How would I know where they are? But to believe that SH has no more little secrets buried in the sand, wrapped in plastic of in crates, is just "pie-in-the sky" or shoud I say "head-in-the-sand" thinking.
You know, I just thought of this, why not just make SH president of this country? He is such a trustworthy, up front and honest kind of guy?
It's not about disagreement, it's about whether people deal with the facts or not.
Any 'facts' that backed up the idea you are supporting have fallen apart long ago. Even the plant site you talked about above (which was in SUDAN) was later tested 13 times and neither empta or its degradation product could be found.
See, believe what you want. If you believe crazy things, that's your choice. But someone who wants to have accurate beliefs takes the time to actually study the subject in question.
Cus you say so right?
Whatever, lets not converse. I believe AI will be all the better if we do not discuss these type of subjects.
You have just lost any credibility you may have had....Fox news... jesus H christ....
Try something a leeeeelte bit more reliable, instead of Rupert Murdoch's gutterpress!
If that is true, then you just lost all credibility, I posted other sources with different leanings on purpose. You just cherry picked one to try to imply that I am biased.
If I posted some extreme leftist article that said "Bush Lied" you would not even question that one, no matter how false and inflammatory it might be.
If that is true, then you just lost all credibility, I posted other sources with different leanings on purpose. You just cherry picked one to try to imply that I am biased
Supposition.
Quote:
If I posted some extreme leftist article that said "Bush Lied" you would not even question that one, no matter how false and inflammatory it might be.
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with.
The funny thing is, he generally doesn't belittle anyone. He does, and rightfully so, belittle opinions that some people may hold. But it's simply coincidence when his belittlement of an opinion coincides with the beliefs of an actual poster here in AO.
Wasn't Bush supposed to have planted and then found the WMD by now? According to the illuminati on these boards, the plan was very obviously to anyone with a brain that Bush was to plant WMD immediately following the invasion in order to justify the invasion.
The funny thing is, he generally doesn't belittle anyone. He does, and rightfully so, belittle opinions that some people may hold. But it's simply coincidence when his belittlement of an opinion coincides with the beliefs of an actual poster here in AO.
I think you need to look at his past posts. I have read plenty of times that he has insulted people by calling them names. I am not a long time at AI, but I am not sure that I have visited a thread where he posted that he did not belittle or inflame.
My point exactly. If his logic is sound then my logic (in my last post) is sound also.
There is no possible way that that could have been your point. He attacked your source. You then responded with a series of assumptions about his motives and hypothetical situations.
Wasn't Bush supposed to have planted and then found the WMD by now? According to the illuminati on these boards, the plan was very obviously to anyone with a brain that Bush was to plant WMD immediately following the invasion in order to justify the invasion.
I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Excellent point.
That kinda goes against all of the accusations of being a liar.
I mean, I am sure he could have someone, somewhere plant some WMD in IRAQ. It wouldn't take much, quantity wise. That would shut all of you up right quick wouldn't it?
I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Excellent point.
That kinda goes against all of the accusations of being a liar.
I mean, I am sure he could have someone, somewhere plant some WMD in IRAQ. It wouldn't take much, quantity wise. That would shut all of you up right quick wouldn't it?
There is no possible way that that could have been your point. He attacked your source. You then responded with a series of assumptions about his motives and hypothetical situations.
That was my point. He only questioned on of my many links only because it was "Fox" which he considers "Right wing"
If you like I will post 10 more from CNN, ABC, CBS, Rueters, AP, whatever. Come on guys.
That was my point. He only questioned on od my many links only because it was "Fox" which he considers "Right wing"
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
You, on the other hand, responded by making up hypothetical scenarios about him and then claimed that his hypothetical responses to these hypothetical scenarios "proved" something.
I merely pointed out that supposition proves nothing.
You see, I'm using another tactic right now. Rather than call into question your source, I'm calling into question your own tactics.
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
You, on the other hand, responded by making up hypothetical scenarios about him and then claimed that his hypothetical responses to these hypothetical scenarios "proved" something.
I merely pointed out that supposition proves nothing.
You see, I'm using another tactic right now. Rather than call into question your source, I'm calling into question your own tactics.
Well if you keep being goofy, I will use another tactic called, ignoring people that waste my time.
I thought that we were discussing a topic, I did not realize this was "shifty debate tactics" 101.
That is just silly. If any WMD are found, you are gonna cry "plant"?
If *anything* major happens to just so happen to happen in October, I will be deeply suspicious.
Quote:
I suppose if they catch UBL before the election you will say that they had him all along or something like that. Right?
You need to quit supposing. It gets you into trouble.
Quote:
There is no logic to that.
Someone who makes up situations and then responds to them in order to advance some argument about his opponent's motives really ought not make any claims about what is logical and what is not.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok. Where are they?
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...
How would I know where they are? But to believe that SH has no more little secrets buried in the sand, wrapped in plastic of in crates, is just "pie-in-the sky" or shoud I say "head-in-the-sand" thinking.
You know, I just thought of this, why not just make SH president of this country? He is such a trustworthy, up front and honest kind of guy?
ABB right?
Originally posted by giant
It's not about disagreement, it's about whether people deal with the facts or not.
Any 'facts' that backed up the idea you are supporting have fallen apart long ago. Even the plant site you talked about above (which was in SUDAN) was later tested 13 times and neither empta or its degradation product could be found.
See, believe what you want. If you believe crazy things, that's your choice. But someone who wants to have accurate beliefs takes the time to actually study the subject in question.
Cus you say so right?
Whatever, lets not converse. I believe AI will be all the better if we do not discuss these type of subjects.
Agreed?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Cus you say so right?
No, because it actually happened.
One of the sites that Naples linked to says that they found *ghasp* a thousand pounds of explosives after the war. . . . .
A B-52 can carry how many thousand-pound bombs?
That does not make a WMD
a big weapon yes . . . but not a WMD
Originally posted by pfflam
hheheh
One of the sites that Naples linked to says that they found *ghasp* a thousand pounds of explosives after the war. . . . .
A B-52 can carry how many thousand-pound bombs?
That does not make a WMD
a big weapon yes . . . but not a WMD
Hheheh, well I was referring to buried weapons and not just WMD. So you are adding what to this conversation?
You know as well as I that weapons are buried and hid all over Iraq. Why do you guys keep saying they are not?
Oh wait, a B-52 can hold x thousand of pounds of weaponry. What was x again?
[B]Are you saying that SH did not order weapons hid in Iraq?
try these:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93117,00.html
You have just lost any credibility you may have had....Fox news... jesus H christ....
Try something a leeeeelte bit more reliable, instead of Rupert Murdoch's gutterpress!
Originally posted by sammi jo
You have just lost any credibility you may have had....Fox news... jesus H christ....
Try something a leeeeelte bit more reliable, instead of Rupert Murdoch's gutterpress!
If that is true, then you just lost all credibility, I posted other sources with different leanings on purpose. You just cherry picked one to try to imply that I am biased.
If I posted some extreme leftist article that said "Bush Lied" you would not even question that one, no matter how false and inflammatory it might be.
This proves exactly what and who you are.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If that is true, then you just lost all credibility, I posted other sources with different leanings on purpose. You just cherry picked one to try to imply that I am biased
Supposition.
If I posted some extreme leftist article that said "Bush Lied" you would not even question that one, no matter how false and inflammatory it might be.
Supposition.
This proves exactly what and who you are.
Supposition proves nothing.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with.
The funny thing is, he generally doesn't belittle anyone. He does, and rightfully so, belittle opinions that some people may hold. But it's simply coincidence when his belittlement of an opinion coincides with the beliefs of an actual poster here in AO.
Originally posted by midwinter
Supposition.
Supposition.
Supposition proves nothing.
My point exactly. If his logic is sound then my logic (in my last post) is sound also.
Originally posted by bunge
The funny thing is, he generally doesn't belittle anyone. He does, and rightfully so, belittle opinions that some people may hold. But it's simply coincidence when his belittlement of an opinion coincides with the beliefs of an actual poster here in AO.
I think you need to look at his past posts. I have read plenty of times that he has insulted people by calling them names. I am not a long time at AI, but I am not sure that I have visited a thread where he posted that he did not belittle or inflame.
Originally posted by NaplesX
My point exactly. If his logic is sound then my logic (in my last post) is sound also.
There is no possible way that that could have been your point. He attacked your source. You then responded with a series of assumptions about his motives and hypothetical situations.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Wasn't Bush supposed to have planted and then found the WMD by now? According to the illuminati on these boards, the plan was very obviously to anyone with a brain that Bush was to plant WMD immediately following the invasion in order to justify the invasion.
I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Excellent point.
That kinda goes against all of the accusations of being a liar.
I mean, I am sure he could have someone, somewhere plant some WMD in IRAQ. It wouldn't take much, quantity wise. That would shut all of you up right quick wouldn't it?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Excellent point.
That kinda goes against all of the accusations of being a liar.
I mean, I am sure he could have someone, somewhere plant some WMD in IRAQ. It wouldn't take much, quantity wise. That would shut all of you up right quick wouldn't it?
October. Wait until October.
Originally posted by midwinter
There is no possible way that that could have been your point. He attacked your source. You then responded with a series of assumptions about his motives and hypothetical situations.
That was my point. He only questioned on of my many links only because it was "Fox" which he considers "Right wing"
If you like I will post 10 more from CNN, ABC, CBS, Rueters, AP, whatever. Come on guys.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That was my point. He only questioned on od my many links only because it was "Fox" which he considers "Right wing"
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
You, on the other hand, responded by making up hypothetical scenarios about him and then claimed that his hypothetical responses to these hypothetical scenarios "proved" something.
I merely pointed out that supposition proves nothing.
You see, I'm using another tactic right now. Rather than call into question your source, I'm calling into question your own tactics.
Originally posted by midwinter
October. Wait until October.
That is just silly. If any WMD are found, you are gonna cry "plant"?
I suppose if they catch UBL before the election you will say that they had him all along or something like that. Right?
There is no logic to that.
Originally posted by midwinter
He called into question your source, Fox News, which is unabashedly right wing. That's fine. That's a typical debate tactic (questioning the source).
You, on the other hand, responded by making up hypothetical scenarios about him and then claimed that his hypothetical responses to these hypothetical scenarios "proved" something.
I merely pointed out that supposition proves nothing.
You see, I'm using another tactic right now. Rather than call into question your source, I'm calling into question your own tactics.
Well if you keep being goofy, I will use another tactic called, ignoring people that waste my time.
I thought that we were discussing a topic, I did not realize this was "shifty debate tactics" 101.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is just silly. If any WMD are found, you are gonna cry "plant"?
If *anything* major happens to just so happen to happen in October, I will be deeply suspicious.
I suppose if they catch UBL before the election you will say that they had him all along or something like that. Right?
You need to quit supposing. It gets you into trouble.
There is no logic to that.
Someone who makes up situations and then responds to them in order to advance some argument about his opponent's motives really ought not make any claims about what is logical and what is not.
Cheers
Scott