Calling Jimmy out

[loosecannon]

How about we debate the Iraq war. Whether it was necessary and legal. Did Bush lie about intelligence? Should we have continued diplomatic efforts? You know, the whole run up to the war and what so many are now against. Do you feel more sanctions would have worked? Do you think Saddam had any type of WMD's? Should we have just stayed in Afghanistan as so many think? Did we abandon Afghanistan as so many think?

Feel free to open another thread elsewhere if you like.


Many Rightwingbots on this board have made a lotta noise about debate tho they offer very little of it.

This thread is to be free from adhoms, free from partisan pissing matches and focused on debate about the Iraq war as defined by Jimmy's quoted post above.

The war had nothing to do with protecting the US.

Saddam threatened us in no way.

Saddam's WMD were no threat to the US.

We abandoned our hunt for BinLaden who was a genuine threat at the time. We abandoned the war in Afgahnistan and subsequently it rages or simmers on. We failed to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that were real threats and we did not manage the situation with Korea.

Mean while terror generally is growing as a result, as are the number of terrorists worldwide and the potential for a serious threat to US security.

Oh, and no i don't buy any of that crap about UN resolutions from the first gulf war ( 678) being used as justifications for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Our invasion of Iraq was illegal in as much as any war is illegal.

that's a start.

[TheStripey1]

How about we debate the Iraq war.

1) Whether it was necessary and legal.
2) Did Bush lie about intelligence?
3)Should we have continued diplomatic efforts? You know, the whole run up to the war and what so many are now against.
4) Do you feel more sanctions would have worked?
5) Do you think Saddam had any type of WMD's?
6) Should we have just stayed in Afghanistan as so many think?
7) Did we abandon Afghanistan as so many think?



1) Neither neccessary nor legal.
2) If he didn't outright lie he sure bent the truth until it was U-shaped.
3) Yes
4) More? no...
5) Not that could threaten us. And since we haven't found anything but obsolete munitions left over from the war with Iran, 3200+ american troops dead and billion$ wasted seems a pretty hefty price to pay.
6) Yes
7) Yes

[jimnyc]

Many Rightwingbots on this board have made a lotta noise about debate tho they offer very little of it.

That hasn't been my take, I've seen some great arguments presented from both sides of the floor here.


This thread is to be free from adhoms, free from partisan pissing matches and focused on debate about the Iraq war as defined by Jimmy's quoted post above.

Perfect.


The war had nothing to do with protecting the US.

I think it had everything to do with protection of our country, as well as our allies.


Saddam threatened us in no way.

Maybe not directly, as I don't feel he was capable of attacking us, but he could to our allies. And I think his breaching resolutions for so many years was a threat to us. The UN voted for this stuff for a reason, if he won't comply, someone needs to force their hand.


Saddam's WMD were no threat to the US.

Do they have to have the ability to reach us directly for us to feel threatened?


We abandoned our hunt for BinLaden who was a genuine threat at the time. We abandoned the war in Afgahnistan and subsequently it rages or simmers on. We failed to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that were real threats and we did not manage the situation with Korea.

I believe there have been forces after Bin Laden from the beginning, and without interruption.

The war is still ongoing in Afghanistan, or don't the Nato troops count?

I think Iraq was the biggest threat outside of addressing Al Qaeda, which going into Iraq actually does to an extent. 12 years of failed resolutions can't be overlooked.


Mean while terror generally is growing as a result, as are the number of terrorists worldwide and the potential for a serious threat to US security.

I don't see terrorism growing, I see the opposite. I see huge issues in Iraq between the animals blowing one another up, but I don't see many terrorist acts being committed around the globe.


Oh, and no i don't buy any of that crap about UN resolutions from the first gulf war ( 678) being used as justifications for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Our invasion of Iraq was illegal in as much as any war is illegal.

that's a start.

Should the prior resolutions just be forgotten since time has lapsed? Or maybe that should show us the length of time and effort that was given to work via diplomacy before taking action.

[-Cp]

2) Did Bush lie about intelligence?



Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction??????

Did all these people Lie?



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...........

[loosecannon]

Perfect.

so why did you move it to the cage.




I think it had everything to do with protection of our country

this is absurd IMO. Saddam was disarmed, he never wanted anything from us but to be on our side. He was our ally during the Iraq/Iran war and he even asked our permission to invade Kuwait.

We turned on him to his surprise.

Saddam and Iraq are no match for the US, and saddam had no intentions of pursuing war with the US. And Saddam was not interested in any terrorism aside from some support for Pals against Israel.

I agree about our allies. But they don't count. OUR security is not dependent on Israel, SA or anybody else Saddam threatened.




And I think his breaching resolutions for so many years was a threat to us. The UN voted for this stuff for a reason, if he won't comply, someone needs to force their hand.

The US created the UN, the UN is more or less a puppet of the US, much moreso of the security council 5. Those resolutions existed to serve the US, not because a world body wanted them independent of the US.

What was true after Saddam invaded Kuwait has not been true since the rpublican army was crushed in the desert in 91 by US carpet bombing.




Do they have to have the ability to reach us directly for us to feel threatened?

"feeling" threatened is not being threatened. The Geneva convention defines "threatened" as An immediate threat of invasion.



The war is still ongoing in Afghanistan, or don't the Nato troops count?

Uh, NATO forces do count, but not in terms of us finishing what we started. We handed off.

And five years later that war continues and Bin Laden was never captured.

That sounds a hellava lot like we lost.



I don't see terrorism growing, I see the opposite. I see huge issues in Iraq between the animals blowing one another up, but I don't see many terrorist acts being committed around the globe.

You are kidding right? Barcelona, London subway, Somalia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have all been the victims of terrorist attacks by our 9/11 enemies not to mention India, Bangladesh, Russia, Indonesia and Kashmir all being attacked by terrorists since 9/11.

You employ unusual treatment of the words decreasing and increasing. Nearly opposite of the common usage.

I don't see how you can dismiss the sectarian attacks in Iraq either as it is clearly terrorism by any definition.

Are you gonna claim that terrorism in Iraq is no threat to us but Saddam in Iraq was a threat to us?

I think you need to concede this point now.




Should the prior resolutions just be forgotten since time has lapsed? Or maybe that should show us the length of time and effort that was given to work via diplomacy before taking action.

The resolutions pertaining to Desert storm do not apply as an excuse to invade iraq 12 years later. Esp since Bush used every means to persuade the UN security council to authorize our invasion and they flatly refused.

A few points. I have let you direct the subject. I would ask that you pick one or at most two points at a time to debate. I do not enjoy the exponentially expanding debate.

I prefer eviscerating points one at a time until their source is exhausted on material.

Pick whatever points you want and lets rip them apart together one or two at a time until the subject has been covered.

[loosecannon]

Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction??????

Did all these people Lie?


Probably. The Clinton and previous Bush admin had reasons to justify the costs of the sanctions. And they had to have a policy to justify the sanctions otherwise they could not maintain them.

Bush 41 essentially broke Iraq and neither himself or Clinton were willing to resolve it so they contained Saddam behind sanctions.

They had to have a public excuse for doing so.

[lily]

I think it had everything to do with protection of our country, as well as our allies.

Not to single one point out, but this one got my attention. Exactly which allies did we go over there to protect?



Maybe not directly, as I don't feel he was capable of attacking us, but he could to our allies. And I think his breaching resolutions for so many years was a threat to us. The UN voted for this stuff for a reason, if he won't comply, someone needs to force their hand.
Yes, but they did not vote for this war.





Should the prior resolutions just be forgotten since time has lapsed? Or maybe that should show us the length of time and effort that was given to work via diplomacy before taking action.

I truly don't see what the big hurry was to go to war with Iraq. Bush 41 had him contained.

[jimnyc]

so why did you move it to the cage.

Loose - I don't have time to respond point by point right now, but I wanted to let you know that it wasn't I who moved the thread. One of the mods must have seen the "calling out" and assumed it was wrongly placed, not knowing that you and I agreed to the thread in advance. Either way, doesn't matter. We have threads degrading into nothing in regular forums, surely we can have a civil debate in the steel cage.

[Yurt]

Many Rightwingbots on this board have made a lotta noise about debate tho they offer very little of it.

This thread is to be free from adhoms, free from partisan pissing matches and focused on debate about the Iraq war as defined by Jimmy's quoted post above.

.

dumbass :fu:

[shattered]

dumbass :fu:

Shh! You're not supposed to point out his inconsistencies - it just means you're bashing! :slap: Bad Yurt.

[Roomy]

As a neutral, I cannot see any difference between Lucy's rhetoric and the rhetoric of the cons here.To be fair, he belongs as much a anyone.

[manu1959]

Many Rightwingbots ........

This thread is to be free from adhoms


well that didn't get off to a very good start..

[Yurt]

Shh! You're not supposed to point out his inconsistencies - it just means you're bashing! :slap: Bad Yurt.

:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

well that didn't get off to a very good start..

"many rightwingbots" is not an adhom.

[manu1959]

"many rightwingbots" is not an adhom.

starting the thread off with an insult to bush supporters is not an adhom? .... are you kidding me ...

[Kathianne]

starting the thread off with an insult to bush supporters is not an adhom? .... are you kidding me ...

Manu, you just don't understand. Loose wishes to make the parameters, then he just adjusts them for himself. Please get with his plan. :cheers2:

[manu1959]

Manu, you just don't understand. Loose wishes to make the parameters, then he just adjusts them for himself. Please get with his plan. :cheers2:

i will not stand for this i was here first:poke:

[loosecannon]

starting the thread off with an insult to bush supporters is not an adhom?

Correct, it is NOT an adhom.

It is not directed at any person in particular. Ad hom means against the person in Latin. It is an attack against a specific person.

Speaking generally or about groups will usually NOT be adhominems.

[Yurt]

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.




You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.

[-Cp]

Probably. The Clinton and previous Bush admin had reasons to justify the costs of the sanctions. And they had to have a policy to justify the sanctions otherwise they could not maintain them.

Bush 41 essentially broke Iraq and neither himself or Clinton were willing to resolve it so they contained Saddam behind sanctions.

They had to have a public excuse for doing so.

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

[shattered]

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

Cuz she was about 8? :D

[loosecannon]

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

That is how it was originally explained to me, tho I am not sure if that is technically true.

An example of the rationale you are expressing goes like this:

"you are a traitor (therefore implying that what you say can not be trusted)"

The literal meaning is "against the person", and it appears as if most boards use the definition as attacks against a person.







You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.

I was dealing with it, just fine. I never said i wasn't introducing a logical falacy. I said I wasn't engaging in adhominem attacks.

They are not the same.

[loosecannon]

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

How do you know i wasn't?

I never posted about the lies of the VN war, do you have any idea why not?

Why aren't you in the streets of mogadishu protesting the violence happening there today?

Or why aren't you in deep space collecting litter from 40 years of space programs?

[-Cp]

How do you know i wasn't?

I never posted about the lies of the VN war, do you have any idea why not?

Why aren't you in the streets of mogadishu protesting the violence happening there today?

Or why aren't you in deep space collecting litter from 40 years of space programs?

Because unlike you I'm not poltizing those issues... unlike you, I don't condemn a war just because I don't like the sitting president at the time.. .

An unlike you, I use my brain to decide what's right and wrong, you (as with all libs) use emotion.

[loosecannon]

Because unlike you I'm not poltizing those issues... unlike you, I don't condemn a war just because I don't like the sitting president at the time.. .

JimmyC chose the topic.

And believe me I do not condemn the war because I do not like the sitting president.

George Bush owns this war and he made that clear himself. He called himself the war president and ran on that in 04.

Bush is about all that keeps this war going.


An unlike you, I use my brain to decide what's right and wrong, you (as with all libs) use emotion.

get real. Calm your emotions and chill the accusations.

If you were making good use of your brain you would realize that you diverted attention away from your original point that the last admin also lied about Iraq's WMD.

Your response that I wasn't railing against Clinton somehow supported your assertions? How?

So I repeat, how do you know I wasn't railing against Clinton for his role in Iraq?

How do you know that in 4 years I won't be railing against another Clinton for her role in Iraq?

[Yurt]

That is how it was originally explained to me, tho I am not sure if that is technically true.

An example of the rationale you are expressing goes like this:

"you are a traitor (therefore implying that what you say can not be trusted)"

The literal meaning is "against the person", and it appears as if most boards use the definition as attacks against a person.








I was dealing with it, just fine. I never said i wasn't introducing a logical falacy. I said I wasn't engaging in adhominem attacks.

They are not the same.

An Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. :poke:

[loosecannon]

An Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. :poke:

It makes no difference.

All logical falacies are not adhominem attacks, in fact hardly any are.

A bicycle is a wheeled vehicle too.

But just because i am driving a car does mean I am driving a bicycle or any other wheeled vehicle other than a car.

[Yurt]

It makes no difference.

All logical falacies are not adhominem attacks, in fact hardly any are.

A bicycle is a wheeled vehicle too.

But just because i am driving a car does mean I am driving a bicycle or any other wheeled vehicle other than a car.

This is the most absurd use of logic I have ever come across. In fact, it is not logic, it is stupidity masquerading as logic.

It makes no difference? Of course it does. I never said all logical fallacies are adhominem, I said:

adhominem is a logical fallacy


Big difference. Your analogy has absolute no place in what I said. But I will try to reason with you. Using your analogy, what I said is:

A bicycle has two wheels.


Period. :poke:

[glockmail]

"many rightwingbots" is not an adhom. Of course it is, dip shit. "Bot" insinuates "robot", insinuating that conservatives don't think for themselves. It is the Liberals who are incapable of thinking. :pee:

[loosecannon]

This is the most absurd use of logic I have ever come across. In fact, it is not logic, it is stupidity masquerading as logic.

It makes no difference? Of course it does. I never said all logical fallacies are adhominem, I said:

adhominem is a logical fallacy


Big difference. Your analogy has absolute no place in what I said. But I will try to reason with you. Using your analogy, what I said is:

A bicycle has two wheels.


Period. :poke:

OK back onto the offtopic tangent.

I may have presented a logical falacy by speaking about rightwingtards on the board.

But it still was not ad adhom, which is what I said originally to Manu and it appeared you were refuting.

All adhoms are not necesarily logical falacies and all logical falacies are not adhoms.

The most common use of the word is in reference to attacks against persons not groups.

Unless you have more to add to that lets get back on the topic of Iraq.

What the thread was started to discuss.

[loosecannon]

Of course it is, dip shit. "Bot" insinuates "robot", insinuating that conservatives don't think for themselves. It is the Liberals who are incapable of thinking. :pee:

It is an attack against a non specified group. It isn't an adhom. It wasn't directed at any body in particular therefore it isn't a personal attack. The thread is what a page long, that was already covered.

The thread was an invitation to Jimmy to a debate he originally asked for.

It really wasn't an invitation to you to argue about trivial details.

OH and BTW your post contained an adhom, better work on your own shit and let others take care of theirs.

[glockmail]

It is an attack against a non specified group. It isn't an adhom. It wasn't directed at any body in particular therefore it isn't a personal attack. The thread is what a page long, that was already covered.

The thread was an invitation to Jimmy to a debate he originally asked for.

It really wasn't an invitation to you to argue about trivial details.

OH and BTW your post contained an adhom, better work on your own shit and let others take care of theirs.

I attacked you in retaliation for attacking me, as a conservative.

By your logic, its OK to call people "nigger", "dyke", or "faggot", as long as you don't call them out as individuals, right?

[loosecannon]

I attacked you in retaliation for attacking me, as a conservative.

By your logic, its OK to call people "nigger", "dyke", or "faggot", as long as you don't call them out as individuals, right?


No you totally missed the point with that one.

It isn't an adhominem to talk about what the crackers do, or what the spics think about....

That doesn't mean it is or isn't OK.

I was specifically addressing Manu who erroneously pointed out that my opening posts said "no ad homs" and used a reference to "rightwingbots".

He said rightwingbots was an adhom, it isn't.

Can we get back on topic now?

[glockmail]

No you totally missed the point with that one.

It isn't an adhominem to talk about what the crackers do, or what the spics think about....

That doesn't mean it is or isn't OK.

I was specifically addressing Manu who erroneously pointed out that my opening posts said "no ad homs" and used a reference to "rightwingbots".

He said rightwingbots was an adhom, it isn't.

Can we get back on topic now?

So are you a nigger, dyke, kyke, spic or faggot? :pee:

[loosecannon]

So are you a nigger, dyke, kyke, spic or faggot? :pee:

Good, now if you had called me a nigger, dyke, kyke, spic or faggot, then that would be an ad hom.

[OCA]

Rightwingbots is an adhom, he's being obtuse.

Its as if you are saying nigger is an adhom but niggerS isn't, absolutely fucking illiterate.

[loosecannon]

Rightwingbots is an adhom, he's being obtuse.

Its as if you are saying nigger is an adhom but niggerS isn't, absolutely fucking illiterate.

No OCA. Calling YOU a rightwingbot is an adhom.

Saying "rightwingbots think Rush is a credible news outlet" is not.

If the nuance of that distinction really escapes you let me know.

[glockmail]

No OCA. Calling YOU a rightwingbot is an adhom.

Saying "rightwingbots think Rush is a credible news outlet" is not.

If the nuance of that distinction really escapes you let me know. Shit for brains.

[loosecannon]

Shit for brains.


we can only assume a fairly simple idea is over your head.

[glockmail]

we can only assume a fairly simple idea is over your head.
There you go: an adhom against me. :fu:

[OCA]

No OCA. Calling YOU a rightwingbot is an adhom.

Saying "rightwingbots think Rush is a credible news outlet" is not.

If the nuance of that distinction really escapes you let me know.

Simply put: you are fucking wrong.

Try going downtown and yelling niggers and see if its an adhom or not......illiterate, completely void of any knowledge whatsoever.

[loosecannon]

There you go: an adhom against me. :fu:

Not at all, now if I had called you a simpleton, THAT would have been an adhom.

Is this really that hard to figure out?

An attack against a specific individual person which is not an insult alone but a negative label.

Flip flopper> not necesarily
asshole> definitely
Bushbot> probably
Red stater> no

[loosecannon]

Simply put: you are fucking wrong.



Insult and ad hom are not synonymous.

This is becoming hillarious.

[OCA]

Insult and ad hom are not synonymous.

This is becoming hillarious.

Lol, you do realize you have zero credibility from anyone, left or right on this board, right?

Anytime you say something is hilarious and claim any knowledge at all the whole board laughs its ass off at you.

[OCA]

Oh and you didn't answer the nigger vs niggers question, nice dodge, or would you be willing to go downtown and try that out?

[Yurt]

we can only assume a fairly simple idea is over your head.

You are really loosing it aren't you? How many times does it have to be explained to you? Let me try and break this down very simple:

This thread was an invitation to the members of this board (identifiable class) to engage in a debate with the debate having certain parameters.


This thread is to be free from adhoms, free from partisan pissing matches and focused on debate about the Iraq war as defined by Jimmy's quoted post above.

You, however, broke your first rule in the sentence before this by insulting the class you wish to debate, e.g., members of this board.


Many Rightwingbots on this board have made a lotta noise about debate tho they offer very little of it.

Your supposition that your statement was general, e.g., not to an identifiable class is wrong, because you made the statement "specifically" not "generally" to the members of this board.

Thus, your broke your own rules and why you had to be called out on it before any rational debate could begin on Iraq. If you can't even keep your own rules, then the debate is without the parameters and thus all is open and fair game.

I want to debate you idiots on this board, but I don't want any name calling in this debate.
:slap:

[CockySOB]

Do me a favor guys, chill it with the "n" word would ya? It's a slur no matter how you cut it.

[OCA]

Do me a favor guys, chill it with the "n" word would ya? It's a slur no matter how you cut it.


Not using it as a slur, trying to prove a point to cheesedick.

[shattered]

You guys are still going at this? Ugh.

[OCA]

You guys are still going at this? Ugh.

I smell Loose's blood in the water, thats why.

[shattered]

I smell Loose's blood in the water, thats why.

Uh.. Bad time to point out he's not here, and hasn't been here in about 5hrs given his last post? :dev:

Talk to him via PM once.. He *can* sound kinda reasonable.. Dunno if he IS reasonable, but he can SOUND reasonable. :D

[CockySOB]

Not using it as a slur, trying to prove a point to cheesedick.

I understand that. But it is still something *I* find offensive, which is why I asked for the favor.

[loosecannon]

Oh and you didn't answer the nigger vs niggers question, nice dodge, or would you be willing to go downtown and try that out?

I did answer it, insults are not the same thing as adhoms.

There never was a question in the thread about whether the the phrase rightwingbots was an insult.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular and therefore it wasn't used as an ad hom.

And you still have less credibility than me.

[loosecannon]

This thread was an invitation to the members of this board (identifiable class) to engage in a debate with the debate having certain parameters.

Mostly false. Jimmy challenged me to a debate, I accepted, he said open a thread, I did.

You are welcome to debate the topic Jimmy picked, but this useless bickering is getting kinda tedious.







Your supposition that your statement was general, e.g., not to an identifiable class is wrong, because you made the statement "specifically" not "generally" to the members of this board.

No it was made generally as in it named nobody in particular it was characterizing.

That isn't a complex point but it seems too complex for many to grasp.

You wanna debate Iraq, do it. If you just wanna bicker, you are reinforcing my original point that a lottsa noise is made but nobody steps up.

[OCA]

I understand that. But it is still something *I* find offensive, which is why I asked for the favor.

No problem Cocky as it looks like an honest answer is something I won't get from Loose and there is ONLY one honest answer.

[CockySOB]

No problem Cocky as it looks like an honest answer is something I won't get from Loose and there is ONLY one honest answer.

Much appreciated, OCA.