Walken 2008

[Calax]

What happened to the war powers act?

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Let me ask you a question.  Can you read?  Do you have reading comprehension skills?  Can you tell the difference between subjective opinions and objective facts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have the nerve to get pious about sources, then link to Fox News and Blogs for Bush? I'm at work right now, don't have the time to start Googling. I'm torn though. You threw a lot of text and quotes at me, so apparently I've been "pwned", so I should defend myself? On the other hand, you've shown yourself to be a complete and utter ass with the above quote. So defend myself and my viewpoint, or finish this conversation with a complete and utter ass now and have it look like you won? I've been doing this online argument thing long enough to walk away and not care what a complete and utter ass thinks of it.

[Cantousent]

Okay, here're some quick rules of thumb to prevent this thread from being locked:

 

Don't question another members ability to read. Clearly, everyone who participates on this forum can read. You might question someone's comprehension of a particular written idea, but don't get smart or cute about using the rule as a loophole for turning ugly. Caliming someone can't read has always seemed particularly silly since, if you didn't believe in her ability to read, you would not have written the question to her in the first place. It's not a logical argument. It's a personal one.

 

Don't call charge other members with lying. There must be clear, irrefutable proof that a member is lying. Pretend this is Congress, you're likely to be censured for going around calling each other liars.

 

Don't "call out" another member. For example, don't say something like, "if you have the guts to say something, I'll smack you down." I will very likely issue a warning for someone making what I discern as a threat to another member. On the other hand, saying, "the facts don't support your claim and it's totally baseless" is not. Notice that one entails a threat to another member, while the other does not. If someone suggests that this rule relies heavily on my subjective analysis, they'd be right. I'm not looking for ways to issue warnings. I'm really not. If I were, I'd have warned a lot of the folks around here already. I have issued no formal warning. So, when I tell you it's a warnable offense to threaten others, it's not a threat. It's a fact.

 

Finally, be civil. You can engage in heated discussion, but I don't want any real ugliness. I've gernerated some heat and even a flame or two. A little is okay. On the other hand, I'd rather not see a gaping crater where the thread used to be. This board is not here to provide an arena for members to carry out vendettas against each other.

 

I'm writing this post in the hopes that we can keep the thread open and continue what I believe is a good discussion about the politics of the day. Unfortunately, no one seems to care about Walken running for president. On the other hand, it appears Walken isn't running, so the discussion of politics as a whole seems apt. Democracies thrive on lively debate. Please, continue to debate.

 

I will be re-reading this thread in order to sort out the political discussion from thinly veiled personal attacks. Should I see something that requires further comment, I'll edit this post. Shouldn't take long.

[Laozi]

^^^^^

 

 

You're lying, and I'd smack you down, that is if you could read

[Musopticon?]

Yeah. You show him, Laozi

[Cantousent]

I saw it coming a mile away, doofus. :D

[Laozi]

[Child of Flame]

^^^^^

 

 

You're lying, and I'd smack you down, that is if you could read

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, you're lying, and I'd smack you down, that is if I thought you could even read this post.

 

 

I saw it coming a mile away, doofus.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, at least you would've if you could read.

[SteveThaiBinh]

As I don't live in the US, I haven't been able to follow all the ins and outs of the debate over whether Bush lied about the war in Iraq. The case of Tony Blair may be similar, I don't know.

 

Blair has been accused of lying, by the leader of the main opposition party and during the recent general election campaign. The essence of the accusation is this: Blair received a report from the intelligence services that said the evidence on WMDs in Iraq was 'sporadic and patchy', but he then told Parliament that the evidence was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. The lie was in claiming certainty when the evidence was mixed and uncertain.

 

Is Bush guilty of the same lie?

[Laozi]

Ya, pretty much. The most "damning" piece of evidence that the U.S. was able to manufacture was a couple of satellite photos of some 18wheelers, that could have been chem. weapons labs, or Little Debbie snack cakes waiting to be delivered. I don't think the word "lie" was used, but I believe Kerry said that the facts where misrepresented to the american people, and other diplomatic terms

 

 

As an American, I'm severly embarrased by this whole thing. We should leave world policing up to the Justice League for now on.

[metadigital]

For all discerning Southern Gentlemen: Ender's Outfitters

[Cantousent]

I really don't care about calling Bair or Bush a liar, as they're not members.* I think it's a reactionary sort of charge. Even if you're convinced the guy lied, it's probably better to approach the argument from a different angle anyhow.

 

* Some doofus will undoubtedly create a Blair or Bush account. :Eldar's shaking his head with a resigned chuckle icon:

[metadigital]

Now that's a doofus!

[EnderAndrew]

Stating unequivocably repeatedly that Bush claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 is lying. Stating that Bush lied to create the situation is lying. Stating that there weren't any WMD is lying.

 

I posted the first three links that Google turned up, and then I turned around and posted 3 from CNN so there would be an objective news source.

 

Vixen only posted commentary from partisan sites, who contradicted each other, intentionally misled, and twisted facts. If she is up in arms about lying, then perhaps she shouldn't be getting news from opinion sites that practice it so much.

[George W. Bush]

How many thousands have died as a result of Kerry's lies?

 

And how much integrity does it take to support a candidate whose team slandered you viciously and dragged you through the mud, like McCain did when he supported Team Rove?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Girl

I can't understand it why you want to hurt me

After all the things I've done for you.

I buy you champagne and roses and diamonds on your finger -

Diamonds on your finger -

Still you hang out all night

what am I to do?

 

My girl wants to party all the time

 

Party all the time

party all the time.

My girl wants to party all the time

party all the time.

 

She parties all the time - party all the time

 

She likes to party all the time - party all the time

 

party all the time - she likes to party all the time

 

party all the time.

 

Girl

I've seen you in clubs just hanging out and dancing.

You give your number to every man you see.

You never come home at night because you're out romancing.

I wish you bring some of your love home to me.

 

But my girl wants to party all the time

. . .

My girl wants to party all the time

. . .

 

Party

party

party she likes to party all the time.

She likes to party all the time -

She lets her hair down

she lets her body down:

She lets her body

she lets her body down.

Party all the time - do you wanna get any party

yeah.

Party all the time - party all the time.

 

Ah, so much fun, and so the carnage shall be taking me, and I have a hope it will, for I wish to not look like a fool upon this message board...

[Laozi]

It would have been much better if you had used that song:

 

 

All I want Bang Bang Bang

[Cantousent]

Yeah, 'cause then this thread could have gone out with a bang.