Either way, Bush is a fraud

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
It is typical of those who cannot contribute in a debate any reasonable arguments, to attack the messenger. Nothing that has been offered by Michael or Corn is directed to the issue raised in phillyTims post. It is a personal attack, totally unwarrented. Michael is not the copyright cop at Anandtech and he should be banned for posing as one. He has deliberatly crapped in the thread pointing only to the issue that He thinks makes him look superior. Corn, on the other hand, does make arguments that resemble a debate on the thread topic,but as you read them, they are nothing more than personal attacks.

If anything, perhaps that is in violation of forum rules, but a mod would make that determination, not I.

This happens time and again when Bush supporters cannot defend Bush on the merits. It is laughable and pathetic, as well as inmature.

Just my humble opinion. Carry on.

OK, fine. However, if it indeed seems that the so-called "Bush supporters" are the ones employing the personal attacks, then what about the following statement?

f#ck you , you proven bushevik

posted by the originator of this thread, in this thread, for one reason or another. And how might this even remotely relate to the topic? Furthermore, what kind of defense does such rhetoric imply other than an insult related to one of the most crude and unsophisticated contexts within American English?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: drewshin
it's fine michael = troll, thread crapper
he's added absolutely nothing to this thread.


bush is a proven liar, we do have proof that he lied. he was given information many times before the SOTU that the evidence was flaky and probably not reliable, but he made a choice to include it anyway.

And it has been pointed out many times that his statement has been proven to be true. If you want to continue twisting his statement into a lie then go ahead - intelligent people know what he said was 100% true.

CkG

I'm sorry but I cannot let this stand, you went over the top here "proven to be true" then you bring in this straw man "intelligent people" that know it was 100% true, but you also say that we don't have the intel to know it is true. How do you support both of these claims? your arguments are based on a hosue of cards, pull the right one and down they fall. If our Administration has no faith in the CIA why are they not doing any house cleaning? Hmmm? If they do have faith, then why don't they listen to their advice?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaiShan

The entire justification for the war does not and has never been the one supposed attempt to purchase uranium in Africa. The WMD argument was strong and there is no doubt that Iraq harboured terrorists and was active in supporting them. The risk was properly stated and it was a risk that most countries in the UN agreed to.

I don't really want to go point by point as it would take forever, however this statement really does not sit well with me. The primary justification for the war was WMD, what is it now that it is apparent we will never find any WMD in Iraq? Liberation of the Iraqi people. How convenient.

This truly isn't difficult to grasp. Try really hard and you'll see.

Saddam had wmd. He admitted it. He used them. He lost a war of conquest. The UN demanded he submit proof of how he disposed of the wmd he had. He didn't. He didn't. He still didn't. As a responsible nation, we had to assume that he still had them and acted accordingly.

But this thread isn't about the wmd...it's about lying and I'm not going to keep trying toe ducate you on the war since you, as we've seen, believe pretty much whatever you want to.

Well thanks for the attempt, yes it is true I do believe what I want to, however I support my beliefs with factual evidence, and when I debate I keep it on topic and within the scope of the debate, widening my scope beyond that of the debate is time consuming and pointless as they must be dismissed as valid contentions unless they are within the scope.

 

[mosco]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Republicans should hold Bush to no less a standard for impeachment than what they held Clinton to. Clinton lied to the people and congress about a BJ he got from a frumpy hag intern. Bush lied about elements of a threat to US soil knowingly and specifically meant to deceive. The cost of this lie outweighs that of Clintons lie by a million fold.

But Bush supporters are blinded to that. They will vilify anyone who challenges this President and declare those who do as anti American. That is so far from the truth. An American has the right to petition the government for redress when that citizen has been wronged. Those who call for an investigation do so because they love their country, and when something goes wrong, such as this, they want-- no --they are obligated to fix it.

So when Bush supporters attack you for wanting accountability, ignore them. They are obviously too small minded to think coherently, because any rational person would want the truth, not the spin.

You don't see a difference here between a blatant bald-faced lie and the addition of a line of information genuinly thought to be true? Of course not.

but the thing is, Its more than on line of a speech. Its gone "They have weapons and they are a threat" to "Well they have a history or weapons programs" to the current "We were trying to free the Iraqi people". The president blaims the CIA, but i read something recently that the white house was notified that the info was false at one point, not to mention the fact that the UN had declared the information a forgery at one point. What about all the evidence that powell presented to the UN? Many of the weapons inspectors have came out and said that all the evidence was false and had no back bone. Have they given us any concrete evidence? North Korea admits they have weapons, and i am pretty sure living there is not cake for the people either.

You guys forget that there was lots of evidence given before the state of the union that was extremely exaggerated. I read a report that said something like 20 percent of Americans thought that we had concrete evidence Iraq had a direct part in 9/11 and thats why were attacking them. I am trying to figure where 20 percent of Americans got such an idea. Could this have been one of the reasons why people voted for republicans?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Michael
Tripleshot - It is not surprising to me that you also failed to read my post where I listed out my views and my opinion on the timeline. I'm perfectly free to comment on my views on copyright and will do so when I feel like it.

I would argue that I'm also correct in posting on the credibility of other posters. I will continue to do so when I decide to. You have no say on me being banned and I find it funny that someone who has been banned multiple times for threatening physical violence to other forum users would dare todiscuss other poster's behaviour. Me? I've had exactly one thread locked and that was when I posted a thread saying that banning the word gay was a dumb decision.

Michael

This response just shows how petty and inmature you really are. Quite pathetic. You seem very insecure. There are doctors that may be able to help you. You haven't the right to defame anyone. You haven't the right to post on the credibility of others because it is only your opinion. You have no credintials that would show you are qualified to judge anyones credibility.

All you did by posting this reply direct to me was show all the readers how small you really are. But that is to be expected from someone who plays with wooden swords.
IMHO.

 

[phillyTIM]

Tripleshot I appreciate you stepping into the situation, but with these kinds of people, it's best just to say your peace and ignore their retorts. You cannot conduct a rational discussion with someone irrational...it will just go on forever. Michael obviously has a bad reputation around here, and he just proves it by his little show here.

Let's just continue on with the thread-related matter.

 

[Michael]

Tripleshot - I think posting opinions is the reason for this forum?

Are you denying that you were banned multiple times? Are you denying that it was for threatening other members? Am I inaccurate?

Are you denying that you posted I should be banned?

You jumped into the thread and posted that I should be banned and attempted to belittle my contribution to the thread. I simply pointed out the facts about your past that other, newer members may not have known. I also pointed out that I made a long post where only a couple of sentences were on the Fair Use issue and the rest was directly on the topic of the thread. Am I wrong here as well?

Michael

ps - phillyTIM - and my "bad reputation" comes from what? I'm not aware of even having a reputation of any significance.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Michael
Tripleshot - I think posting opinions is the reason for this forum?

Are you denying that you were banned multiple times? Are you denying that it was for threatening other members? Am I inaccurate?

Are you denying that you posted I should be banned?

You jumped into the thread and posted that I should be banned and attempted to belittle my contribution to the thread. I simply pointed out the facts about your past that other, newer members may not have known. I also pointed out that I made a long post where only a couple of sentences were on the Fair Use issue and the rest was directly on the topic of the thread. Am I wrong here as well?

Michael

No, your just small minded and petty. What did you gain in telling members here about any banning of me or its reasons? What does that have to do with anything?

That is why you look so pathetic and insecure. In your small mind, you can only see yourself gaining credibilty at the expense of someone else, not on the merits of your own abilities.

Too bad, Micheal. You really have a problem. No one likes you anymore.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Michael

lozina -

If you don't see the fact that Congress approved the use of force before the state of the union address and that the WMD argument was that he has them and is a threat to use them against us in the future (probably via terrorists), then you lack the critical reasoning facilities to make arguing with you worthwhile.

I'm tired of the leaps in logic and the distortion of the timeline of what happened:

Michael

Yes, of course Congress approved it when they too were presented the same lies the State of the Union address contained. Where is the evidence Iraq has WMDs? Everything presented was debunked! We can't base the argument on what we gave them 12 years ago and assume they still have them. Iraq posed a threat to us? How so? Do we have cities in the range of his primitive missiles (the ones that couldn't even hit anything in Kuwait?) Does Iraq have an invasion force hiding out in the Atlantic waiting to pummel us with their 1950's soviet tanks? What threat did they pose to us? And do you ignore the reports that Iraq has no ties with Al Qaeda? Are there ANY terroristy activites against us which were proven to be tied to Iraq, or is your entire argument for the war based on assumptions and believing everything the Bush Administration tells you (which now has a bad reputation)?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Michael
11. Before the attack happened, the US tried one more run through the UN. It was in this time period that the State of the Union speech was given. This is not a speech given under oath and it is and always has been a political event. This speech had a statement about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa. One intelligence point supporting this was shown to be weak.

Just sort of passing through this forum now...came across this statement. I'll chalk it up to poor wording on your part, but this makes it sound as though you say it's ok to lie to the public, just so long as you're not under oath.

 

[Michael]

It isn't right to lie at anytime. However, this is a politician we're speaking about. Every State of the Union speech I've ever heard has stretched the truth or had some form of exageration in it. I'm not convinced that the statement on the uranium was a lie, but I remeber thinking he was really pushing the threat angle when I heard the speech. The way it was being presented, I was unsure of why the bombers were not nuking the whole place right away.

Michael

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Michael
It isn't right to lie at anytime. However, this is a politician we're speaking about. Every State of the Union speech I've ever heard has stretched the truth or had some form of exageration in it. I'm not convinced that the statement on the uranium was a lie, but I remeber thinking he was really pushing the threat angle when I heard the speech. The way it was being presented, I was unsure of why the bombers were not nuking the whole place right away.

Michael

Well there you go. It had the very effect they wanted it to at the time, with no loss of support on your part even after the truth has started to come out. What a good little sheep you are. Bah.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
It is typical of those who cannot contribute in a debate any reasonable arguments, to attack the messenger. Nothing that has been offered by Michael or Corn is directed to the issue raised in phillyTims post. It is a personal attack, totally unwarrented. Michael is not the copyright cop at Anandtech and he should be banned for posing as one. He has deliberatly crapped in the thread pointing only to the issue that He thinks makes him look superior. Corn, on the other hand, does make arguments that resemble a debate on the thread topic,but as you read them, they are nothing more than personal attacks.

If anything, perhaps that is in violation of forum rules, but a mod would make that determination, not I.

This happens time and again when Bush supporters cannot defend Bush on the merits. It is laughable and pathetic, as well as inmature.

Just my humble opinion. Carry on.

OK, fine. However, if it indeed seems that the so-called "Bush supporters" are the ones employing the personal attacks, then what about the following statement?

f#ck you , you proven bushevik

posted by the originator of this thread, in this thread, for one reason or another. And how might this even remotely relate to the topic? Furthermore, what kind of defense does such rhetoric imply other than an insult related to one of the most crude and unsophisticated contexts within American English?

Who attacked first?