War on Terror Stops Missile Smuggling Plot In NY

Nope, wrong again, liberal spinmeisters RMTex and RM95. This thread is a prime example of Batman not being able to enjoy a success from the War on Terror. Apparently you didn't read the hatred and venom spewed by Batman on the first page of this thread, when he first learned that our country was made safer by the capture of these evil doers.

How can you not see this? Completely ridiculous.

 

Hatred and Venom?

T_J, Batman Jones had one post on the first page of this thread. Here it is.....

I would like you to point out for the rest of us exactly where the hatred and venom is in this post. All I see is cynicism and sarcasm. The only hatred and venom I ever see on this BBS comes from you, Trader_Baboso.

 

Come on RMTex, don't you know by now that if you say or imply anything derogatory towards the war hero in the White House or his administration, you're simply a lunatic fringe liberal who can do nothing but spew hatred and venom because you're simply wrong?

Duh.

 

Hatred and venom are contained behind every word! You must look at this post in the context of his other recent ridiculous posts which serve no purpose but to slander the Administration.

 

"Quote:
Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
MacBeth, I have no idea where you are going with this 'argument'. You are the king of assembing the most disjointed set of logic ever conceived. You very rarely stay on topic, instead choosing to divert attention to some unrelated tangent or slip in partisan jabs at the Bush Administration. That is why your posts ramble on so long, you have no ability to focus on the topic at hand.

If the point you are trying to get across is that we are being hypocritical for applauding the Administration for this success, while not simultaneously chiding them for the failure of pre-911 intelligence, then you are again misdirected. Who among us has said that intelligence was good pre-911? No one. Are you trying to lay blame on the Bush Administration for having an inadequate security network before 911? This is very much a stretch. As stated earlier, how can you possibly expect to completely revamp an organization that size in only 8 months? Absurd. Your point on the hijackers being mainly Saudi/Yemenese and then the US attacking Iraq is *completely* ridiculous. The attack on Iraq was justified for a variety of legitimate reasons, for you to imply, as you most certainly did, that the attack on Iraq was retribution for 9-11 is again, absurd.

Wake up MacBeth.


1) When I want a critique on the use of logic, T_J, I will ask someone who understands the concept.

2) Case in point..." You very rarely stay on topic, instead choosing to divert attention to some unrelated tangent or slip in partisan jabs at the Bush Administration."

Partisan...logically would imply that I have a partisan affiliation with the Democrats, or at the very least against the Republicans....logically the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I have no such affiliation, that I supported Bush in the last election, that I supported his father in the first war, that I supported Reagan, that I argued that Clinton should have been kicked out of office would make anyone with half a brain stop accusing me of partisan motivations regarding my objections to the war and the present administration. I guess for those who base everything on that kind of reasoning, the assumption that, contrary to all available information, everyone else must make their decisions not on merit but on party comes naturally. Keep up the good work of revealing yourself to us, T_J, it's something to see.

3) "Are you trying to lay blame on the Bush Administration for having an inadequate security network before 911? This is very much a stretch"


Jesus. Do you even read? Can someone point out to Mr. logical here the three or four times in this thread alone that I have said the opposite of what he is accusing me of and criticizing me for here? Someone...anyone...maybe he'll get it.

4) " Your point on the hijackers being mainly Saudi/Yemenese and then the US attacking Iraq is *completely* ridiculous. The attack on Iraq was justified for a variety of legitimate reasons, for you to imply, as you most certainly did, that the attack on Iraq was retribution for 9-11 is again, absurd. "


Before I go back and site the several examples wherein pro-war people used 9-11 as a justification for the war with Iraq, including the administration, are you really sure you want to stand by that, and yet again be shown for what you are? I never said retribution, I said justification, and it isn't debatable that that connection has been made...ad nauseum..."




Just thought I'd point out that you've ducked me yet again, T_J. To re-count, you called for logic, laughable in itself, and then followed that astounding excercise in ignirance of self by claiming that I am partisan, wrong, and that I blamed Bush for 9-11, wrong again...and I'm still waiting to hear if you are really saying that the pro-war crowd, and the admninistration did not use 9-11 as a reason for the war on Iraq.

 

Pardon me. And here I was thinking that the right to free speech was guaranteed by the United States Constitution. I had no idea we were living in the Soviet Union.

 

How does it go, Jorge?

You're obsessed with me.

You can't stop thinking about me.

I own you.

You're a joke, Jorge.

And texxx, I'll stop blasting the administration when they stop begging for it. They are liars, thieves and murderers. And they deserve much worse than I can give them. If my posts bother you so much, think how I felt when all the pro-Bush bozos spent six months filling the board with arrogant, taunting, MISinformation in order to justify their illegal war. We were right, you guys were wrong. And you'd better believe you're gonna hear about it until these guys are out of office.

 

Just thought I'd point out to you, MacRambler, that I don't read your posts unless they are formatted and written in an aesthetically-pleasing and concise manner. Your sloppiness will not be tolerated (and for God's sake, learn how to spell). Additionally, I felt as though your response to my post was not sufficient to justify an answer. I feel no obligation to reply to your insults all day long. There is a natural stopping point, and that point comes when you fail to produce an acceptable response. Do you expect me to respond to every question you ask? Ridiculous.

 

Lol...Notice the "own' comment; clearly T_J is still smarting from the time where a neutral poster said that I 'owned' T_J in debate...The irony that he needs to try and reverse that himself weeks later while claiming that I'm the obsessed one is really funny. The fact is that, while I'd like to take credit for out-debating T_J, I think that it says much less about me than it does him. Everyone out debates T_J, and he always reverts to the same crap. He is rapidly taking heath's position as the arch-conservative White House spokesperson joke of this forum. Debating with him isn't even fun, it's just that he's so ridiculous that if you just let it lay, he'll claim for weeks that that means he's 'won'...

 

You are a complete joke.


In your post you called me "the king of assembing the most disjointed set of logic ever conceived." and said that I am "very rarely stay on topic, instead choosing to divert attention to some unrelated tangent or slip in partisan jabs at the Bush Administration."


To which I responded that your logic was extremely lacking, in that I am in no way partisan. Fact.

T_J, wrong again.


Then you said that I was claiming that Bush was responsible for 9-11...and criticized me for it. This despite the fact that I had said the opposite, that Bush cannot be blamed, several times in this thread alone...wrong again.

Then you said that there was no connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq from the pro-war's argument. I asked if you stood by that position.



Now you are saying that, like with the 7 questions, you aren't answering my posts which prove you wrong because they aren't "aesthetically-pleasing " enough for you? Are you guys reading this? I have rarely seen a more blatant example of cowardly rationalization. You make clearly false statements...again...and are called on it, and rather than be a man and own up, you crawl behind aesthetics, while lobbing out insults regarding my typing..oh, and btw, T_J, I have admitted that I cannot type, but there is nothing wrong with my spelling. For you to hide behind that to duck the 7 questions, or to not acknowledge your false statemtns in this thread is, well, you in a nutshell.

BTW, what is aesthetically unpleasant, or poorly formatted about the 7 questions? Not that that's why you're ducking it, or this thread...everyone reading, T_J, even those who agree with you on the war can see through that flimsy BS...but just to hear you dig deeper.

 

MacBeth, you can *not* in good faith say that you are not partisan. Simply repeating this does not prove it true. 99% of your posts are pro-liberal. You can not wash this away by simply saying "I am not partisan". FACT

By implication, on page one, you essentially said that Ashcroft/Ridge should not receive credit for this victory if they do not accept part of the blame for 9-11. Here is your quote:

Why is it that we will say that things like 9-11 are completely out of the hands of the administration; ( a sentiment which I have consistently supported, and have never blamed Bush for 9-11 in any way) but that when the reverse happens and the Feds do their job we give them the credit. I agree that if you are among those who said 9-11 was Bush's responsibility you'd have to give him a nod on this one, but why is it that people who argued the reverse now say Ashcroft etc. should get the credit but never the blame?

Seeing as how there has *not* been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, what event were you referring to when you speak about "blame"? EXPOSED. You can dance around the wording all day long, but this is absolutely what you meant. There is not a doubt in my mind.

Now learn how to spell like I asked you. It is cowardly to blame it on your typing skills. You repeatedly misspell the word "delusional" and "ignorant". It is not because the keys are next to each other and you made an honest mistake, it is because you are lazy and do not proofread. Either that or you actually do not know how to spell the words. You pick. I'm sorry if I'm not tempted to read a 3 page, rambling, one paragraph, error filled post from you. Your 7 questions thread is being touted by you as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I read it. It bored me. Next.

 

This thread has been designated an instant classic.

Hatred (TJ) and Venom (bigtex) vs the World - Episode 234,405

 

I've found it easier to think of him as Trader_Texxx.

 

RM you're just a liberal spinmeister, what do you know?

 

...and I find it easier to think of you as "Blaker23" from Match.com. Oops, you walked right into that one.

 

1) MacBeth, you can *not* in good faith say that you are not partisan. Simply repeating this does not prove it true. 99% of your posts are pro-liberal. You can not wash this away by simply saying "I am not partisan". FACT


Once again..supported Bush in election...supported Bush's father...supported 1st Gulf War...supported Reagan....I did not merely say it, T_J, I suported it with fact. Of the last 6 Presidential elections I have supported the Republican candidate all but once. The man I would most liek to lead the country is, or at least has been for years, Colin Powell. I am anti-abortion, anti-affirmitive action, and yet you can look at all of that and conclude that I am clearly partisan for the Democrats because I fall left of you on the scale? Speaks for itself.


2) "By implication, on page one, you essentially said that Ashcroft/Ridge should not receive credit for this victory if they do not accept part of the blame for 9-11. Here is your quote:

Why is it that we will say that things like 9-11 are completely out of the hands of the administration; ( a sentiment which I have consistently supported, and have never blamed Bush for 9-11 in any way) but that when the reverse happens and the Feds do their job we give them the credit. I agree that if you are among those who said 9-11 was Bush's responsibility you'd have to give him a nod on this one, but why is it that people who argued the reverse now say Ashcroft etc. should get the credit but never the blame?

Seeing as how there has *not* been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, what event were you referring to when you speak about "blame"? EXPOSED. You can dance around the wording all day long, but this is absolutely what you meant. There is not a doubt in my mind."

Never mind what's in your mind, that's a whole other story, but if you again defy the facts, in this case that I said repeatedly that I do not hold Bush responsible for 9-11, and to read from that the fact that I am saying that Bush was responsible also speaks for itself; any other person would get that I was saying that neither the blame for 9-11 nor this action are withion their area of responsibility, as there are many layers of personel in between, and there is no way of getting through them all to ascribe blame or praise to the higher ups.

3) "Now learn how to spell like I asked you. It is cowardly to blame it on your typing skills. You repeatedly misspell the word "delusional" and "ignorant". It is not because the keys are next to each other and you made an honest mistake, it is because you are lazy and do not proofread. Either that or you actually do not know how to spell the words. You pick. I'm sorry if I'm not tempted to read a 3 page, rambling, one paragraph, error filled post from you. Your 7 questions thread is being touted by you as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I read it. It bored me. Next."


As I cannot type, I am looking at the keys when I hunt and peck out my message, and you are right, I do not always proof read. That said, your argument is flimsy...Why does it only prevent you from responding to some posts, especially the ones where you have been proven wrong, or are being asked questions you cannot answer? I have never claimed my 7 questions is anything great at all,merely that it was posed in such a manner that it would invite response rather than dictating one side of the argument. You first that you wouldn't respond because you wouldn't read it due to it not being pretty enough in your estimation. Now you admit to having read it but claim boredom. Again, T_J, you are exposing yourself.