What do all these people have in common?

[KazooSkinsFan]

[Damn right I wasn't serious - nice to see that my subtlety was not lost on you.

I know you winked but I did say I thought you were kidding. I've just learned it's hard to count on that.

The issue I have with liberals is not their ideology but their refusal to discuss or debate issues. Liberals do not believe they are an ideology, they are just right and everyone else is just wrong. That is why they believe they are always fair and the press, which is dominated by liberals, is not biased. Liberalism is right. To them to report evenly on Republicans or other ideologies would be like asking the US press in WWII to report evenly on the Nazis as the Americans. They don't get it.

I don't know how much of the conversations you've followed but I've made several concerted efforts to discuss issues with ATV. I've been all over in terms of different types of debating styles and perspectives.

He has remained constant on liberal talking points and the assumption of their truth. That is what's wrong with liberalism here, it's dominated by group think and rigid adherence to ideology. It is not how they are perceived it is what they have chosen to project.

When that many people all agree on every issue, there is not sufficient questioning going on. That many people can't agree on every issue.

[ATV]

Which is completely different from Democrats who send our troops to the Middle East but their kids don't go.

We can continue to argue whether the Democrats wanted to send our troops to Iraq (note the lame slipage of "Middle East" when the poll only mentioned Iraq). We CANNOT (waste your time if you'd like) argue about whether the Democrats want to bring the troops OUT of Iraq,

as opposed to GEORGE W BUSH.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Which is completely different from Democrats who send our troops to the Middle East but their kids don't go.

We can continue to argue whether the Democrats wanted to send our troops to Iraq (note the lame slipage of "Middle East" when the poll only mentioned Iraq). We CANNOT (waste your time if you'd like) argue about whether the Democrats want to bring the troops OUT of Iraq,

as opposed to GEORGE W BUSH.

The term would be hypocrisy. Dems want the troops all over the middle east, in nothern Iraq, shooting down planes in Iraq, bombing communications and "WMD" facilities and killing janitors and night watchmen and their kids don't do that.

Then you come back with, no, only narrowly defined that the question is toppling Hussein. Those are out of bounds. No way, both parties want us up to our eyeballs in the Middle East AND Iraq and very few of any of their kids go.

Once again, you have no argument to my point, THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME. You just point out the tiniest difference and declare it's totally different. Sorry, it's not.

[ATV]

No evidence required, huh? Who do you think you are - You just type things and by doing so this makes it reality? Are you related to David Koresh? You just type "easily verifiable" and assume that readers are going to believe these things, huh? Then someone asks you to "easily verify them" and you believe people won't notice when you never actually get around to providing any evidence (or assume that most of the people who are reading these have already "drank the Koolaid", so why bother)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneo ... ed&search=

[KazooSkinsFan]

No evidence required, huh? Who do you think you are - You just type things and by doing so this makes it reality? Are you related to David Koresh? You just type "easily verifiable" and assume that readers are going to believe these things, huh? Then someone asks you to "easily verify them" and you believe people won't notice when you never actually get around to providing any evidence (or assume that most of the people who are reading these have already "drank the Koolaid", so why bother)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneo ... ed&search=

You didn't dispute anything I said. You just told be to arbitrarily document everything and now are complaining I didn't. Why don't you tell me what you didn't know and I'll show you?

And it was your choice to not open this in smack. So follow the rules. I haven't smacked you here.

Fios, this is like last time, he opened not in Smack and started Smacking me and I replied. I haven't smacked him back here, but this is not right. The forum was his choice. I prefer it just be in smack. But he gets frustrated and then you say you don't care who started smacking it's work for the mods. Clearly I haven't this time. I just asked him to tell me what he actually disagrees with.

[ATV]

My newborn (literally) cries less.

[KazooSkinsFan]

My newborn (literally) cries less.

My point was to Fios who said we're making work for the mods. Not you. I'm trying to help him by not smacking outside smack and saying if you are going to open threads outside smack then smack me that's what's happening. I don't care if you smack me as long as I can smack back.

Why don't you just open these in smack if you can't not smack? I prefer that anyway. Obviously they end up there, why not just open them that way and allow free discussion?

And on the other subject, you keep asking me to document my basic recitation of hitory and I keep asking you what you didn't know so I can document it. I'll be glad to do so. If you are going to keep asking me can you tell me what you didn't know so I can honor your request?

[ATV]

When Democratic presidents were in office we "killed janitors"? We bombed radar sites in Iraq to protect the no-fly zones that were fairly agreed upon by the previous Republican administration? Are you telling me that you had major problems with the surrender agreements offered by Norman Swartzkoff? We didn't give Iraq enough? How does "killing janitors" and enforcing the no-fly zones equate with wasting a trillion dollars by invading and occupying a soveriegn nation, killing hundreds of thousands of their people and destroying anything worthwile they had in the process? You must be a real history buff.

[KazooSkinsFan]

When Democratic presidents were in office we "killed janitors"? We bombed radar sites in Iraq to protect the no-fly zones that were fairly agreed upon by the previous Republican administration? Are you telling me that you had major problems with the surrender agreements offered by Norman Swartzkoff? We didn't give Iraq enough? How does "killing janitors" and enforcing the no-fly zones equate with wasting a trillion dollars by invading and occupying a soveriegn nation, killing hundreds of thousands of their people and destroying anything worthwile they had in the process? You must be a real history buff.

Thanks for that non point post. Clears things up. Thanks.

And again you are insulting me personally. Just open these forums up in smack. You open them up in the lounge and personally insult me and when I ask what's up, you say I'm whining. Nothing you are giving up, you are going ahead and smacking.

Fios? I'm doing my darndest to follow your instructions you don't care who started it, but what are you expecting here? Should he just go to smack or can I smack him back here? All I'm asking is if he can insult me I can insult him back.

[ATV]

Nothing.

[crazyhorse1]

My top ten answers:

#10: They are all more truthful then John Kerry
#9: They are all more sober then Ted Kennedy
#8: They all don't think it's still the year 2000 like Al Gore
#7: They are all less angry then Harry Reid
#6: They all have more ideas of their own then Barack Obama
#5: They all generate fewer greenhouse gases then Nancy Pelosi
#4: They are all funnier then Al Franken since he joined AirAmerica
#3: They all think oral sex is sex, unlike Bill Clinton
#2: They all believe in personal responsibility more then ambulance chaser John Edwards

and

#1: They all have better legs then Hillary Clinton

That's how many Bush supporters it takes to screw up a country.

[admin]

When Democratic presidents were in office we "killed janitors"? We bombed radar sites in Iraq to protect the no-fly zones that were fairly agreed upon by the previous Republican administration? Are you telling me that you had major problems with the surrender agreements offered by Norman Swartzkoff? We didn't give Iraq enough? How does "killing janitors" and enforcing the no-fly zones equate with wasting a trillion dollars by invading and occupying a soveriegn nation, killing hundreds of thousands of their people and destroying anything worthwile they had in the process? You must be a real history buff.

Thanks for that non point post. Clears things up. Thanks.

And again you are insulting me personally. Just open these forums up in smack. You open them up in the lounge and personally insult me and when I ask what's up, you say I'm whining. Nothing you are giving up, you are going ahead and smacking.

Fios? I'm doing my darndest to follow your instructions you don't care who started it, but what are you expecting here? Should he just go to smack or can I smack him back here? All I'm asking is if he can insult me I can insult him back.

First of all, there's not really a personal attack here.

Second, moderators will tell people what can and can't be said at the appropriate time. Until you're privvy to all of the correspondence that goes on here (pms, staff PMs etc), I'm not really sure how anyone can know what has or hasn't been 'said' to other posters.

Follow the rules... you won't have any issues. If you think that someone else breaking the rules is reason enough for you to do the same - you're mistaken.

The rules are the same for everybody and enforced accordingly. Making 'requests' to moderators doesn't change any of that.

It isn't like you don't know that personal attacks belong in smack... and if we see one that isn't where it belongs, let us worry about looking after it.

Thanks.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The history buff quote was about me, not my post, and it followed the post in the other non-smack forum he called me David Kuresh and I was drinking the Kool-Aid or I wouldn't have said anything here. What I was told was smack last time was certainly no stronger then this even though his posts at the time were full smack. If he's going to keep insulting me I just want to be able to reply.

[KazooSkinsFan]

My top ten answers:

#10: They are all more truthful then John Kerry
#9: They are all more sober then Ted Kennedy
#8: They all don't think it's still the year 2000 like Al Gore
#7: They are all less angry then Harry Reid
#6: They all have more ideas of their own then Barack Obama
#5: They all generate fewer greenhouse gases then Nancy Pelosi
#4: They are all funnier then Al Franken since he joined AirAmerica
#3: They all think oral sex is sex, unlike Bill Clinton
#2: They all believe in personal responsibility more then ambulance chaser John Edwards

and

#1: They all have better legs then Hillary Clinton

That's how many Bush supporters it takes to screw up a country.

I would phrase it more how many one party politicos, but if you want the Bush supporter answer you could ask one.

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, on my history of Iraq, your posts are rambling. I'd like to resolve this with you and there are no insults here on my part.

No evidence required, huh?

All I said was the basic history of Iraq, it was not an argument for either side other then the history is both parties are deeply involved in getting us there. You are blaming Republicans and absolving Democrats. So, my questions.

- You keep asking me to document history for you. I will, all you have to tell me is which part you didn't know. I keep asking you this, when you tell me what you didn't know in my recitation of the basic events that let to now then I'll be glad to do as you ask.

- Since history has both parties getting us in this mess, I keep asking you how Bush is responsible for 8 years of Clinton bombing "WMD" facilities and getting UN resolutions passed demanding he dismantle WMDs.

- And I ask since the Democrats in the Senate intelligence committee have very broad access to intelligence and Bush was only president for 1 year before the buildup began after Clinton was President for 8 how he pulled off such a massive conspiracy. This is your accusation and so far all you've provided are more accusations by liberal blogs to back it up.

"drank the Koolaid"

You keep using this term related to me and I want to ask again. You believe Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. I blame both. The term drinking KoolAid refers to blindly accepting someone elses views. Who's views am I blindly accepting since I blame both?

[ATV]

You are blaming Republicans and absolving Democrats.

No, I am blaming A Republican (or Republican Administration), and while Democratic administrations have certainly been part of our history in the Middle East, I'm faulting NO administration (Republican or Democrat) other than our current one.

I keep asking you how Bush is responsible for 8 years of Clinton bombing "WMD" facilities and getting UN resolutions passed demanding he dismantle WMDs

I never wrote that Bush is responsible for these things, nor have I ever agreed that Clinton (or Bush I, the legitimate) has ever been responsible for this invasion and occupation.

And I ask.....how he pulled off such a massive conspiracy.

Are you serious? Where have you been the past three years? Is Faux News the only channel you watch? Do you seriously need me to provide links for this? I mean I will, but since I already know it would be a waste of time (like writing this post), I'd like to know whether you're joking.

You believe Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.

Wrong about what?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Where have you been the past three years? Is Faux News the only channel you watch? Do you seriously need me to provide links for this?

On Faux news, I thought you were the one complaining when I talked about the liberalblogs I was attacking the messenger. Oops, what's the word for that?

You keep talking about things you didn't say, even when I show your post saying it. Here we have you say again Fox is my news channel and I haven't said either way and you've never asked me, you just put the words in my mouth. Oops, what's the word for that?

And providing links is what I want you to stop doing. I keep asking you to tell me one impeachable offense that applies to Bush and not Democrats and all you do is provide more links to liberal blogs that only make more accusations and provide not a shred of proof.

Democrats for 8 years said they were bombing WMDs and getting UN resolutions passed telling him to dismantle WMDs. Then the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee and Democratic leadership for the one year under Bush before the buildup kept giving fiery speeches saying the same and voted yes on invading Iraq.

THEN the Democrats stepped back and blamed Republicans for misleading them. Yes, you need to document how you know that because I follow the news closely and all I see are two wreckless parties barreling down this path for the last 87 years and now the Democrats pointing the finger of blame and accepting no responsibility for their own actions.

[ATV]

Democrats for 8 years said they were bombing WMDs

Almost all the bombings I remember involved bombing Iraqi antiaircraft sites. Sure, we had a Democratic president in office for eight years, but wouldn't Bush I (the legitimate) or any other competent president have done the same? what does this have to do with anything? Do you think we should not have enforced the no-fly zone that was agreed upon by both parties?

getting UN resolutions passed telling him to dismantle WMDs.

That apparently worked. And your point is......?

the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee and Democratic leadership for the one year under Bush before the buildup kept giving fiery speeches saying the same and voted yes on invading Iraq.

First of all, they didn't "vote yes on invading Iraq". If I recall correctly the resoltution gave Bush the authority to use force should Iraq not comply with the UN weapons inspectors. At least that's their excuse, and that seems like it has some reason behind it. Was it just me or did it seem like this administration was itching to goto war no matter what the Iraqis did? Anyhow, regarding the accusations about "Democrts on the Senate Intelligence Committee giving fiery speeches" - This is one of those instances where I'd like for you to provide a credible link, or some evidence, etc.

THEN the Democrats stepped back and blamed Republicans for misleading them.

As well as most of the country.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Democrats for 8 years said they were bombing WMDs

Almost all the bombings I remember involved bombing Iraqi antiaircraft sites. Sure, we had a Democratic president in office for eight years, but wouldn't Bush I (the legitimate) or any other competent president have done the same? what does this have to do with anything? Do you think we should not have enforced the no-fly zone that was agreed upon by both parties?

getting UN resolutions passed telling him to dismantle WMDs.

That apparently worked. And your point is......?

the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee and Democratic leadership for the one year under Bush before the buildup kept giving fiery speeches saying the same and voted yes on invading Iraq.

First of all, they didn't "vote yes on invading Iraq". If I recall correctly the resoltution gave Bush the authority to use force should Iraq not comply with the UN weapons inspectors. At least that's their excuse, and that seems like it has some reason behind it. Was it just me or did it seem like this administration was itching to goto war no matter what the Iraqis did? Anyhow, regarding the accusations about "Democrts on the Senate Intelligence Committee giving fiery speeches" - This is one of those instances where I'd like for you to provide a credible link, or some evidence, etc.

THEN the Democrats stepped back and blamed Republicans for misleading them.

As well as most of the country.

Dude, more dancing from you. The question is how you know Democrats were innocent in the invasion and only said what they did because they were misled by Bush. Clinton bombed lots of things including he said WMDs. You said the UN resolutions "apparently worked." That's not an argument. You say "as well as most of the country." There's a lot more to that I'm sure you'd rather explore then the question, so I'm not going to let you off the hook by going down that path.

You are accusing Bush of lying about WMDs.

That means by definition.

- Hussein did not have WMDs.
- Bush knew Hussein did not have WMDs.
- Bush said he did have WMDs.
- Democrats believed the lie.

And you know that for a fact because...

[ATV]

Hussein did not have WMDs.

Correct. Is four years enough to safely say there was no "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Bush knew Hussein did not have WMDs.

Who knows what Bush actually believed. What we KNOW is what he was supposed to believe, which was far different than the stories we were told. That was the lie.

Bush said he did have WMDs.

Correct. That was their story.

Democrats believed the lie.

Most "Democrats" did not believe the lie. Unfortunately, most Senate Democrats, 57%, in the Senate agreed to the resolution (not it would have mattered, all but one of the Republicans already made a majority) allowing the use of force in Iraq should Iraq not conform to the UN requirements for disarmament (which Iraq did). This is all immaterial because the question is not who believed the lie, but who lied - Who pushed the fabricated story?

Something tells me you're going to forget all this and I'll have to write the same thing five months from now.

[admin]

The history buff quote was about me, not my post, and it followed the post in the other non-smack forum he called me David Kuresh and I was drinking the Kool-Aid or I wouldn't have said anything here. What I was told was smack last time was certainly no stronger then this even though his posts at the time were full smack. If he's going to keep insulting me I just want to be able to reply.

I have explained the situation, if you choose not to follow rules, you'll be subject to the same penalties and sanctions that anybody else would. So you go ahead and do as you like, but around here, 'well he did it to me' just doesn't fly as an excuse, sorry.

If you two can't converse within the framework of the rules, then don't. Or take it to smack. Those are your two options.

Stick to the thread topic. Leave moderating and administration to the staff please... that includes what should or shouldn't be 'acceptable'.

Thanks.

[flamethrower]

Hussein did not have WMDs.

Correct. Is four years enough to safely say there was no "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Bush knew Hussein did not have WMDs.

Who knows what Bush actually believed. What we KNOW is what he was supposed to believe, which was far different than the stories we were told. That was the lie.

Bush said he did have WMDs.

Correct. That was their story.

Democrats believed the lie.

Most "Democrats" did not believe the lie. Unfortunately, most Senate Democrats, 57%, in the Senate agreed to the resolution (not it would have mattered, all but one of the Republicans already made a majority) allowing the use of force in Iraq should Iraq not conform to the UN requirements for disarmament (which Iraq did). This is all immaterial because the question is not who believed the lie, but who lied - Who pushed the fabricated story?

Something tells me you're going to forget all this and I'll have to write the same thing five months from now.

Dude for one thing your information is 100% wrong. Saddam did have WMD's. I know this for a fact. I actually was over there. And I actually helped load a C141 full of Weapons Grade Plutonium. Or can you explain why we had to wear "Moon" suits, and were Geiger Counter Checked every 5 minutes. And a good buddy of mine who's job in the army is dealing with that crap Took 5 Trips back to the states on C141's full of WMD's.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Dude for one thing your information is 100% wrong. Saddam did have WMD's. I know this for a fact. I actually was over there. And I actually helped load a C141 full of Weapons Grade Plutonium. Or can you explain why we had to wear "Moon" suits, and were Geiger Counter Checked every 5 minutes. And a good buddy of mine who's job in the army is dealing with that crap Took 5 Trips back to the states on C141's full of WMD's.

It's pointless anyway.

- By the Gulf War I treaty and 17 UN Security Counsel Resolutions, Bush did not have to prove Hussein had WMDs, Hussein had to prove he didn't. Which he was supposed to provide verifiable documentation and inspections. His failure to cooperate was a material breach nullifying the treaty and he did it for 10 years.

- Democrats have equated "stockpiles" of WMDs with the threat of WMD. Actually to be a WMD threat you need 3 things, the technology to make them, the ability to produce them and the actual WMD materials. If you have the first two the third is easy and you dont' need "stockpiles" to have the third. Democrats have inanely focused only on massive amounts of the third as being a WMD threat.

- We know he had the technology and production means since he used them on the Kurds and Iranians and the UN inspections while not finding stockpiles did verify he had been building them and did find scattered WMDs. There is no question he was a WMD threat.

- The Democrats knew this through 8 years of Clinton and 1 year of Bush, as did the UN, French, Germans and Russians. Suddenly when we did not find as many actual WMD storage facilities the Democrats all of a sudden didn't know this and decided if you dont' find stockpiles he wasn't a threat, end of story, start the finger pointing.

This is just reality, but you have to be dealing with a party of people who thinks reality and personal responsibility is more important than winning elections at all costs. And with the Democratic party not only on this subject but any subject they are not.

I oppose the invasion but I'm still aware of reality. But I want to deal with the root issue that our being in the middle east is a bad thing because it just isn't our problem and the resulting low oil prices both parties want in the long run is going to burn us when we can't sustain it. We need to trust our free market system, not the government to solve energy. Yet I recognize reality. Democrats want to turn a war into a campaign issue and milk it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So you go ahead and do as you like, but around here, 'well he did it to me' just doesn't fly as an excuse, sorry.

Actually I didn't say that and I have not smacked back

[ATV]

I actually was over there. And I actually helped load a C141 full of Weapons Grade Plutonium.

I had sex with Selma Hayek last night.