Look I found that debating you is a disaster. So I figured I would agree with you and compliment you.
Can't win with you, can I.
That's as hollow as the last statement. The reason you find debating with me is a disaster is that I will call you on your lack of logic, spin doctoring, and smoke and mirrors everytime.
That's as hollow as the last statement. The reason you find debating with me is a disaster is that I will call you on your lack of logic, spin doctoring, and smoke and mirrors everytime.
Yes I understand that. I am sorry for wasting our time on this matter that you are obviously more educated in. I will not attempt to debate you on the subject again.
Yes I understand that. I am sorry for wasting our time on this matter that you are obviously more educated in. I will not attempt to debate you on the subject again.
Please accept my apologies.
Good day to you.
Sorry but that won't work either. I've never said I was more educated than you. I've just lived longer and have come to know when something doesn't wash.
Given that there are many people here younger than me that can see this it's a wonder you don't.
Sorry but that won't work either. I've never said I was more educated than you. I've just lived longer and have come to know when something doesn't wash.
Given that there are many people here younger than me that can see this it's a wonder you don't.
I know that you are probably right, so I will just say there are also many that do not agree with your viewpoint...
No, you are right. they are just idiots that don't know how to think for themselves. They are blinded by the Bush charisma and blinding good looks, not to mention his awesome public speaking ability.
I know that you are probably right, so I will just say there are also many that do not agree with your viewpoint...
No, you are right. they are just idiots that don't know how to think for themselves. They are blinded by the Bush charisma and blinding good looks, not to mention his awesome public speaking ability.
I just like have a reasonable conversation with reasonable people. I don't really want to argue with you for the sake of arguing. At this point that is what we both are doing.
I guess we both hold strong opinions.
I do agree with some things that you say. But those things are in between 2 or 3 other inflammatory statements. I feel that I have to say at least something. Maybe that is where I was wrong. Maybe we should focus on what we agree on.
i am sure you are a nice guy, and after reflecting on the things I said in the previous posts, I apologize for attacking you personally, I usually try to steer clear of that kind of thing. I slipped.
Everyone on the planet should really look at what they have in common, it would surprise most of us.
My point right now is let's you and I not talk about this subject as a whole until it can be civil. And if we do we should take it point by point and accept we may not agree on things. It happens sometimes.
I just like have a reasonable conversation with reasonable people. I don't really want to argue with you for the sake of arguing. At this point that is what we both are doing.
I guess we both hold strong opinions.
I do agree with some things that you say. But those things are in between 2 or 3 other inflammatory statements. I feel that I have to say at least something. Maybe that is where I was wrong. Maybe we should focus on what we agree on.
i am sure you are a nice guy, and after reflecting on the things I said in the previous posts, I apologize for attacking you personally, I usually try to steer clear of that kind of thing. I slipped.
Everyone on the planet should really look at what they have in common, it would surprise most of us.
My point right now is let's you and I not talk about this subject as a whole until it can be civil. And if we do we should take it point by point and accept we may not agree on things. It happens sometimes.
Ya know?
That's all fine and good but taking it point by point doesn't work with you. I point out your error in logic and you say " how? " I tell you again and you say " Explain it to me ".
I'm sure you're a nice guy also but you are simply wrong about this subject.
The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports. Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States.
Oh my god, are you serious? It's already been exposed as clearly forged, including getting the timeline wrong, by everyone, and even reported in major media like Newsweek.
No it hasn't. The Newsweek story raises honest questions about the memo but the authors didn't have access to the document nor did the person they consulted. The story also says that the FBI believes they have mostly accounted for Atta's movements during the months prior to 9/11. However, it fails to discuss the possibility that if Atta had traveled to Baghdad he would have used an alias - at least on this end. Moreover, there are days when his movements ARE NOT KNOWN. That's just a fact. The Newsweek authors concede as much: "Much about Atta's movements is still unknown - and most likely will remain so." Saying it has been clearly exposed as a forgery is simply not true.
Quote:
I mean, get with the program already. INC defectors again? There credibility is and always has been ZERO.
With you. Others saw this interview and perhaps drew a different conclusion.
Quote:
And Salman Pak? Hell, how long has this been discredited for? 6 or 7 months?
I have to give you credit for a nifty attempt at misdirection but I didn't say anything about a biological facility at Salman Pak. I merely quoted a story that mentioned a plane used for terrorist training. Hersh doesn't dispute the existence of the camp. Rather he asserts that it wasn't used for terrorist training but counter-terrorism training. Oh.
The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports. Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look I found that debating you is a disaster. So I figured I would agree with you and compliment you.
Can't win with you, can I.
That's as hollow as the last statement. The reason you find debating with me is a disaster is that I will call you on your lack of logic, spin doctoring, and smoke and mirrors everytime.
Originally posted by jimmac
That's as hollow as the last statement. The reason you find debating with me is a disaster is that I will call you on your lack of logic, spin doctoring, and smoke and mirrors everytime.
Yes I understand that. I am sorry for wasting our time on this matter that you are obviously more educated in. I will not attempt to debate you on the subject again.
Please accept my apologies.
Good day to you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yes I understand that. I am sorry for wasting our time on this matter that you are obviously more educated in. I will not attempt to debate you on the subject again.
Please accept my apologies.
Good day to you.
Sorry but that won't work either. I've never said I was more educated than you. I've just lived longer and have come to know when something doesn't wash.
Given that there are many people here younger than me that can see this it's a wonder you don't.
I think so.
And therefore not to be taken seriously in the future.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but that won't work either. I've never said I was more educated than you. I've just lived longer and have come to know when something doesn't wash.
Given that there are many people here younger than me that can see this it's a wonder you don't.
I know that you are probably right, so I will just say there are also many that do not agree with your viewpoint...
No, you are right. they are just idiots that don't know how to think for themselves. They are blinded by the Bush charisma and blinding good looks, not to mention his awesome public speaking ability.
I am starting to see the light.
Thanks
Originally posted by NaplesX
I know that you are probably right, so I will just say there are also many that do not agree with your viewpoint...
No, you are right. they are just idiots that don't know how to think for themselves. They are blinded by the Bush charisma and blinding good looks, not to mention his awesome public speaking ability.
I am starting to see the light.
Thanks
Yes I think you've got it.
Originally posted by jimmac
You're still here. Which makes me think that you just like doing this for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Am I right?
Man you know how to read a guy. It's uncanny.
Originally posted by jimmac
And therefore not to be taken seriously in the future.
Right!
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are my new hero. Can you teach me how to be an out of touch, know it all, self righteous, liberal truth purveyor, too?
With the exception of the parts about being liberal and the truth you're already there.
I just like have a reasonable conversation with reasonable people. I don't really want to argue with you for the sake of arguing. At this point that is what we both are doing.
I guess we both hold strong opinions.
I do agree with some things that you say. But those things are in between 2 or 3 other inflammatory statements. I feel that I have to say at least something. Maybe that is where I was wrong. Maybe we should focus on what we agree on.
i am sure you are a nice guy, and after reflecting on the things I said in the previous posts, I apologize for attacking you personally, I usually try to steer clear of that kind of thing. I slipped.
Everyone on the planet should really look at what they have in common, it would surprise most of us.
My point right now is let's you and I not talk about this subject as a whole until it can be civil. And if we do we should take it point by point and accept we may not agree on things. It happens sometimes.
Ya know?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look why do we keep this going.
I just like have a reasonable conversation with reasonable people. I don't really want to argue with you for the sake of arguing. At this point that is what we both are doing.
I guess we both hold strong opinions.
I do agree with some things that you say. But those things are in between 2 or 3 other inflammatory statements. I feel that I have to say at least something. Maybe that is where I was wrong. Maybe we should focus on what we agree on.
i am sure you are a nice guy, and after reflecting on the things I said in the previous posts, I apologize for attacking you personally, I usually try to steer clear of that kind of thing. I slipped.
Everyone on the planet should really look at what they have in common, it would surprise most of us.
My point right now is let's you and I not talk about this subject as a whole until it can be civil. And if we do we should take it point by point and accept we may not agree on things. It happens sometimes.
Ya know?
That's all fine and good but taking it point by point doesn't work with you. I point out your error in logic and you say " how? " I tell you again and you say " Explain it to me ".
I'm sure you're a nice guy also but you are simply wrong about this subject.
The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports. Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States.
Originally posted by giant
Oh my god, are you serious? It's already been exposed as clearly forged, including getting the timeline wrong, by everyone, and even reported in major media like Newsweek.
No it hasn't. The Newsweek story raises honest questions about the memo but the authors didn't have access to the document nor did the person they consulted. The story also says that the FBI believes they have mostly accounted for Atta's movements during the months prior to 9/11. However, it fails to discuss the possibility that if Atta had traveled to Baghdad he would have used an alias - at least on this end. Moreover, there are days when his movements ARE NOT KNOWN. That's just a fact. The Newsweek authors concede as much: "Much about Atta's movements is still unknown - and most likely will remain so." Saying it has been clearly exposed as a forgery is simply not true.
I mean, get with the program already. INC defectors again? There credibility is and always has been ZERO.
With you. Others saw this interview and perhaps drew a different conclusion.
And Salman Pak? Hell, how long has this been discredited for? 6 or 7 months?
I have to give you credit for a nifty attempt at misdirection but I didn't say anything about a biological facility at Salman Pak. I merely quoted a story that mentioned a plane used for terrorist training. Hersh doesn't dispute the existence of the camp. Rather he asserts that it wasn't used for terrorist training but counter-terrorism training. Oh.
Originally posted by fishdoc
From the NYTimes Dec 26:
The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports. Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States.
link please
Originally posted by fishdoc
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/opinion/26FRI2.html
Thank you.