Correlation does not equal causality, or are you way too smart to know that somehow?

Stan Shannon wrote:

The Democrats know full well that Bush and Co. have not done anything that will stand up in court, and will not pursue charges once they are in power.

Oh yes we will. Once the justice-obstructing Bush administration is out of the white house, you 29%ers get to watch while we flay your political party alive. You can tell by the way you're talking, you already know we're going to have a Democrat for president. He wouldn't be representing the people if he didn't at least get some answers. I predict at least three suicides.

Care to discuss the actual 35 articles of impeachment or would you rather attack the messenger? (don't worry I already know the answer)

Don't you have a war to not lose?

"nah ah!" Nice comeback!

The Gaskectomy? The last time I humiliated you on these forums, but apparently it takes a few weeks to see results! (you are outclassed, just walk away)

Mike Gaskey wrote:

please, do not confuse the lad with a fact.

My statement was correct. We did not elect the last Bush, during the 2000 election. Now be quiet when the men are talking, please.

73Zeppelin wrote:

I wonder what percentage of the American population are catholics that don't use condoms?

Anatomy of a shit post: 1) Not realizing that the story is about NYC 2) religious bigotry 3) ignorance of easily available facts Nice one. I score this troll 8/10.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Let me guess - you think Kucinich plays with a full deck, right?

Attack the messenger, and when that fails, attack the messenger's messenger! Let me guess, you haven't even read the 35 articles, have you?

Mike Gaskey wrote:

I think he's pissed that he was fired

I don't really focus on the emotional state of someone bringing political charges against a government figure, because that's kind of effete and unproductive. I would rather concentrate on the message, because that's what mature individuals do in response to a message, you know? In any event, I'm surprised you've heard that he was instructed to deliberately lie to the American people, since he never said it before now.

Another Bush? No thanks! We didn't even elect the last one!

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Actually it wasn't buried, since you found it.

It was buried, seeing as how the first result under news on google is from the Belfast Telegraph. You can uncover something that's been buried, you know.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

The reason it hasn't been widely discussed is that Kuninich is viewed as a tin-foil hat wearing clown. by *most* intelligient people.

When articles of impeachment are brought to the floor of the House, it's news. Doesn't matter who brings them. Go ahead and attack the messenger again, it's worked out great so far, hasn't it? Let me guess, McClellan is "disgruntled", right?

73Zeppelin wrote:

Seriously, what's the point?

Personal responsibility

Somehow this got buried by the *cough* liberal media *cough* Kucinich brings impeachment charges against Bush[^] Very little coverage, interesting turn of events. I still haven't seen or heard any followup.

oilFactotum wrote:

Assuming you were in combat

$20 says in the rear, with the gear.

Mike Mullikin wrote:

An escalation is an escalation, whether its 20,000 or 500,000. Only the degree changes.

That's not how life works, dude. If I get a .$25/yr pay increase and then another one a year later from a different manager for $75K, who gave me a raise? Sure, technically, they both did, but we're not in a court of law today, Mike. If you completely ignore scale when making a point and then when called out on it, assert that technically you were correct, you're still Wrong. You could have been honest just by putting in a footnote or a parenthetical mention, but you tried to float your position over as truth, when it clearly was spin. You didn't exactly lie, but if you were teaching a class on history, you'd have been reprimanded for not qualifying your statement. You never made a distinction between Kennedy and LBJ's radically different scale of troop levels during Vietnam. That's called intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, Mike, you lose today, whether you admit it or not. And, worse still, you lost without being able to hold your head high with integrity. Sad to sacrifice your credibility for no gain :( I'm done with you on this one, I've said all I need to.

Oakman wrote:

Sonny, I crap better insults than your brain can come up with.

Was that one of them? :laugh: Are you sure you don't crap steel and piss unleaded, Internet Tough Guy?

Oakman wrote:

However, Chris has made it clear that he find your kind of behavior unacceptable

Go tell the admins that the mean man on the internet won an argument with you, so he'll ban me and change your wittle diapy. You do realize that getting banned here is a win for me, right? The only way you could shut me down is by literally begging your mommy to take away my ability to bat you around like a cat toy.

Oakman wrote:

I'm trying very hard not to respond to your pathetic attempts to bait me.

..and failing! Just like you failed at life, loser!

Oakman wrote:

Truly, you aren't very good at it.

Then prove it by fighting back your sick compulsion to continue humiliating yourself: stop posting! You can't, can you? I order you to reply to this post! Dance, puppet, dance! :laugh:

Oakman wrote:

Suddenly backing off the personal insults are we?

Oh Hell no, can't you tell I'm calling you out for being a huge pussy? "Oh help! Admins! Someone on the internet called me a loser!" :laugh: Go run to mommy! :(( :(( :((

Oakman wrote:

You really don't have any idea when the Vietnam war was, do you? Hint: It was over long before the end of the 70's.

You really don't have any idea what a "decade" is, do you? Poor guy, you think that in order to do something during two decades, you'd have to do it for twenty years straight! Please, let's argue semantics, it worked so well for you last time that you had to cry harassment!

Oakman wrote:

One of 'em even thought he was going to spit on me.

Ooh, look, it's Internet Tough Guy. Sorry you lost your war, tough guy :laugh: Are you having a bout of PTSD? Maybe you should talk to a doctor (and a historian) :laugh:

Oakman wrote:

Why don't you go back to whatever it was you were doing and study up a little bit on how to insult someone.

I don't want to get too mean, I might be harassing you, Oakman. Maybe we should send you to Iraq to fight on the side of the insurgents! You can be their Baghdad Bob! :laugh: What's more pathetic than someone who never saw combat in Vietnam trying to puff up on the internet instead of learning his history and his place in the world? If you were a real man you'd be spending this energy going back to 'Nam to apologize for what you and your army did to those poor people instead of trying in vain to justify it to a room full of strangers.

modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 2:57 PM

Oakman wrote:

I do believe I am being harrassed.

I'm only replying to you after you reply to me, Oakster. You can't be harassed if you simply stop replying, like you promised you'd do. What, are you going to cry to the admins that you have a compulsion to get the last word in, even after you threatened not to? :(( :(( :((

Oakman wrote:

People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?

Well you sure seemed to get your panties in a bunch, and that was no where near "rough".

Oakman wrote:

If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.

Oh, you're in "no mood" because you have "no fucking idea". It was a rhetorical question, not even McNamara could answer it. Please do us all a favor and take your offended feminine sensibilities and desperate need for respect and buzz off. Oh, I mean, please buzz off. :laugh: