Guantanamo detainees say they planned Sept. 11

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Blah,blah,blah..usual holier than though hypocritical BS.

:roll:

Yes, how dare I call out THOSE hypocrites. Only neocon/right-wing hypocrites are permitted to be identified in this forum. All others get a free pass.

:roll:

christ man, are you a cartoon character? Winnar's troll post was moronic and deserving of ridicule not because it advocated for harsher treatment of detainees, but because it did so in the manner of an angry 12 year old.

Funny. I don't recall you chiding all the 12 year old forum members making moronic remarks about the Bush admin.

What suddenly spurned you to speak up?

:roll:

Yeah, because you share your criticism of hypocrisy between liberals and conservatives equally too, right? :roll:

I'm chiding both sides in this thread, in case you haven't been paying attention, and clearly you haven't.

And clearly you can't read - you have a history on this forum, don't you? I'm pretty sure it isn't the first time you've posted in P&N

Yes, I do have a history. I have a history of defending Bush and a history of defending Obama, though the Obama history is far less fleshed out since he hasn't been in office very long.

You were saying?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Blah,blah,blah..usual holier than though hypocritical BS.

:roll:

Yes, how dare I call out THOSE hypocrites. Only neocon/right-wing hypocrites are permitted to be identified in this forum. All others get a free pass.

:roll:

christ man, are you a cartoon character? Winnar's troll post was moronic and deserving of ridicule not because it advocated for harsher treatment of detainees, but because it did so in the manner of an angry 12 year old.

Funny. I don't recall you chiding all the 12 year old forum members making moronic remarks about the Bush admin.

What suddenly spurned you to speak up?

:roll:

I've learned two things today. First of all apparently not commenting on something is equal to condoning it. (!?!??!) So apparently in order to call Winnar a moron when he acts like one I can only do it as part of some larger scale anti-stupidity campaign. If I were just to call out people for being stupid when I felt like it, that would be hypocritical. (assuming someone didn't know the definition of hypocrisy)

I sure thought you were a part of some larger scale anti-stupidity campaign and had specifically focused on a large scale moron, me. I don't understand why Chicken didn't see it that way.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
All your frothing at the mouth can't possibly be healthy. Try not to choke on your own hatred of people who disagree with you.

So Islamic extremists, like those who attacked us on September 11th are just people who disagree with us? No wonder you're allied with them to set them free.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Blah,blah,blah..usual holier than though hypocritical BS.

:roll:

Yes, how dare I call out THOSE hypocrites. Only neocon/right-wing hypocrites are permitted to be identified in this forum. All others get a free pass.

:roll:

christ man, are you a cartoon character? Winnar's troll post was moronic and deserving of ridicule not because it advocated for harsher treatment of detainees, but because it did so in the manner of an angry 12 year old.

Funny. I don't recall you chiding all the 12 year old forum members making moronic remarks about the Bush admin.

What suddenly spurned you to speak up?

:roll:

I've learned two things today. First of all apparently not commenting on something is equal to condoning it. (!?!??!) So apparently in order to call Winnar a moron when he acts like one I can only do it as part of some larger scale anti-stupidity campaign. If I were just to call out people for being stupid when I felt like it, that would be hypocritical. (assuming someone didn't know the definition of hypocrisy)

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Blah,blah,blah..usual holier than though hypocritical BS.

:roll:

Yes, how dare I call out THOSE hypocrites. Only neocon/right-wing hypocrites are permitted to be identified in this forum. All others get a free pass.

:roll:

christ man, are you a cartoon character? Winnar's troll post was moronic and deserving of ridicule not because it advocated for harsher treatment of detainees, but because it did so in the manner of an angry 12 year old.

Funny. I don't recall you chiding all the 12 year old forum members making moronic remarks about the Bush admin.

What suddenly spurned you to speak up?

:roll:

I've learned two things today. First of all apparently not commenting on something is equal to condoning it. (!?!??!) So apparently in order to call Winnar a moron when he acts like one I can only do it as part of some larger scale anti-stupidity campaign. If I were just to call out people for being stupid when I felt like it, that would be hypocritical. (assuming someone didn't know the definition of hypocrisy)

I sure thought you were a part of some larger scale anti-stupidity campaign and had specifically focused on a large scale moron, me. I don't understand why Chicken didn't see it that way.

You hate yourself too much to understand me, Moonie.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Carmen813
All your frothing at the mouth can't possibly be healthy. Try not to choke on your own hatred of people who disagree with you.

So Islamic extremists, like those who attacked us on September 11th are just people who disagree with us? No wonder you're allied with them to set them free.

Pretty sure he was referring to the Obama administration there, big guy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

No but I guess we are going to have to bare through another one unfortunately.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

Where did I say you had to ridicule "everyone?" Talk about moon logic. I said you don't apply it fairly across the board.

And let's stop the pretense and dancing about. It's very clear why you focus on winnar and nearly every other poster in this forum who you preceive not to be on 'your side' of the issues, while giving the morons who are on your side a free pass. Just admit you're a partisan tool and move on, K?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SmellsLikeBullshit

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

Where did I say you had to ridicule "everyone?" Talk about moon logic. I said you don't apply it fairly across the board.

And let's stop the pretense and dancing about. It's very clear why you focus on winnar and nearly every other poster in this forum who you preceive not to be on 'your side' of the issues, while giving the morons who are on your side a free pass. Just admit you're a partisan tool and move on, K?

Winnar is the biggest partisan tool on the board ....arguably..

He NEVER shows an ability to think beyond his ignorant biases.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

:roll:

What a lame attempt to wriggle away. You claimed you commented because winnar was "deserving of ridicule." If being "deserving" is the qualifying factor you sure don't seem to apply that qualification very fairly across the board.

What moon logic are you using where I have to ridicule every person who is deserving of it? Not only that, but I didn't say that I commented because it was deserving of ridicule, merely that it was. As usual I am forced to remind you to argue based on what I actually said, as opposed to what you wish I had said.

You're defending the indefensible just to be contrary. Do we really need another few pages of desperate TLC flailing followed by your patented descent into pedantry? Do we need another TLC dogpile?

Where did I say you had to ridicule "everyone?" Talk about moon logic. I said you don't apply it fairly across the board.

And let's stop the pretense and dancing about. It's very clear why you focus on winnar and nearly every other poster in this forum who you preceive not to be on 'your side' of the issues, while giving the morons who are on your side a free pass. Just admit you're a partisan tool and move on, K?

Winnar is the biggest partisan tool on the board ....arguably..

He NEVER shows an ability to think beyond his ignorant biases.

Hmmm. I could toss a few more names out there that are right up there with him, and possibly even surpass him. After all, he's relatively new here. There are some old-timers around here that make winnar look like the rhetoric rookie that he is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I hit my friend in the head because he lit a cigarette and he got all pissed off. Some people don't understand the art of constructive criticism.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where did I say you had to ridicule "everyone?" Talk about moon logic. I said you don't apply it fairly across the board.

And let's stop the pretense and dancing about. It's very clear why you focus on winnar and nearly every other poster in this forum who you preceive not to be on 'your side' of the issues, while giving the morons who are on your side a free pass. Just admit you're a partisan tool and move on, K?

Why would I need to ridicule 'fairly' across the board? I didn't know that pointing out reality was a partisan affair, but then again to you everything is partisanship. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, amirite?

Shockingly enough I base if I'm going to reply to a thread by my general level of interest in the topic and the discussion, and if someone has said something that irritates me. Amazingly, and surely to be of interest to social scientists, people who say stupid things about Presidents that I approve of are more likely to irritate me than people who say stupid things about Presidents of whom I disapprove. If you are looking deeply inside yourself, you will probably notice that this is why you would not rush to my defense if someone said something dumb about me.

When I feed this information into the high powered Bat-Computer mainframe that's running Andy's Patented Algorithm for responding to threads, it spits out the following:

People saying dumb things about President Obama will make me more likely to respond than dumb things about President Bush. Because people who say dumb things about Obama are overwhelmingly conservative, I will overwhelmingly ridicule conservatives for saying dumb things. Similarly, people saying dumb things about the "I love New York" series of dating shows on VH1 will be more likely to provoke a response from me (as they are my shameful TV addiction) than would someone saying something stupid about "Deal or No Deal", which is a stain on humanity. Also, what is love? 100111110010111.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hmmm. I could toss a few more names out there that are right up there with him, and possibly even surpass him. After all, he's relatively new here. There are some old-timers around here that make winnar look like the rhetoric rookie that he is.

You for instance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where did I say you had to ridicule "everyone?" Talk about moon logic. I said you don't apply it fairly across the board.

And let's stop the pretense and dancing about. It's very clear why you focus on winnar and nearly every other poster in this forum who you preceive not to be on 'your side' of the issues, while giving the morons who are on your side a free pass. Just admit you're a partisan tool and move on, K?

Why would I need to ridicule 'fairly' across the board? I didn't know that pointing out reality was a partisan affair, but then again to you everything is partisanship. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, amirite?

Shockingly enough I base if I'm going to reply to a thread by my general level of interest in the topic and the discussion, and if someone has said something that irritates me. Amazingly, and surely to be of interest to social scientists, people who say stupid things about Presidents that I approve of are more likely to irritate me than people who say stupid things about Presidents of whom I disapprove. If you are looking deeply inside yourself, you will probably notice that this is why you would not rush to my defense if someone said something dumb about me.

When I feed this information into the high powered Bat-Computer mainframe that's running Andy's Patented Algorithm for responding to threads, it spits out the following:

People saying dumb things about President Obama will make me more likely to respond than dumb things about President Bush. Because people who say dumb things about Obama are overwhelmingly conservative, I will overwhelmingly ridicule conservatives for saying dumb things. Similarly, people saying dumb things about the "I love New York" series of dating shows on VH1 will be more likely to provoke a response from me (as they are my shameful TV addiction) than would someone saying something stupid about "Deal or No Deal", which is a stain on humanity. Also, what is love? 100111110010111.

Oh my. I came to an entirely different opinion. I have concluded that Chicken likes to pick on the really really cool people, sometimes you, and definitely, me.

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
We are Americans. We believe people have rights, even asshole piece of shit accused terrorists. We believe EVERYBODY deserves a fair trial. We don't condone torture because it is inhumane and unconstitutional. Holding people indefinitely at Guantanamo and torturing them is illegal, and therefore, we need to stop. Put them through the system. If the system is broke, then we need to focus on fixing the system rather than trying to work around the system. The reputation of the USA has been grossly tarnished my the policies of GW Bush & Co, but now that that worthless moron is out of the office we can rebuild it.

We shoulda outsourced the torture to China :evil:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hmmm. I could toss a few more names out there that are right up there with him, and possibly even surpass him. After all, he's relatively new here. There are some old-timers around here that make winnar look like the rhetoric rookie that he is.

You for instance.

No, more like jpeyton, Lemon Law, DealMonkey, ericlp, and a host of others. But like eskimospy, you are too blindered to your own side to recognize them as the partisan tools they are. But possibly you've sniffed their shit for so long you don't even smell the foul odor any longer?