Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 01:50 PM)

I have not lied ever, I may have been misinformed about something (not this) but I don't lie. If all you can do is attack integrity, fuck off, I'm done. Despite multiple people explaining to you where you misunderstand, misread, you refuse to pay attention to anything if it goes against your thought process.

Well I'm glad you feel that way. People have tried to explain all of those things, and I did pay attention. I rebutted them. That is allowed. Once they attacked me, then I retaliated. If I was agreeing with you, you'd have a different perspective. Instead since I have good points and you cannot prove me wrong, you get mad and tell me that it's ok for everyone else to do it but somehow I'm a bad guy.

 

Edit: I just reread the quoted statement and in it you are saying that people have tried to enlighten me to the truth but I am so hard-headed that I refuse to accept the truth. That kind of arrogance is why you are not justified in talking to me the way you are. How are you not doing the same thing? We are all posting facts that we formed our opinions from yet you think you're right and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. Now you're trying to accuse me of doing that very thing. The hypocracy is getting thick in here. You know what the funny thing about it all is? I'm not a Republican. I just get all the facts and make decisions based on them. I don't let biased media determine what I think. Maybe if you tried that, you couldn't be called a sheep. I called you that because what you were saying had no foundation but you heard it from the media. You have been hearded. It's not a putdown, it's a wake-up call.

QUOTE

With everything here as a written history of what is said, you still have a bad memory.

In a debate, you pick a side and defend it. After all possibilities of a counter-point have been exhausted you win. I don't understand why you bring in things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, throwing out personal insults, such as, "you are lying", "you're a sheep" or "you are stupid." Give up your act, it's tired. Pug made a point, instead of trying to invalidate his point, you invalidate him. Even if he is a blatant liar, and an idiot (which I do not think), that does not make his point any less valid. You seem to think it does.

If people bring up counter-points that are false and have no basis, am I expected to argue them or recite history and then say... you lied? I choose to simply recite history and tell them they lied. It's true and doesn't make it wrong. It would be a never-ending debate if I considered every fallacy here and argued it. Don't be mad simply because I don't let people slip lies in.

QUOTE

The reason I called you an idiot earlier is because I believe the way you discuss issues is idiotic. Nothing to do with your points, its the way you include your input, it's idiotic.

I think the way you just jump in when you see an opportunity to attack me is idiotic. I think it's idiotic how you call me out for being harsh but nobody else when you all clearly called me "idiot" and "moron" when I hadn't yet used a putdown . "Lack of comprehension" was as far as I got, and that is no putdown. You're a hypocrite. You see things your way and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. I started off being peaceful, but once people start calling me an idiot and clearly making things up I am going to start playing their game.

[throwingks]

Just because 3 people don't agree with your standpoint does not mean they agree with each others. You are confusing what people say and melting it into 1. I have stated my viewpoint in post #44. Can you please tell me which news station agrees with what I said. I will start watching it. I do not like watching the news for the aforementioned reasons. I get most of my news information from google.com's and AOL's top stories. With a close 3rd place with abovetopsecret.com. Which herder am I following?

You made a good counter point to mine in post #46. That is not saying it is correct but it is the basis for a proper debate. I will have to look into it further.

You mistook my absence as seeking for your loopholes. Do not misunderstand, I left because I wanted to see if you were consistently errant in your arguments. The couple of times I posted, my will power got bested because of how outlandish some of your statements were. I am not even going to get into "Suicide is Selfish" I left that alone at the OPs request, as you didnt, and unfortunately you stirred the pot to the point where the thread was closed.

This used to be my favorite section on the boards, but unfortunately all of the fun people have either been banned or left in their better judgment. I honestly thought you would have left by now but I can tell you aren't so it looks like it is only you, me, pug and a little arvarden for now. Like it or not, there is not a lot of moderation in these parts, so have at it with all the shenanigans you want. I am surprised pug put up with you this long. You should be glad he did. You would have been chatting with yourself the last 2 weeks.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 22 2006, 07:20 PM)

Just because 3 people don't agree with your standpoint does not mean they agree with each others. You are confusing what people say and melting it into 1. I have stated my viewpoint in post #44. Can you please tell me which news station agrees with what I said. I will start watching it. I do not like watching the news for the aforementioned reasons. I get most of my news information from google.com's and AOL's top stories. With a close 3rd place with abovetopsecret.com. Which herder am I following?

I've heard your viewpoint many times over by watching the news. I guess now you'll want me to pull up a broadcast of people that agree with you. If you mainly get your news online, how do you know that these news stations don't support your views?

QUOTE

You made a good counter point to mine in post #46. That is not saying it is correct but it is the basis for a proper debate. I will have to look into it further.


You mistook my absence as seeking for your loopholes. Do not misunderstand, I left because I wanted to see if you were consistently errant in your arguments. The couple of times I posted, my will power got bested because of how outlandish some of your statements were. I am not even going to get into "Suicide is Selfish" I left that alone at the OPs request, as you didnt, and unfortunately you stirred the pot to the point where the thread was closed.

I didn't mistake your absence as seeking for loopholes. Even your summation of what you did was re-wording of looking for loopholes. You may not have been active in your execution, it may have been passive as you say but it is the same. Any time you lurk and don't contribute until you see an opportunity to pounce THAT is exactly what I accused you of. You may not have meant to, but you admitted it.

 

Also, explain to me how permanently scarring your family, anyone who ever knew you, any loved ones, anyone at work, by not knowing how to deal with a temporary problem is not selfish. Once you can answer that without bs we'll talk. Until then you're just a close-minded individual that jumps on the compassionate bandwagon even when it's counter-productive. Wait until your children get to the age where kids start picking on them in school. Are you going to express your compassion that you obviously feel because you are a human and you love these little people? Or are you going to do what you know will be best for your child in the long run and support them, but teach them how to not be submissive and how to defend theirself (not necessarily physically)? Once you know what I mean by this, come back and tell me all about it. Until then, keep these comments to yourself because you don't realize, we both stand on the same side of that argument.

QUOTE

This used to be my favorite section on the boards, but unfortunately all of the fun people have either been banned or left in their better judgment. I honestly thought you would have left by now but I can tell you aren't so it looks like it is only you, me, pug and a little arvarden for now. Like it or not, there is not a lot of moderation in these parts, so have at it with all the shenanigans you want. I am surprised pug put up with you this long. You should be glad he did. You would have been chatting with yourself the last 2 weeks.

 

I feel that with politics as partisan as they are today we will see this forum go away very soon. It is increasingly difficult to have a mature conversation about it. People want to speak but not listen. (I realize you believe I am guilty of this.) I don't believe the nation has ever been so divided. I believe that nobody cares anymore about what is best for our country, but rather what is best for their party. I believe that people will believe what ever the news media tells them. I believe coming here and posting is fighting a losing battle. I read this forum for well over a year. I watched people like Pug_ster and jhad ur or whatever his name was come in here and say things that were so radical and blatantly untrue that I felt it my responsibility as an American to at least provide a counter argument. If you'll notice, there are no people who post in here who are moderate to conservative anymore. I'm it. There are several that would like to, but nobody wants to step into the hornet's nest. I am forced to deal with people who do this on a daily basis. I know how to deal with them. You can't pussy-foot around. Hell, I tried to be tactful. I then was being bombarded with putdowns. Then I myself was accused of putting people down when I had not! I decided there was only one choice left and now you are apauled. Well I've got to tell you, I don't really care. I toned myself down from the things i wanted to say. At the end of the day you say whatever you want about me. You already have. I have valid points that you can't disprove. If you listen to what I say without trying to find somewhere or something that you can try to find a flaw in, you'll see I have a valid point. You'll see that maybe you've been mislead.... and not by me. With the nation so evenly divided over the past few years I felt it my responsibility to find the facts on the issues that matter to me.... and most that don't. That's why when I argue, I state points with certainty. Sometimes I'm blindsided by the radical claims in here because I've never heard them. I've never heard them because they have not been discussed or reported in the many sources I read and listen to. That doesn't necessarily make them untrue but most likely it does. This very topic discusses Al Qaeda rejoicing over the democratic win. That's obviously because the democrats want to pull out of iraq. That would obviously be seen as a win for the insurgents. THAT is fact. You see Puggy try every way he could to divert and mislead the topic away from that. At the end of the day all you have to do is think about it and you realize it's true. I feel sorry for all of you. You tell me I'm blind yet you're the ones who are sitting in the dark with sunglasses on. I stayed out of this forum for over a year.... until I could take the lies no longer. Now I see you want me to leave because I bring a different point of view to the table.... I won't do it.

[throwingks]

I don't want you to leave, I was seeing if you were going to.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 23 2006, 11:37 AM)

I want "him" to leave...I don't dislike the guy but I hate reading blocks of text that need to have paragraphs.

It's so much easier on the eye IMHO.



 

 

Well that may be true. I misspell a lot of words. I use a lot of improper sentence structure and grammar when I'm online. I apologize if it's difficult to read but I'm unlikely to change that. Usually when I have something on my mind I'll just pound the keys until I have the whole thought/s out. Then most of the time I'll proof read it and make sure that someone else has a chance to understand and hopefully correct the myriad of typos. I never consider multiple paragraphs because they are supposed to seperate thoughts. As you can tell, many of mine run together and intertwine. It is very difficult for me to seperate them and so I just leave them.

[pug_ster]

I can put up with people like BCfosheezy because I don't take things personally.  I have worse things to put up with in my personal life.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

It is really pathetic that Bush is now going to NATO for help with the Iraq matter and he has to beg countries like Estonia and Latvia for help.  Cheney is begging Saudi Arabia for help when Saudi Arabia is already building a wall between them and Iraq.  While BCfosheezy, says that it is a 'fact' that US should not deal with Syria and Iran, the Baker report urges direct talks with them.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 27 2006, 09:06 AM)

I can put up with people like BCfosheezy because I don't take things personally. I have worse things to put up with in my personal life.

That's the same way I feel about you. The difference is, you wouldn't have had to put up with it had you not initiated the mudslinging.

QUOTE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

It is really pathetic that Bush is now going to NATO for help with the Iraq matter and he has to beg countries like Estonia and Latvia for help. Cheney is begging Saudi Arabia for help when Saudi Arabia is already building a wall between them and Iraq. While BCfosheezy, says that it is a 'fact' that US should not deal with Syria and Iran, the Baker report urges direct talks with them.

Could you please find my quote where I say this exact thing? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You take something I say that is very clear, and you try to say that I said something that I did not. This is why I say you have a lack of comprehension and you cannot rebut it. It's because you either misunderstand what I'm saying or you're trying to spin it so hard that it is clearly not what I said. At any rate it just makes you look dumber every time you try to do it.



Let me remind you of this article that I posted that shows what kind of people you think are able to be dealt with. Next, I'll remind you that the U.S. is willing to talk with Iran after they abide by the LAST AGREEMENT we reached with them which was suspend their nuclear program. No sane person would think that a country obviously defying their previous agreements will now come to an agreement. That is especially after all of the times (including the aforementioned article) that they have stated that they will continue their nuclear program no matter what.



"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin.



You have faith that Iran will abide by whatever agreement that talks might bring about yet they have already had talks and came to agreements and Iran will not abide by them.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 20 2006, 09:55 PM)

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.  

You're the one who tries to turn the subject from peace talks to Iran to Nuclear disarmment.  

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_co/us_iraq

It is easy for Bush that they will not have peace talks until their conditions are met.  But it won't happen.  And the US have to deal with it.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 27 2006, 04:08 PM)

You're the one who tries to turn the subject from peace talks to Iran to Nuclear disarmment.

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_co/us_iraq

It is easy for Bush that they will not have peace talks until their conditions are met. But it won't happen. And the US have to deal with it.

You CLEARLY just illustrated your inability to comprehend. "Peace Talks" are pointless when Iran doesn't hold up its end of the bargain anyways. The most important of which is their nuclear armament. You saying the U.S. will just have to "deal with it" meaning Iran having nuclear weapons is just sad and shows how incredibly naive you are since they clearly want to use these against us.

[BCfosheezy]

Also, you clearly proved that you will say anything to attempt to put me down. Read the topic. Then reread your posts and you'll see how you swayed off subject here and there. Now you have tried to say that I changed the subject. You simply lie and just do whatever it takes. At the end of the day, you never make any ground and you always manage to achieve the highest level of "wrong" possible .

[pug_ster]

The last 2 post are about me.  Like what throwingks says, instead of trying to invalidate my point, you invalidate me.  Just like how some people in the conservative right like O'Reilly, and Limburgh who puts down people rather than making a point   Put forth their argument style will make them look stupid because they argue just like 10 year old.  They provide the tough questions and insults and don't provide any practical answers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

Meanwhile Bush vows not to pull out from Iraq, but does not provide plan how to do it.  He demands Maliki for a solution and pray that the Baker report will supply the answer.  Meanwhile the 3 factions in Iraq are gearing up their territory for a all out civil war.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 28 2006, 11:45 AM)

The last 2 post are about me. Like what throwingks says, instead of trying to invalidate my point, you invalidate me. Just like how some people in the conservative right like O'Reilly, and Limburgh who puts down people rather than making a point Put forth their argument style will make them look stupid because they argue just like 10 year old. They provide the tough questions and insults and don't provide any practical answers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15910652/

Meanwhile Bush vows not to pull out from Iraq, but does not provide plan how to do it. He demands Maliki for a solution and pray that the Baker report will supply the answer. Meanwhile the 3 factions in Iraq are gearing up their territory for a all out civil war.

I invalidated your point too. You accused me of doing nothing but invalidating you, yet YOU JUST TRIED TO DO THAT!!!! Instead you invalidated YOURSELF!!! HAHA you lied and then are guilty of the very thing you just accused me of. BTW, Who is Limburgh? You obviously have never listened to O'Reily or Limbaugh because what you just said about them is blatantly not true and thus another lie.

Why do you need a plan to stay the same. That's like saying Puggy give me a plan on how you're going to stay stupid.

 

Bush said he was open for suggestions (yet he hasn't got any because neither you nor anyone in your party have any) but that we'd stay until they were secure.


You diverted the subject to this... after accusing me of it. You didn't rebut any of the things I have said and then continued to do them which is not only an admission of guilt but also hypocritical.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 28 2006, 07:10 PM)

Bush said he was open for suggestions (yet he hasn't got any because neither you nor anyone in your party have any) but that we'd stay until they were secure.

Bush can't leave unless Iraq is secure.  Bush says that Iraq is not secure until Iran and Syria stop sending insurgents and Iran stop having a nuclear program.  What is the chances that is going to happen?  When hell freezes over.  Bush already ran out of 'political capital' long time ago and his vision of Iraq as a 'free, stable and soverign' country is unrealistic.  

Blame on the Democrats, Iran, Syria, Maliki, libeals, me, throwingks, and Arvarden for not providing the Bush's idealistic solution for not stabilizing Iraq.  To many experts out there, Iraq is a lost cause.  And we can only contain this mess.  In the end of the day, Bush started this mess.   Since he is at the helm, he can do more or the same, or he can admit failure and do whatever it takes to contain this mess.

[pug_ster]

http://www.rushlimba...plan.guest.html

It seems that Limbaugh's plan to win the war in Iraq is to "Just blow the place up."

And no, don't this raving lunatic opinions doesn't mean anything but I thought it was funny to bring it up.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 28 2006, 03:30 PM)

http://www.rushlimba...plan.guest.html

It seems that Limbaugh's plan to win the war in Iraq is to "Just blow the place up."

And no, don't this raving lunatic opinions doesn't mean anything but I thought it was funny to bring it up.

Why lie about it if you're going to post a link? It only says "Just blow the place up" sarcastically as the proposed liberal solution on how to get out of there.

QUOTE

Nobody is! We could do the Limbaugh Plan. The Limbaugh Plan is win in Iraq and get out. The Limbaugh Plan would consist of many things which many say are impossible. Stop the politics. Have both parties line up for US victory. Of course, it's a pipe dream because the fact of the matter is, as I said. Have you heard all the calls over the weekend, "We've gotta send troops into Darfur!" That started before we left on Tuesday and that's there now. What the case is as I mentioned brilliantly to a caller last week, the left in this country will send our military anywhere where we do not have our own national interests at stake. They'll send 'em on Meals on Wheels programs. They'll send them to stop a bloody civil war in Africa.