1. One more in a long line of bogus stories about an Al Qaeda-Iraq connect is posted 2. Jorge demands that I and other posters defend ourselves against the bogus story. 3. We do. 4. The story is proven bogus. 5. GOP says oops. Again. 6. Jorge goes poof. Again. Declares victory. 7. Faos, having also gone poof after his story was proven bogus, says Jorge wins again. 8. Batman laughs up a lung. Indeed.
^ ^ ^ You see, this is the garbage that I'm talking about. I went Walken on you. I went BONE SAW on you. I won the argument. You simply won't let it go after your loss. Sometimes you've got to know when to fold 'em, son. I'm already on to my next conquest, meanwhile you linger here and accuse people of poofing.
Huh? I just can't uderstand your system of logic. 1. _Jorge makes homoerotic jokes. Declares victory in "argument," as per formula. 2. Faos supports the victory claim. 3. B-Bob points out that _Jorge posted a homoerotic joke, not argumentation. 4. Faos calls B-Bob an elitist and then asks permission to make reference to Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. Can anyone 'splain this to me? Faos, it is always okay for you to mention Clinton's pants being removed -- many people have obsessed over it for many years, especially Ken Starr, so let your mind go with it. From what I can tell, you and the other Clinton Haters replay an imaginary scene over and over, where his pants are removed in slow motion, perhaps in romantic black-and-white. But I only ask that you not mistake silly jokes about pants with any sort of real argument. I think that makes me sensible, not elitist. Here's what I think would actually make me elitist: "I am better than you because I have memorized the words to MR_ROBOTO and you have to look them up." While that is probably true, it would still be an elitist statement. Also, see the collected speeches of Dr. Gori for good examples of elitism.
IT was proven. The fact that the guy who met with al-qaeda has different name than the person in Saddam's Fedayeen, and that intel officials already looked at it, and said that it wasn't the same person, is about as clear of proof as it gets.
It's not a system, trust me. I have a headache and have been sick all week. You'll have to excuse me. But TJ still bone sawed you (whatever that means).
Sorry you're feeling sick, Faos. Headaches are the absolute worst. Hope you don't have migraines. But please. T_J claimed to bone-saw Batman, not me. When he steps to me, _Jorge uses terms of great reverence and submissive sexual inuendo, like "Sizzlechest."
B-Bob, I take it you're not an SNL fan because you totally missed that post and it's reference to the greatest SNL skit ever. Bruce Dickinson: I'll be honest.. fellas, it was sounding great. But.. I could've used a little more cowbell. So.. let's take it again.. and, Gene....Really explore the studio space this time. I mean, really.. explore the space. I like what I'm hearing!
Which one is Walken? Anyway, mea culpa: looks like the post was actually a homoerotic use of a reference to a TV comedy skit. But I'll take your word on it being funny... the TV comedy skit, that is.
It doesn't mean anything. Once upon a time Jorge actually tried to win arguments. It's been a while. Now you just blow on him and he falls over. And then claims victory. It's like Troy Barros showing up to say, see, I told you Steve wouldn't play with Yao. It's impossible to understand what he means by declaring victory over that last embarassing disappearing act. Both of you guys made a bogus claim, challenged us to defend ourselves, you were proven (yes, proven, absolutely) wrong and you both totally disappeared from the thread. How Jorge claims victory out of that (and how you support his claim) is beyond bizarre.
This, however, might bear a little on the current situation... "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring" -- Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
i just realized, according to Godwin's Law Gore pretty much lost his arguement as soon as he made the brownshirt allusion.
"They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever." Al Gore - June 24, 2004 “Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table." - Al Gore, Remarks To The U.S. Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February 12, 2002.
I think that Saddam, were he to be freed, would represent a threat to his fellow Iraqis. I believe a final reckoning is on the table for him, as it should be. Doesn't mean I'm gonna advocate sending in a S.W.A.T. team to bust into his jail cell, kill any guards who get in the way, and once there excecute him because of the threat he represents to us. He was nullified.
has gore been watching SNL? courtesy of opinionjournal: From a "Saturday Night Live" sketch that aired Dec._13, 2003, in which Darrell Hammond played Al Gore and Jeff Richards played Howard Dean: Hammond: As Paul Krugman has pointed out in the New York Times, George W. Bush is not only the worst president in American history; he is the worst leader of any nation on Earth going back more than 500 years. Richards: Really? I mean, I'm no fan of President Bush, but what about Hitler? Hammond: No. 3. From a June_24, 2004, speech in which Al Gore played Al Gore: Gore: The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President ._._. you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation."
He can't. He'll just talk about the use of the word brownshirts. I don't actually get the significance, but I'm guessing it's a Nazi reference. Out of the entire long, damning speech these guys can only take issue with Gore's volume and a single word that Cheney's party found indelicate.
