Kobe & Shaq Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 So many closed minds...so little time. 44710[/snapback] Enlighten us Jedi Master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Once again, if I lost enough IQ points I might agree with you. Sadly for you, I haven't. Paco's question is comparing Bush's speech to Anan's, only because it makes his limited point. Pretty limited comparison, like taking a two person poll.You guys say again and again, the UN NEVER applauds speeches, and you offer Anan's speech as proof. Without reviewing all the speeches in the history of the UN, what proof do you have? Do you actually believe your own nonsense? So many closed minds...so little time. 44710[/snapback] We're saying that proper and traditional etiquette in the UN is to not interrupt speeches. No one has to go through every single friggin' speech to understand that simple fact, or that the UN's response to Bush's speech is entirely consistent with UN etiquette. You are smart enough to twig the difference between "etiquette" and "absolute, universal, unbreakable pattern of conduct", correct? You're head's not stuck up your ass THAT far, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 No, it is more like Annan spoke DIRECTLY BEFORE BUSH, so it is a valid comparison since it is THE EXACT SAME AUDIENCE. I know that critical analysis is not one of your strengths, but damn. BTW, you can't afford to lose any more IQ points. You need to preserve the few that remain. 44718[/snapback] I don't know, it might be fun to watch his involuntary functions battle for supremacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LasBillz Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 Your post wasn't about "innocent Iraqis", it was about Bush's reception at the UN.Go ahead and keep flailing away though.....it's fun to watch. 44700[/snapback] Really? I didn't use the term "thousands of innocents"? Yes, I did. But it doesn't make your point, so you ignore it. Either you comprehension is wayyyyy off, or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Really? I didn't use the term "thousands of innocents"? Yes, I did. But it doesn't make your point, so you ignore it. Either you comprehension is wayyyyy off, or worse. 44739[/snapback] The best way to get out of a hole is stop digging. The diplomatic "solution" that your liberal brethren were operating under killed far MORE innocent people than this war has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LasBillz Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 The best way to get out of a hole is stop digging. The diplomatic "solution" that your liberal brethren were operating under killed far MORE innocent people than this war has. 44743[/snapback] Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult. When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult. When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad. 44766[/snapback] You guys? You bring an invalid thesis to the board and trumpet it as the Gospel according to John and expect people to join in? The arguments in your quoted post are more "circling the drain." I notice a pattern of yours: you concentrate on the insults and ignore the debatable points. Shocking. It's pretty ironic you accuse others of wanting total agreement when that's pretty much what you seem to be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult. When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad. 44766[/snapback] They (the righties) like to spout "facts" that only fit their agenda. Throw history out the windows... This form the so-called "historians", self-proclaimed enlightened ones on the board. This is the effing internet, go figure! I take they like the personal insults? You see, they got "patriotism" on their side... Whatever that means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 The best way to get out of a hole is stop digging. The diplomatic "solution" that your liberal brethren were operating under killed far MORE innocent people than this war has. 44743[/snapback] Hey Darin? You still against the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Hey Darin? You still against the war? 44798[/snapback] Yep. It's a little late now to have that debate, though. I was against the diplomatic solution being used at the time too. The UN is pretty much an irrelevant and corrupt organization that exists only to line the pockets of the elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult.When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad. I think you've got a strong basis for the Kerry concession speech here (in case one is needed). Just change Western Europe in the 30's to Vietnam in the 60's and it's a dead ringer. Want me to see if I can get Joe Lockhart to call you about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult. When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad. 44766[/snapback] I tried to start a discussion with you here, dumbass. You dismissed my observation with a stevestojan partisan opinion that you couldn't support in the face of factual observations. So don't B word about other people not wanting a debate...look in the !@#$ing mirror first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Question. (Hand in the air). Who gives a rat's ass what the UN thinks, anyway. Several millions were made by several members through kickbacks in the oil for food program. Paid by Sadaam, who pocketed several billion. Maybe we should "liberate" the UN. I guess LasBills is one of the many who feel that the US must have the UN's permission to go to the bathroom. Newsflash. The UN is corrupt, irrelevant and ineffective. Bush !@#$ed up the gravy train. That's why they don't like him. It is also very much against the rules of protocol to cheer speaches. But, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Once again, if I lost enough IQ points I might agree with you. Sadly for you, I haven't. Paco's question is comparing Bush's speech to Anan's, only because it makes his limited point. Pretty limited comparison, like taking a two person poll.You guys say again and again, the UN NEVER applauds speeches, and you offer Anan's speech as proof. Without reviewing all the speeches in the history of the UN, what proof do you have? Do you actually believe your own nonsense? So many closed minds...so little time. 44710[/snapback] Actually, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Your initial argument is that the UN provided what you perceive to be a tepid response to Bush's speech. You imply, or at least I inferred from your implication, that the UN must have a problem with Bush and our war in Iraq. Given that Annan has been very critical of our involvement in Iraq, wouldn't your original argument make more sense if you said "The UN replies with crickets to Bush's speech, but give rounds of applause to Annan's speech." THAT would be something of a comparison. That's all I'm asking, LasBillz...and quite frankly I don't think it takes THAT high of an IQ to understand that. Unless of course there is no other response except to pick on people's IQs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. 44766[/snapback] get off your high horse...this ridiculous comment has been swinging both ways forever and ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Hey, Lasbills. That picture of you before or after your morning coffee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts