No, I said- I think that former Klan recruiter Byrd's credibility is blown the minute he uses lies about the economy to batter a very popular President during a very sensitive time. The veracity of his entire speech should be questioned. That is completely different. How can we have any debate in this world if you attribute ideas to me unfairly? I clearly said that Byrd loses credibility because he lies about the economic record. That had nothing to do with the KKK- I just like calling the man Grand Kleagle Byrd. That is between you and Max, since I never said such a thing. No, here is your direct quote- They embrace their base (even the grossest, most hateful, sometimes even most racist elements) and then they go to work on moderates. Which was changed to- I said that the Republican party sometimes embraced the most racist elements of their base, yes. Yes, I am nitpicking here, but you are the one playing semantics. You claimed that the Republicans embrace the most hateful elements of our society. The spirit of your message is undeniable, as is your extreme political stance. And, by the way, I already know you like the label extreme. You said- It's a pretty well accepted fact that Bush used cocaine on several occasions. Certain people who say they were there have alleged it and Bush has refused to answer the question. I don't think he should be obliged to answer it (just like I don't think Clinton should have been questioned about pot or infidelity), but most serious people believe he certainly did use illegal drugs and he definitely drove drunk. That is a lie. There is NOBODY on record saying Bush used cocaine- EVER. You even go on to say that he should have a right to ignore such undignified questions, but then hatefully assume that Bush is a cokehead. That is an illogical and hypocritical stance. No, if parts of an argument are clearly false, then it is fair to question the conclusions of the speaker. I think everybody involved enjoyed this debate except you and Haven, who both resorted to name calling when challenged. I did not call you a troll. I said you were acting more like a troll than me because you were the one who resorted to name calling. Now, you DEMAND my respect because of your post count and time spent on a BBS?? Sorry guy, but you will need to take a civil tone with me before I show you any respect. Respect is earned, not demanded.
p.s. -- i stand by my statement. byrd might be an expert accountant...but he ain't touching my books. the man was a freaking klookie. no thanks. no credibility at all...zero....nada. and if he were a republican, i know i'd be hearing the same from others.
It is even worse that I participated, considering I am not even sure what the label "troll" truly means.
By this time you wrote "he uses lies about the economy", I had definitively told you that assertion was incorrect. In fact, it was you who had mispoke about the start of the recession. I corrected you and you accepted that youe were wrong, but alas your memory failed you by the time you made the above statement. These type of lapses are characteristic of trolls, of which we all know now that you are one.
Ahhh, another person who thinks personal insults are an excuse for debate. My main point was that Byrd blamed Bush for wrecking the economy and exhausting an imaginary surplus. If you will notice, when you corrected me, I did accept the constructive criticism, and admitted my mistake. That is all I am asking of certain people.
