Pickens throws the gaunlet down

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I guess the bright light outside my window debunks the claim the sun is in the sky, then.

When he says a number of ways to get deferments he was not prepared to do, leading to the way to get the deferment he was willing to do, what is he saying?

He's saying he was not willing to do the other ways - which implies he thought of them and did not want to do them, which is 'considering them' and deciding against them.

The point - besides my statements being confirmed by the quote - is that he was looking for ways *not* to go to Vietnam, and picked one after considering several.

The statement was not his being determined to go to Vietnam, and considering the army navy and air force; it was him determined to find a deferment and considering how to do it.

Any evaluation of the ambiguous evidence about his intentions on wanting to go to combat in Viet Nam, or not want to, needs to consider the context his admission gives us.

What I said was right. What you said was wrong. And you did not ever yet answer the questions I asked or address many of the points I made.

I would guess you've been staring into that bright light outside of your window a bit too much.

What you said was incorrect. You claimed Bush considered those methods as a means of not going. Bush specifically stated he was NOT considering those methods as a means of getting a deferment. Your attempt to spin Bush's words into a complete misinterpretation is typical of the BDS crew. What you said was wrong. Get over it and move on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken





"Sheesh, replying to you is like dealing with a 12 year-old."

We aren't talking about your sex life any more, mr collostomy. First, if you read marlin's sig, you'd know exactly why somebody would misunderstand. Second, you can't criticize somebody's reading comprehension when you can't understand simple sentences. Maybe you can point out where you got lost and I'll give you some guidance. It just looks like you're avoiding the issue of your stupidity once again.

And, you shiftless liar, you said, "If you read valerie plame's book you would know karl rove never said blah blah blah"

See? You insist on lying STILL. Now, show some maturity and admit your mistake, move on. Otherwise, people won't believe you.

And for the record, I'd like to know what publishing company you ran. I'd also like some evidence you read Plame's book. I notice you didn't respond to my request for plame's explanation of the niger trip. Don't bother googling, i'll figure it out again. Show you've actually read the book you lying twit.

I also remember you claiming you never heard of politico.com despite referencing it several times previously Maybe you're just senile?

I don't need to prove anything to you, little moron. It's too late for you to salvage all your fumbling and assjackery at this point. You and Craig can't even properly interpret a statement so why the hell do I need to explain anything? You'd just spin it or take it out of context anyway.

Learn how to read properly first and then try debating or else you'll continue to make a fool out of yourself again and again. Try getting the entire story too instead of relying on small snippets and then assuming you know it all.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What you said was incorrect. You claimed Bush considered those methods as a means of not going. Bush specifically stated he was NOT considering those methods as a means of getting a deferment. Your attempt to spin Bush's words into a complete misinterpretation is typical of the BDS crew. What you said was wrong. Get over it and move on.

A simple two part question...

Do you believe that Bush honestly attempted to sign up for duty overseas? (yes or no)

If yes, other than his word, what is the evidence that you believe proves that he attempted to do so? (You are making the assertion...the burden of proof is on you)

Edit: I think that I have pointed this out to you before but you obviously didn't see it or get it...

You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

 

[Craig234]

I'll type this slowly for you.

In discussing whether Bush wanted to volunteer for combat in Vietnam, or he wanted to avoid combat in Vietnam and find a deferment, I provided a quote which *clearly proves* he was wanting to avoid combat in Vietnam and looking for a deferment. You are still denying that obvious fact and claiming that after he went to great lengths to avoid Vietnam, his later claims he was happy to go are credible.

My statement was accurate on what he had considered. When *he says* he was looking for a deferment and was not willing to go to Canada or blow his eardrums out, it proves he had considered (and the consideration resulted in a decision he was not willing to do them) those actions - actions aimed at not serving, rather than serving in Vietnam.

You are just bizarre in your insistence that his statement he had decided he was not willing to do certain methods to get a deferment doesn't show he had considered those methods, showing he was looking for ways out of going to Vietnam.

If Bill Clinton had said he had been unwilling to divorce Hillary because it would have been bad for the nation, would that prove to you he never considered divorcing her?

If Osama bin Laden said he decided that a larger attack on 9/11 was too risky so he limited it to four planes, would that prove to you he had not considered a larger attack?

You are just bizarre. Really bizarre. You seem to think that your nonsensical attacks are a replacement for having any point.

 

[Stoneburner]

So now the blustering, senile old man is hurling invective again because questions are too hard to answer. Let me make this easy for you.

1. Marlin's sig, as you know, was not an accurate quote. But i still take responsibility because I'm not a conservative.
2. You lied about reading plame's book and what plame's book said.
3. I think it was profjohn that was making the references to politico so maybe i'm senile too
4. You won't say what publishing company you supposedly ran.
5. You won't directly state plame's explanation despite having read her book.

And this is just unrelated stuff! Here's what you've said in this thread.

1. Bush wanted to go to vietnam but couldn't find a way!
2. You responded entirely nonsensically and illogically to heybooboo's information and then requested him to retroactively read bush's mind.
3. You have not shown any credible source that says bush did want to go in the first place, or even that he was willing to go.

Let me provide you with more help here. You can't selectively engage in discussions and then fall back on illogical ranting when the facts and arguments start overwhelming you. You have a tendency to lie rather obviously so you should admit your mistakes and move on, as you so eloquently said to craig after I said it to you

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So now the blustering, senile old man is hurling invective again because questions are too hard to answer. Let me make this easy for you.

Aren't you just full of irony?

Stop acting the fool. I don't need to prove anything to you, particularly since you continue to misinterpret, change, and spin my comments. Your dishonest approach and transparent, weak attempts to discredit me and use character assasination as a means of debate is proof that you can't actually rely on the issues. Go garner some debating skills and some comprehension skills as well and come back when you're better armed because right now you are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

Shhhhh!

That was a great source of ironic humor; now he'll probably change it.

On second thought, he probably won't and instead will argue ad nauseum that he Meant to do it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What you said was incorrect. You claimed Bush considered those methods as a means of not going. Bush specifically stated he was NOT considering those methods as a means of getting a deferment. Your attempt to spin Bush's words into a complete misinterpretation is typical of the BDS crew. What you said was wrong. Get over it and move on.

A simple two part question...

Do you believe that Bush honestly attempted to sign up for duty overseas? (yes or no)

If yes, other than his word, what is the evidence that you believe proves that he attempted to do so? (You are making the assertion...the burden of proof is on you)

I really don't know if he "honestly" attempted to sign up to go to Vietnam. In order to divine that we would have to know his mind at the time and neither your nor I can ever really know that information. Nor was my initial claim trying to allude to whether or not Bush had any honest intent, merely that he volunteered for Palace Alert. Supposedly he did and that's all we can truly know about it unless you have a time machine at the ready.

Edit: I think that I have pointed this out to you before but you obviously didn't see it or get it...

You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

Why are you even arguing this? Anyone the least bit familiar with some of the greatest political satirists/humorists of this country, like Rogers and Twain, as well as a little bit of political paty history, would recognize the meaning of the statement.

/Foghorn Leghorn - "It's a joke, son. A JOKE!"

What's stupid is trying to school me on something I already know. Besides that, it was a wry compliment in the usual style of Rogers. He was a life-long Democrat but was truly non-partisan. That's not to mention that Democrats already began adopting their more liberal positions as early as the 1890s. It wasn't exactly a party of free-form beliefs. That's not to mention that you don't seem to be up to historical snuff on the history of the Republican party either as they weren't exactly lockstep in belief either. At least, they were nothing like the lockstep divide that both parties have evolved into in this day and age.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So now the blustering, senile old man is hurling invective again because questions are too hard to answer. Let me make this easy for you.

Aren't you just full of irony?

Stop acting the fool. I don't need to prove anything to you, particularly since you continue to misinterpret, change, and spin my comments. Your dishonest approach and transparent, weak attempts to discredit me and use character assasination as a means of debate is proof that you can't actually rely on the issues. Go garner some debating skills and some comprehension skills as well and come back when you're better armed because right now you are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

Late 80's action movie cliched dialogue bluster! Can we upgrade senility toAlzheimer's? I don't see a debate anywhere here, this thread is largely about you making baseless claims and instead of admitting as much you fall back on the senility defense. You are not convincing anybody except yourself.

You think people notice that you consistent pretend as though you have substantive support for your assertions and then fall back on childish recalcitrance when you are asked for evidence? You think you get away with anything? You think clumsy evasions and a lack of candor are strengths?

Well, then you just might be a bush republican


PS: Looks like sierrita's prediction was correct.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

Shhhhh!

That was a great source of ironic humor; now he'll probably change it.

On second thought, he probably won't and instead will argue ad nauseum that he Meant to do it.

Turns out that the joke is on you.

lol

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

Shhhhh!

That was a great source of ironic humor; now he'll probably change it.

On second thought, he probably won't and instead will argue ad nauseum that he Meant to do it.

Turns out that the joke is on you.

lol

Tell us about that Valerie Plame book again. The one you apparently thought everyone should have read before it was released.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So now the blustering, senile old man is hurling invective again because questions are too hard to answer. Let me make this easy for you.

Aren't you just full of irony?

Stop acting the fool. I don't need to prove anything to you, particularly since you continue to misinterpret, change, and spin my comments. Your dishonest approach and transparent, weak attempts to discredit me and use character assasination as a means of debate is proof that you can't actually rely on the issues. Go garner some debating skills and some comprehension skills as well and come back when you're better armed because right now you are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

Late 80's action movie cliched dialogue bluster! Can we upgrade senility toAlzheimer's? I don't see a debate anywhere here, this thread is largely about you making baseless claims and instead of admitting as much you fall back on the senility defense. You are not convincing anybody except yourself.

You think people notice that you consistent pretend as though you have substantive support for your assertions and then fall back on childish recalcitrance when you are asked for evidence? You think you get away with anything? You think clumsy evasions and a lack of candor are strengths?

Well, then you just might be a bush republican


PS: Looks like sierrita's prediction was correct.

Looks like you're still trying to salvage some semblence of respect after your Stownage.

Sorry, but you fail, and fail dreadfully at that. You've demonstrated that you can't even bother to get the entire story, you twist and spin my words consistently in the fashion of a 12-year old, and seemingly have little skill in the comprehension department. And you're still trying to travel the malignment/character assasination route as your primary means of debate. Typical of the left these days.

Childish recalcitrance? You making that claim? Bwawhahahaha. You are, by far, the most childish individual to frequent this forum.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


You sig makes you look stupid because you are taking what Will Rogers meant as a compliment and trying to interpret it as a negative. He was saying that the Dems (at the time when the quote originated) were not a party because they allowed everyone to join and to believe whatever they wanted to. That they didn't force you into lockstep like the Repubs were/still are doing.

Shhhhh!

That was a great source of ironic humor; now he'll probably change it.

On second thought, he probably won't and instead will argue ad nauseum that he Meant to do it.

Turns out that the joke is on you.

lol

Tell us about that Valerie Plame book again. The one you apparently thought everyone should have read before it was released.

Read what I wrote about it again. Don't forget to read my follow-up reply. I admitted to making a mistake in my wording but Stoner, who claims I don't admit my mistakes (I can show you a number of times in this forum where I've admitted a mistake AND apologized.), wouldn't accept that and instead went on to play his childish games.

I don't imagine that will change anything though because you guys aren't here for truth or facts. You're here only for what you want to see and disregard the rest.

 

[Stoneburner]

There's nothing more childish than admitting a mistake and ensuring it does not occur again. This is the typical pattern with you. First you'll insist on something being true, pretend as though you have evidence for this assertion, avoid providing real evidence, then avoid the issue when it becomes clear the evidence is untenable or nonexistent. So now here you are, trying to get the last word in but making sure you say nothing of substance. Let me recap what you've said in this thread

1. To heybooboo - Of course I knew palace alert was canceled by the time bush was eligible but how can we know bush, being the dumbass he is, knew it was canceled! I can't read minds!

2. TO craig - you misunderstood what bush said according to my misunderstanding of what you were trying to say because it's difficult to understand something that I, as a senile hypocritical conservative shill, do not want to believe! I don't care for your logic, this isn't a court, this is me homoerotically defending W because he has a texan drawl by way of new england.

3. To craig again, of course I knew the irony of will rogers and now i'm going to inundate you with unrelated trivia and insist my quotation was intentional despite what sierrita says

4. To stoneburner - I can't believe you misread what I said despite the fact you read it from somebody's edited signature, and despite the fact you take responsibility, i will not follow your example and admit mistakes because i'm an overgrown child.

5. To stoneburner - Bush wanted to go to vietnam but they wouldn't let him go because he would have gone rambo on Charlie and wiped out the indochinan population! Chuck NOrris delta force character was based on an alternative history where bush wasn't a pussy!

Have a nice day you joke

And chicken, your explanation made no sense whatsoever either. You can admit you ran a botched google search but you wont. YOu also are now claiming you did actually read the book, something you did not do back then I must once again point to a pattern of you pretending to have knowledge you dont really have. Don't worry, i recognized your type some time ago, the more insistent you are on a fact, the quicker I am to ask for authority.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Publicity stunt from which Slim Pickens will waffle and flip flop his way out of

Who knew the name T. Boone Pickens before he presented his fake challenge?

slim pickens != t. boone pickens.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
There's nothing more childish than admitting a mistake and ensuring it does not occur again. This is the typical pattern with you. First you'll insist on something being true, pretend as though you have evidence for this assertion, avoid providing real evidence, then avoid the issue when it becomes clear the evidence is untenable or nonexistent. So now here you are, trying to get the last word in but making sure you say nothing of substance. Let me recap what you've said in this thread

Let me recap what I said, because YOU keep fucking up every damn thing I say and twisting it into something else. It's yet ANOTHER display of your complete dishonesty, poor comprehension, and willful ignorance in reaching so hard in your pathetic attempt to redeem yourself from your self-ownage earlier.

1. To heybooboo - Of course I knew palace alert was canceled by the time bush was eligible but how can we know bush, being the dumbass he is, knew it was canceled! I can't read minds!

NOT what I said. Do you know for a fact that Bush knew in advance that he was not eligable for Palace Alert or that the program was winding down? Of COURSE you don't. All you can come up with is suppositions and trite fucking innuendo. Here, read up:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu...on/history/q0185.shtml

2. TO craig - you misunderstood what bush said according to my misunderstanding of what you were trying to say because it's difficult to understand something that I, as a senile hypocritical conservative shill, do not want to believe! I don't care for your logic, this isn't a court, this is me homoerotically defending W because he has a texan drawl by way of new england.

More likely it's difficult for your 12 year old mind to grasp a damn thing. Craig claimed Bush said one thing when I proved he said something quote different. Of course, to keep being a complete asshole about it you pretend otherwise. Yet another example of the spinmeistering and distortionary tactics you employ in here.

3. To craig again, of course I knew the irony of will rogers and now i'm going to inundate you with unrelated trivia and insist my quotation was intentional despite what sierrita says

Ahh. So now you not only fully know the mind of Bush, everything he knows and thinks, but you know mine as well. Who do you think you are? Kreskin?

4. To stoneburner - I can't believe you misread what I said despite the fact you read it from somebody's edited signature, and despite the fact you take responsibility, i will not follow your example and admit mistakes because i'm an overgrown child.

I don't believe you misread anything. What you did was take what someone else had in thir sig as gospel instead of finding out the ENTIRE truth of the matter and plainly made yourself look exactly like the dumbass you are.

5. To stoneburner - Bush wanted to go to vietnam but they wouldn't let him go because he would have gone rambo on Charlie and wiped out the indochinan population! Chuck NOrris delta force character was based on an alternative history where bush wasn't a pussy!

Ahhh. There's the Stoner child we all know so well in here.

Have a nice day you joke

And chicken, your explanation made no sense whatsoever either. You can admit you ran a botched google search but you wont. YOu also are now claiming you did actually read the book, something you did not do back then I must once again point to a pattern of you pretending to have knowledge you dont really have. Don't worry, i recognized your type some time ago, the more insistent you are on a fact, the quicker I am to ask for authority.

You don't want my explanation to make sense and you don't recognize shit, Stoner. You just keep digging your own hole deeper and deeper and acting like some wiseass punk in the process. That's OK though because you've been exposed for the dink you really are.

Have a nice life litle troll boy. I'd pity you but you don't deserve any because you're too far gone to be anything else but an ignorant fool for the rest of your born days.

 

[Stoneburner]

1. No, silly child, that's just you taking something to an illogical extreme because you realized your point was being undermined. Divining intent is wrong now? What do you think people do in criminal and civil courts every day?

2. You need to carefully reread what was said. I wonder if english is your first language because you have an aversion to anything beyond the most literal. Except this aversion dissappears when it comes to reinterpreting your own dishonesty

3. I find it deeply amusing sierrita knew you were going to claim you know of it. Even if you did know of it, i'm still amused Maybe you shouldn't be so predictable

4. Maybe you are starting to see what I was getting at? You ever question the credibility of your sources in a similar way? Of course your source for everything is google and selective removal of all sources you disagree with so I know this is a useless question .

5. Gets back to item 1. What you are saying not only has no adherents in the larger republican noise machine, it's laughable at best.

6. No need to get angry. Just don't bother posting anything without CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Bald assertions won't cut it. It's apparent to everybody who's attempted a discussion with you that you don't know much, read much, understand much, but you will pretend you do anyway. You've done it again several times in this thread.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
1. No, silly child, that's just you taking something to an illogical extreme because you realized your point was being undermined. Divining intent is wrong now? What do you think people do in criminal and civil courts every day?

2. You need to carefully reread what was said. I wonder if english is your first language because you have an aversion to anything beyond the most literal. Except this aversion dissappears when it comes to reinterpreting your own dishonesty

3. I find it deeply amusing sierrita knew you were going to claim you know of it. Even if you did know of it, i'm still amused Maybe you shouldn't be so predictable

4. Maybe you are starting to see what I was getting at? You ever question the credibility of your sources in a similar way? Of course your source for everything is google and selective removal of all sources you disagree with so I know this is a useless question .

5. Gets back to item 1. What you are saying not only has no adherents in the larger republican noise machine, it's laughable at best.

6. No need to get angry. Just don't bother posting anything without CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Bald assertions won't cut it. It's apparent to everybody who's attempted a discussion with you that you don't know much, read much, understand much, but you will pretend you do anyway. You've done it again several times in this thread.

Now you're just flailing wildly in your usual BDS fashion with more distortions and delusions. You've been owned little man. Come back when you get over it.

Buh-bye.

 

[Stoneburner]

This is like the kettle calling the pot a kettle You must have had a poor education because metaphors and subtlety escapes you entirely, not to mention irony. And don't leave yet, I'm still waiting for a source claiming bush wanted to or asked to be sent to vietnam.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is like the kettle calling the pot a kettle You must have had a poor education because metaphors and subtlety escapes you entirely, not to mention irony. And don't leave yet, I'm still waiting for a *credible* source claiming bush wanted to or asked to be sent to vietnam.

Add me to the list of curious. I would think that if there was any credible proof that Bush wanted to see service in Vietnam, that the Republican war machine would have that plastered all over the place. To think that it's such a secret, makes me mildly suspicious, as it were.

 

[Stoneburner]

THis is an interview with bush. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ies/bushtext072899.htm

hardly sounds like somebody gung ho about going. Doesn't even sound like somebody willing to go. Sounds more like somebody providing post de facto rationalizations for how he managed to NOT go.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This is like the kettle calling the pot a kettle You must have had a poor education because metaphors and subtlety escapes you entirely, not to mention irony. And don't leave yet, I'm still waiting for a *credible* source claiming bush wanted to or asked to be sent to vietnam.

Add me to the list of curious. I would think that if there was any credible proof that Bush wanted to see service in Vietnam, that the Republican war machine would have that plastered all over the place. To think that it's such a secret, makes me mildly suspicious, as it were.

It's not a secret by any means. You not knowing about it doesn't make it a secret, it just means you didn't know. Bush already made a statement in an interview about inquiring about the program. Numerous websites reference the same thing.

Yet Stoner posts a WaPo article and uses "sounds like" as his justification and that qualifies as evidence? His hunch (as if he's not insanely biased against Bush) is a valid rationale?

lol. Nice to see the burden of proof applied so differently in this place.

Sheesh

 

[Craig234]

Is there any poster here who more shamelessly just ignores the questions he can't make up nonsense for than TLC? I see the lack of any response to points yet again.

 

[Stoneburner]

I posted a wapo article or a wapo interview? LMFAO.

So my source is bush and i'm interpreting the source and you have a problem with this? You don't think very clearly. This isn't about burdens of proof this is about weighing of proof. You've provided nothing so far. But you also won't admit you were full of it from the start.

Instead of coming across as a credible and intelligent debater, you come across as a desperate attorney clinging to anything to uphold a clearly losing position. I don't need more "words" from you I want evidence. If you don't have it, then case dismissed.

 

[Fern]

Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.

I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.

Fern