The move to remove Rush

[Jacko3]

Backpedaling is a hallmark of the Dem party.

Azhitman:

LMAO! Guess what? At least the DEMS can change course instead of staying the course.

[Jacko3]

YOU offered a very flippant statement, that implied that we were safer under the Clinton Administration, than presumably we were under the Bush Administration with the whole Global War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. YOU implied with this statement that because the Clinton Administration ‘did absolutely nothing’ that no one flew planes into buildings here in the US or aboard for that matter. I provided YOU with ample proof that your statement is wrong. Now if you want to retract the statement or implication, because that is not what you intended, that is fine. I might even suggest a change to your original statement, ‘After all, Slick Willie (William J Clinton), did absolutely nothing and three aircraft were flown into two buildings.’

I intentionally steered clear of the discussion pertaining to the Global War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not only did you fail to reply to my statement with anything germane about the Clinton Administration, but you went off on a tangent that you have been arguing with Orig Wheel Man.

But what I find -ish is that you have resorted to calling me names and trying to belittle me to win your argument? What will ultimately be your is your lack of being able to box by my name that says ‘Super Moderator’ and that it isn’t wise to resort to such tactics.

First of all, your arguments are incomprehensible to me (no pun intended). You never steered clear of any argument. Once you delved into it even with as much as a foot in the ocean of debate, with all the muster you could, you were soaked and baptized in it.

And, I may have to remind you that you used several remarks that were not only childish, but condescending as well. So, if you can't handle the heat in the kitchen, then get out of the kitchen. Here is a list of the terms you used that necessitated the use of my terms. And whatever argument you make of the list i provide, i would make a similar agument of yours. I love banter and I do it well. LMAO!

You said to me, "To think that we knew no terrorism before 9-11 is delusional and stupid." ______________This is a huge insult to my comment, don't you think so or were you responsind to someone else other than I?????????????????????? LMAO! You are too funny!

You said, "To imply that the Clinton did not have to face terrorism during his administration is equally delusional and stupid. " ______________This is a huge insult to my comment, don't you think so or were you responsind to someone else other than I?????????????????????? LMAO! You are too funny!

You also said, "To also imply that the United States was much safer, because Clinton ‘did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircrafts into any building' is moronic and shows you have no clue what you are talking about." Amazing you would point the finger and not point it back at yourself. LMAO!! ______________This is a huge insult to my comment, don't you think so or were you responsind to someone else other than I?????????????????????? LMAO! You are too funny!

So, Super moderator, what do you have to say to the allegations levelled against you????????????????????????????????? I love banter and debate. i live for it. LMAO! Its like drinking coffee. It sharpens my skills very well.

[Cold_Zero]

So, Super moderator, what do you have to say to the allegations levelled against you????????????????????????????????? I love banter and debate. i live for it. LMAO! Its like drinking coffee. It sharpens my skills very well.

simpleBanned

[dirtyNXerchickie]

You mean the partial quote of his statement, right?

""So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?""

oh, so that's what RL said that's got everyone's panties in a bunch? sheesh! first, he is very conservative. i can understand why he wouldn't want BO's policies. second, the first amendment. the very first one! why are we debating this? if in US history class, you felt strongly for the people supporting the bill of rights, such as thomas jefferson, you should realize what they were trying to instill. a nation where people can feel free to be how they want and not have to be one way or the other. if someone wants to burn a flag, hate on the prez, or only listen to pop music, they can. if they want to talk about people behind their backs or criticize the local municipality, they can do so. so what harm is RL doing by stating his opinion? i am sure you can find harsher quotes elsewhere.

i am thinking the dems may be threatened by RL's opinions. why feel so threatened?

[dirtyNXerchickie]

simpleBanned

holy crud, pwned!

[AZhitman]

Azhitman:

LMAO! Guess what? At least the DEMS can change course instead of staying the course.

Again, I don't see what's so funny that you'd literally be "laughing your a$$ off", but it's either a sign of mental illness, a head injury, or nervousness.

Changing course is not necessarily an admirable trait. I'd list examples, but I'm sure you'll somehow find humor in those as well.

[AZhitman]

First of all, your arguments are incomprehensible to me

No surprise there. CZ knows politics better than most people I know. You're outta your league.

So, if you can't handle the heat in the kitchen, then get out of the kitchen.

How cute. Did you read that on a bumper sticker?

I've seen no "heat" from you, just blather and regurgitated lefty-speak. Nothing novel, no new ideas, no in-depth analysis and certainly no deep insight.

I love banter and I do it well. LMAO!

LMAO! You are too funny!

LMAO! You are too funny!

LMAO! You are too funny!

This is like talking to a 16-year-old cheerleader via text messaging.

what do you have to say to the allegations levelled against you?????????????????????????????????

What allegations? Do you know what that word means? Is this a court of law? Again, pretty words, used in improper context, make you look like a boob.

I love banter and debate. i live for it. LMAO! Its like drinking coffee. It sharpens my skills very well.

Better stick to coffee, I'm not seeing any improvement.

Come back when you can hold your own in a debate... Better yet, read some posts by ishkabibble, Tariq, CZ, hash, and other esteemed Politics Forum regulars.

[Cold_Zero]

If he honestly thought that I was in violation of rule #4 in this forum there is a resource box [email protected] that he could contact to refer 'my violation.' Further more you guys are always free to contact the Admins and Greg (himself) off line to discuss the staff's conduct.

But resorting to name calling and belittlement and then openly arguing over it in the forum is not the proper way to resolve the issue. And here is a little bit of advice (for everyone), if anyone wants to get into a pissing match with any of the staff, you will lose.

[AZhitman]

I think ish, Tariq, and others would consur that we're fair in that sense... Bring a good game, and state your case.

But blindly flailing about while whipping invectives and "banter" is a sure recipe for being shown the door.

[OriginalWheelman]

I can't beleive what i am reading. Interesting! Thanks for supporting my argument.

You said,"If, in your first example your subject knew that he had 120 credit hours, and knew that 17 of them did not count towards the degree, then by putting 120 on the paper he would be trying to deceive. If he did not know, then he did not lie, he was merely wrong. If he believed he had 120 credit hours, and he wrote down 120 credit hours, then he told the truth, and he was not trying to hide anything. "

Remember I said, before graduation. For this, it is possible for a student not to know all that is required of them towards a degree or a specific degree. So, incomplete information to the respondent is a reason to appear as if respondent is lying, whther they knew the information was wrong or not. So, a lie is part fact and part perception, and thus the intentional and unintentional aspects of it.

No, thank you for proving my point. You contradict not only logic but yourself.

incomplete information to the respondent is a reason to appear as if respondent is lying, whther they knew the information was wrong or not.

Which is exactly what happened to GWB, and my point.

So, a lie is part fact and part perception, and thus the intentional and unintentional aspects of it.

This is some fabricated part of your imagination. It appears as if he is lying, but he is not.

In the case of Bush, no such hard evidence existed that Iraq was tied to the hip with terrorists and that Saddam had a stockplie of WMD. Bush drummed up the war in Iraq and failed to get a united coalition from the UN to attack. Why did he refuse to get a coalition from the UN, if he was so right, as his daddy did in 1991???????????? Do you think his daddy was a fool or what????????????? His daddy is an ex-navy pilot with combat cockpit hours and experience.

Well let's start here. You're contradicting yourself again. You say that he failed to get a coalition from the UN, the proceed to ask why he didn't get one? Because they said no, he tried. I watched Collin Powell give the address, start to finish. I didn't buy it either. If anything, the evidence they had showed Saddam getting rid of WMDs, which is what he was supposed to be doing. People drew wrong conclusions from a set of evidence... sounds familiar somehow...

Do you know why some lawyers win in court?????? They win becasue they can make arguments and play with semantics all day long. the legal system is not about right and wrong or truth or lies. It is about how to make words do your bidding. Learn that and you will be fine. Trust me!

That is not how the legal system works. Hollywood is not the legal system. How much time have you spent in court? I've been in there a lot and it's never about the better argument, it's about the prosecution using evidence to prove guilt of a defendant. This is done in two ways, by proving guilt, and disproving innocence. Proving Guilt is the important one. Proving guilt is done by placing the person at the scene committing the crime with hard evidence. Disproving innocence is much easier but can only solidify, but not prove a case. Shadow of a doubt comes into play here. If 1/12th of a jury can still have lingering doubts about it, the defendant is not convicted. That is how the legal system works. While

I never said Bush fabircated a war. Check my previous comments. I said he fabricated reasons for the war. And if you feel he is so truthful, then why do you ignore the evidence i provide as fact that all was not well????? Do you have an issue with accepting facts. Did I produce those news articles??????????????

When have I called GWB truthful and when have you proved that HE, GWB fabricated evidence? I see evidence that 1 man under him "misinterpreted" (their word not mine) intel.

Abu Ghraib should never have happened to begin with. Whther or not it was shut down or not is irrelevant. The US is not a nation of torture-crazed sickos. We are a nation that respect people and their dignity.

I agree that it should never have happened. It being shut down is relevant. It shows that we as a whole do not stand for it, despite that some may find it acceptable.

And by the way, if I convinced myself, I have done so base don facts reported by those who are int he know. See all the many links I have provided to you . Yet, i am have to endure your evidenceless comments. LMAO!

I'll reiterate my stance since you don't seem to know what it is.No one has proved the George W. Bush fabricated evidence to make the case for the Iraq use of force.There were several reasons for going to war with Iraq that are very relevant, even with WMDs and terrorists omitted. Including firing on US aircraft enforcing a UN No-Fly Zone, and an assassination attempt on a US president.I do not believe that we shoudl have goen into Iraq when we did. I do believe we should stay and make Iraq stable, no matter how long it takes. The US, for whatever reasons, crippled one government in Iraq, and put another in place. We need to take care of the mess we made. Leaving without stabilizing the government we put in place is wrong, whether we should have put it there or not, because leaving an unstable government in charge is inviting a civil war or military coup.

Who are the many, many people who haev looked into Bush's affair???????????

The same reporters you like to link to.

I just gave you evidence supporting the fact that a court order was required to get the President to comply.

It said a court order was issued. A court order is the first legal way to ask for those documents, other than a warrant, which is done in a criminal investigation to gather evidence before a case sees trial. The warrant is irrelevant here as it is for an on going trial. It proves nothing except that you do not know how a court system works.

Since when did WH documents become private matter of the President?????????

When did I say they were?

Did it not take a subpoena form congress to drag out the audio tape fo Nixon which was used to politically hang him???????????????

Yes they did. Which is the reason for the court order I'm sure.

I started out looking for proof. When this was new news, abut 6 years ago, I looked into it, many have since and still are. After 6 years of searching, with no results, I'm pretty sick of people claiming it as fact. I'm not now, nor have I ever said the allegations were not true, only that they remain unproven.

When you are done reading the document, then lets discuss. Enjoy!

Somehow I doubt it.

[audtatious]

This thread went to hell

[ishkabibble]

I think ish, Tariq, and others would consur that we're fair in that sense... Bring a good game, and state your case.

But blindly flailing about while whipping invectives and "banter" is a sure recipe for being shown the door.

Yep.

[CakeDaddy]

Jacko, if you post one more smiley, I'm gonna ban you. Period. It's childish, irritating, and serves no useful purpose.

wow!!! this has to be a joke. Pleae say its a joke. If you wanted to join the conversation... fine, but banning someone for using is un-real. You can do better than that.. I hope.

Im entertained by what I read here, but this..........

[audtatious]

He can do what he wants for whatever reason, or lack thereof, he desires.

[CakeDaddy]

He can do what he wants for whatever reason, or lack thereof, he desires.

come on now.. he's a big boy. Let him speak for himself.

[audtatious]

come on now.. he's a big boy. Let him speak for himself.

He minds his elders and I told him I was speaking for him.

[audtatious]

I think Obama like attending "other" parties. Like cocktail parties or something. I just don't think that his program will work for the recent economy.

Who are you? Are you...

drewtiss?freude09?karen wilson?summer09?wendywindy?

How many usernames do you need?

[audtatious]

OK, this thread is cleaned up and open for business. Any more crap being brought up about Jacko will result in me not being so nice.

Now......

As stated above.......

drewtiss, why do you have so many accounts?

[gwoods]

1 for each personality?

/stillnotabookmark

[infinitiandbeyond]

HEY, let's talk about something else.

Like...

Hey woods...i see a chartreuse green something stuck on your side window. Is that one of those state police "move your darn car" stickers they apply when you leave your car on the side of the road?

[gwoods]

LOL nope that is my number, the picture was taken at Firebird coming around turn 12 of the main track. I could go a little faster with practice.

My G hits 130+ on the back 5/8th mile straight before I have to start braking for turn 1!

Track layout in link belowhttp://www.firebirdraceway.com....html