself or demanding those standards of those you choose to support? Without some moral backbone of your own, shown by your statements against the morally reprehensible actions of “your team”, you have no legs to stand on… so I give your statements the weight they deserve, as you may have noticed.
[quote]Ethics? Take a look on the democratic side while you are at it. Both sides practice dirty political tricks, it’s not just one party. Remember Speaker of The House Jim Wright? He was a democrat who had to resign his postion because of ethical problems.
And what about Hillary Clinton and Whitewater? Remember that document that she said she didn’t have which turned up mysteriously several months later?
And I know it was only oral sex, but your man did lie under oath huh? The entire mess was unseemly…[/quote]
Yes, it was unseemly. I’m glad Jim had the decency or was forced to resign. I like it when proper justice is served. What type of childish bullshit is it to point the finger, say Billy started it, then go and commit all kinds of nonsense. Do you and your party represent something, or do you just want to have your party in power so you can disrespect nearly half of the population with your attitude and your actions.
Nobody, left or right, should get a free pass. When republicans hold their leaders to higher standards, then their leaders will actually have higher standards. The same is true for democratic leadership. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell me to behave in manner X if you aren’t asking your own brethren to behave in manner X. At least your own brethen have reason to listen to you… whereas I really don’t.
I don’t post here out of concern how others perceive me. I don’t change my nature so that others will like me or be happy with me. I don’t have any intention of trying to be a “leader” though in the past I have led people.
Finally, casting insults does not imply someone believes they are better than another, they are insults. Nice try at characterizing the reason I like to throw a bit of heat around forums. I like to do it because it is fun, because often the insults are earned or deserved, and because it results in a heated discussion instead of some bland discussion between a group of self-appointed know-it-alls who really know nothing anyway.
Why should we put on airs? We are a bunch of clowns arguing a topic that we have nothing to do with, no special knowledge of, no access to inside information, no credentials, no nothing. Yes, perhaps we should all pretend we are above the fray and act as if the politics forum is an institution of higher learning.
Before you start acting all high and mighty, perhaps you could answer a single simple question?
Where do you suspect the illegal immigrants are mostly arriving from? Name the country please…
Thanks.
Then, perhaps you can see how a statement like “The illegal immigrants (from country X) are like cockroaches or locusts or some other derogatory term” could be misconstrued.
I’ll agree, the fact you said something that many could interpret to be a racist statement, does not mean you are racist. I think you’ve cleared that up. However, it is unfortunately that you sunk so low to do so.
Maybe Zeb will start to chastise you now, and get off my back for a while?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Yada, yada, yada, I think you can apply your “will say or do anything” to your beloved administration. Dicky da bull Gravano, how you like that one zeb?
[/quote]
I would say that that is a typical comment coming from you…
Zeb, maybe it isn’t clear, but the fact other people agree with you has not much to do with whether or not your viewpoint is right. You play this card a lot, especially with respect to how many people PM you to agree with you. It’s a stupid game and it doesn’t mean squat.[/quote]
I didn’t even mention that. My point is that you simply cannot point and say that something is a crime if it is not. Simple enough.
Um…settle down vroom, we are talking about what is a crime and what is not. I’m not for any sort of political dirty tricks which both parties perform. But…still no crime committed.
No, actually I think there are some who wish the President ill will. Glad to see you are not one of them, again I didn’t think you were.
[quote]This is also true when you point out the fact I’m Canadian, so people can dismiss my viewpoints concerning America or American politics simply because of my citizenship. Never mind what I’m saying, or the fact I spent many happy years living and working the US, I’m Canadian so my viewpoint is certainly worth dismissing.
Silly games that I find to be low on the morality scale.[/quote]
It’s not a game. Im amazed that you would at least seem to be more interested in American politics than Canadian politics. I don’t think I have spent 20 minutes thinking about Canadain matters…
Ha ha…you are now getting sort of funny. I never said I was “gleeful.” The point which I have to keep dragging you back to is that none of these things are criminal. Sure I wish politics was different, but it is not. And when you claim that republicans are the only ones performing dirty tricks that too is comical. One reason I pointed out that they all do it. Still no crime by Mr. Bush.
Good twist…LOL never said it and you know it…but hey good twist!
Well…again nice grandstanding but this debate is about President Bush being a criminal and you or your sidekick offering up proof. And…you can’t…
That statement about Clinton was to point out that democrats as well as republicans are just full of dirty little tricks, lies deciet etc. Am I for this? LOL (shaking my head) um…no. Just wanted to point out that both parties are culpable when it comes to political games etc…
Let me explain how this works: Elk made a statement that Bush was a criminal. I then said offer up proof. You then posted a littany of things which don’t amount to more than politics as usual. So…here we are still posting and still no proof of a crime by President Bush. Okay?
I have a scoop for you vroom: I don’t think President Bush committed any crimes! Therefore, I don’t feel there is anything to catch. And since you can’t point out where he committed any crimes then I guess we can agree…
Well…you don’t do that. You see you only complain about republicans.
Hey wait a minute those are the things taht you complain about republicans doing. Where are the nasty things that democrats do? You know vroom I’m starting to think that you lean liberal WAAYYYYYYYY LEFT
You might consider taking some time away from the forum…I dunno…just a suggestion.
Gee I don’t know vroom I just got through reading multiple paragraphs about holding our leaders to a higher standard (which is a good idea by the way). But…the problem is you can’t even hold yourself to a higher standard when it comes to the personal attacks. See the problem there?
Well at least you admit that there is no proof. I will give you more credit than your sidekick.
Well vroom once again, I stated that the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans. The reason I did this is because you attacked the republicans claiming that they play dirty tricks etc. I don’t defend any of the tactics used by either side. Do you approve of some of the sleazy democratic tactics? Of course you don’t! Then again you are not to quick to point them out. It’s okay I did it for you.
Wow, that’s a good thing!
And you will lead people again vroom! I am on your side…we can do it together! (I’m pumped up now) a vroom and Zeb ticket! We will unite Canada and the United States…(music playing in background) Okay…I needed a bit of a break sorry…
I guess here is where we can disagree a bit. I don’t think it’s “fun” to attack someone personally with childish insults.
[quote]Why should we put on airs? We are a bunch of clowns arguing a topic that we have nothing to do with, no special knowledge of, no access to inside information, no credentials, no nothing. Yes, perhaps we should all pretend we are above the fray and act as if the politics forum is an institution of higher learning.
Before you start acting all high and mighty, perhaps you could answer a single simple question?
Where do you suspect the illegal immigrants are mostly arriving from? Name the country please…
Thanks.[/quote]
Your utter ignorance an deplorable attempts to bait me into a corner does not warrant a response. That is just a totally fucking sorry tactic to take. I said what I said - you are trying to get me to say something I didn’t.
Fucking idiot.
Only out of the utter ignorance from whence you make this bullshit connection could anything I have said wrt illegal immigrants be mis-construed. Ir was addressed in the thread.
Once again - fucking idiot.
Me sunk so low? Who the fuck started out with the racisit inferences? Sure as hell wasn’t me.
Perhaps you are being foolish on purpose. Bush was compared to a criminal, it is not the same as saying he is a criminal.
Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.
You do understand the concepts of simile and metaphor right?
Don’t try to pretend you are that clueless, that you don’t realize he, Bush, was being compared to someone to illustrate a point, not to make a factual claim?
Or is your whole useless argument a straw man, inventing a claim that wasn’t made so you could argue against it. There is no proof required to say that he is like a criminal to which no charges would stick.
Stop playing stupid and I’ll stop calling you that…
Moral upholder of the universe, where are you to chastise Rainjack when he is making a shambles of the politics forums with personal insults?
–
Rainjack,
What tactic do you think I’m trying to use? I’m trying to explain how people could misconstrue what you said… and agreeing with you that it doesn’t mean what it was mistaken for in the original thread as well.
Maybe you need to learn when someone actually says you are racist… because nobody has yet.
Good to see you getting upset about what would have been a mischaracterization, I guess you certainly know how that feels don’t you?
Maybe you should step up and stop other people from making mischaracterizations if you are going to get your feelings hurt and cry about it when it happens to you?
Call me a fucking idiot all you want if it makes you feel better though… or, try to contribute something constructive once in a while… otherwise, accept the fact that you get to listen to our opinions just as much as we get to listen to yours.
Free speech and all the other baloney you like to lecture people on when you spout your angry hate filled rhetoric.
Zeb, could you have a talk with Jr. regarding his emotional outbursts and constant dropping of the F-bomb and calling people vaginas. I have toned down my use of the f-bomb and it would be nice if you could speak to Jr. about his use.
You seem to be one of the few who have any influence over jr. Thanks!
Hey, zeb, you wanna get your little jabs in with the “little sidekick” comments expect the same in return and have a good evening as well.
Perhaps you are being foolish on purpose. Bush was compared to a criminal, it is not the same as saying he is a criminal.
Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.
You do understand the concepts of simile and metaphor right?
Don’t try to pretend you are that clueless, that you don’t realize he, Bush, was being compared to someone to illustrate a point, not to make a factual claim?
Or is your whole useless argument a straw man, inventing a claim that wasn’t made so you could argue against it. There is no proof required to say that he is like a criminal to which no charges would stick.
Stop playing stupid and I’ll stop calling you that…[/quote]
Vroom, you know like I do that zeb full well understands what you said. It’s easier for him to put on his pulpit robes and play his pious game if he doesn’t acknowledge it.
Whoops. B.B., don’t know if you realize but cliff may is a nut!
Check his initial reaction to Novak’s column where May’s excuse was that everybody knew Plame was an agent. Now it’s Corn’s fault? While he is quite the nutty make believer in writing (witness in 2 different tellings of the novak story he makes up both!) The best is watching him lie with abandon on cnn!
Holy cow, on rereading this is one of the kookiest things ever, and the facts be damned!(again this is Natl Rev.!) As if saying:
“…Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” isn’t enough! My goodness!
100meters,
Firstly, the positions aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s quite possible to believe her identity wasn’t a well guarded secret, but that she wasn’t really a highly publicized figure until the Nation article.
Secondly, the point wasn’t, and never has been, that she is employed by the CIA. The point, both legally and morally, is whether she was an undercover operative whose identity the CIA was affirmatively guarding. Within the language of the applicable law, that means someone who had actually been an undercover operative within the previous 5 years. No undercover = no leak. To put it another way, if she wasn’t an undercover operative, it doesn’t matter who leaked.
If she was, then we can get into all the stuff about knowledge.
The reason all the liberals who are up in arms are trying to resort to squishy language (it reminds me of “tantamount to torture”) about morality and standards is that they know there are questions at several levels as to whether anything even arguably illegal took place, and the more facts that have come to light, the more those questions are resolving towards no illegality.
As to morality, that all goes to mindset. Is it possible to be immoral by accident? If you tell something you don’t regard as a secret (i.e. the identity of a CIA analyst who isn’t an undercover operative), is that immoral? I leave those questions to you, and those who see all sorts of implied skullduggery in what seems to me to have been a public-relations dispute concerning Joe Wilson’s credibility between the CIA and the White House.
The worst motive that I think I can likely impute to Rove and/or Libby and/or whomever, given what we know, in this is a desire to portray both Wilson and the CIA as political, and politically alligned against the administration. Nothing more than politics as usual, if there’s no outing of an undercover agent – and under the law it doesn’t look as if there was.
[/quote]
First, I’ll repeat May is a shill, and B.B. you know what Novak wrote, and you can’t seriously believe that any blame can be attributed to Corn–that is just nutty c’mon!
Second there seems to be an effort to disguise the issue (of course!) on the right. One issue is leaking a covert agent’s idenity. Well her idenity was leaked by any measure, but was she covert? Logic dictates that Fitzgerald would have looked first at that issue (as would have the cia!). Wilson has said that his wife ceased being an undercover agent the day Novak’s article came out (A statement the right is painfully trying to distort)–but Wilson can be all over the place. The CIA says:
“The CIA declined to discuss Plame’s intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. “If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral,” the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.”
Of course this is really a distraction by the right from the more obvious leak of classified info— for instance it was classified info that plame “sent” wilson to niger, and it isdefinitely against the law to confirm classified info-which Rove definitely did- but just not addressed by the right in the media.
And of course Rove and Libby clearly violated non-disclosure agreements, but anyway…no undercover does not equal no leak. Leaking classified info does = leak.Of course lying to the FBI is also a crime and Rove may be guilty of that too…as people inside the investigation are leaking info that he didn’t tell the FBI in his first interview that he discussed plame with Cooper…uh oh. So it really has nothing to do with Liberals getting squishy, just Rove being unethical, and most likely unlawful, and of course lying (I wasn’t involved = lie, right?)
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, could you have a talk with Jr. regarding his emotional outbursts and constant dropping of the F-bomb and calling people vaginas. I have toned down my use of the f-bomb and it would be nice if you could speak to Jr. about his use.
You seem to be one of the few who have any influence over jr. Thanks!
Hey, zeb, you wanna get your little jabs in with the “little sidekick” comments expect the same in return and have a good evening as well. :)[/quote]
If you have a problem with my language grow a fucking pair and tell it to me.
But I don’t think you will - unless you can make up a nice little lie about it, and have sister vroom come running to hold your fuckng purse - or do the fighting for you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
What tactic do you think I’m trying to use? I’m trying to explain how people could misconstrue what you said… and agreeing with you that it doesn’t mean what it was mistaken for in the original thread as well.[/quote]
If I say the words Mexican and illegal immigrant in the same sentence - You will turn what I have said to be something totally bastardized. I’m not going to play that game - sorry
Do you know what the word infer means? Howabout inferences? How about the shitty, underhanded tactic of mentioning something totally unrelated, yet quite caustic, to the thread topic? Please - I wasn’t born yesterday, and neither was elk. He EXACTLY what he was trying to infer about me. Void of an argument - he resorts to vagina warfare. I’ve been married long enough to know vagina warfare when I see it.
Like I said - and I think this makes about the third time - I don’t have a problem with the normal heated name calling and pissing matches that take place down here. Neither does anyone else that posts in this forum on a regular basis - it’s part of the game. But to call someone - sorry - to infer racism is wrong. Especially when it has absolutely no correlation to the topic. I find it very personally offensive when some one calls…ooops…infers that I hate Mexicans and Muslims when there is absolutely no basis in those inferences.
See above.
Show me hate. Rhetoric? Probably. Hate-filled? Have another soy-layye, and run find me using the word hate, inferring hatred, or doing anything else but calling a spade a spade.
Hate filled? Please - just because I think you are a fucking idiot does not mean I am stripping you of your free speech, nor does it mean that I hate anyone. Sometimes the truth hurts.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, could you have a talk with Jr. regarding his emotional outbursts and constant dropping of the F-bomb and calling people vaginas. I have toned down my use of the f-bomb and it would be nice if you could speak to Jr. about his use.
You seem to be one of the few who have any influence over jr. Thanks!
Hey, zeb, you wanna get your little jabs in with the “little sidekick” comments expect the same in return and have a good evening as well.
If you have a problem with my language grow a fucking pair and tell it to me.
But I don’t think you will - unless you can make up a nice little lie about it, and have sister vroom come running to hold your fuckng purse - or do the fighting for you.
Oops - I said the fucking ‘f’ word to a vagina.
[/quote]
Son of a gun, you never disappoint. How can you cast accusations about being an internet tough guy when you are the definition of the juvenile accusations you make?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Son of a gun, you never disappoint. How can you cast accusations about being an internet tough guy when you are the definition of the juvenile accusations you make?
You’re not only classless you’re clueless. [/quote]
Nope - not me. Not an internet tough guy. Nor am I such a vagina that I don’t at least have the balls to talk to the person I have an issue with. The same can’t really be said for you, now can it?
Or maybe I should write this to vroom, so he can tell you.
You wouldn’t know class if it bit you on the vagina.
Good morning vroom hope you had a good nights sleep
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,
Perhaps you are being foolish on purpose. Bush was compared to a criminal, it is not the same as saying he is a criminal. Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.[/quote]
Oh my vroom, the personal attacks are coming fast and furious. LOL… Let me walk you through the many times that Elk has called the Bush administration dishonest. You might feel foolish after this and want to apologize. Oh that’s right I have never seen you apologize when proven wrong…pity.
“It pretty much sums up clearly my feelings on the whole matter. Nothing will happen to good ol Karl of course. This administration reminds me very much of the Teflon Don, John Gotti.”
This is the anaology to which you refer. But as I will point out there was so much more stated. Somehow you must have forgotten. Did you forget about the following, or did you simply leave it out to form a case which you knew was not accurate? Hmmm
"I have to interject that if we were to compare crimes in the whitehouse the one you showcase above pales in comparison to the infamous “Blow Job”.
The above states “Crimes in the White House.” Not an analogy but a charge! Of course there is no proof offered up. Can liberals simply call someone a criminal with no proof? Oh yes, Michael Moore sort of set the tone for that. Okay…
“No matter how inept, dishonest, or outright crooked, they are they march right through it. Hopefully like John Gotti they will one day have to face some kind of justice.”
The above clearly states another charge of dishonesty and being “crooked.” He then draws another analogy hoping that they (Bush and company) will face justice. However, another clear charge and still no proof! (how did you miss these vroom?)
“To me the comparison has to do with the Bush administration getting called upon numerous in my opinion dishonest actions and using their spin machine or smear tactics to deflect it or get out of it.”
Once again he charges that the Bush administration is guilty of “dishonest actions.” Again no proof is ever given! This is not an anaology vroom. No…
“Do I think that Bush and company have been dishonest and dishonorable? Yes, yes, I do.”
Well that’s pretty clear huh vroom? Elk sums it up nicely. accusing the President and his advisors of something illegal. Yet, once again offers no proof.
That was not an anaology either was it vroom? No guess not…
[quote]Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.
You do understand the concepts of simile and metaphor right?[/quote]
You do understand the concepts of being silly and meaningless? This post of yours is just that.
Who is clueless? Those things Elk said are indeed claims! They are charges of dishonestly and criminal behavior. And…they have no proof attatched to them. How could you miss those vroom (shaking head again). See what happens when you get all full of yourself and nasty…
[quote]Or is your whole useless argument a straw man, inventing a claim that wasn’t made so you could argue against it. There is no proof required to say that he is like a criminal to which no charges would stick.
Stop playing stupid and I’ll stop calling you that…[/quote]
Yes, but there is proof required when you state flat out that Bush and company are dishonest. And that is exactly what Elk did!
Now on top of name calling and poor behavior in general, you are missing statements with in the debate. I do have a question for you: Did you leave Elks statements out on purpose or did you simply not see them? Which is it? And you can skip the apology. Simply respond to me without using personal attacks. That would be a nice change of pace
