1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gworld, Sep 25, 2005.

  1. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3941
    It is the original quote, for me to alter it would ruin the entire point....;)

    How about this I fix it, with a different color T, I could deal with that while still having the point
     
    GRIM, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  2. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3942
    Not in the least bit. I think you are deranged to suggest just a few posts ago, after all this, that it is now my reasoning you were arguing against (I love the new tactical approach though, reminds me of something kerry would try to pull. It wasn't my medals, it was my ribbons!), and not your comments that suggested Bush violated the constitution. I think you are reaching for virtually anything you can grasp at this point to show how your words were not what they were. You proved my point above, but then your post proved it in the first place. Thank you for helping me prove that point even more! You handed it to me on a silver platter!

    According to you, you were debating my reasoning now :rolleyes: How could it be an issue if it was my reasoning you were debating?

    They didn't violate the constitution. Once again, you show how you've already assumed they did, in that you argue against it, but when shown you really did suggest Bush violated the constitution, you suggest NOW that it was just my reasoning you were debating. What a laugh! What's next, that it wasn't really you that typed the words, it was the Spirit of the Titanic?

    Not my fault you are too insecure to take a "real" position on something. But your words were your words. You said them, they are captured and quoted numerous times. And surprisingly enough, only within the past few posts have you EVER suggested you were simply arguing my "reasoning."

    Just when I think it can't get any better, you amaze me with more :D

    Well, I'm off for the holidays! I thank you for the many smiles and laughs over the past two days! Merry Christmas, hrb :D

    Merry Christmas to the rest of you that follow this thread, friend and foe.
     
    GTech, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  3. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3943
    You're hilarious, I'm not changing anything.

    I've been stating the same thing over and over and over..

    Again why be a prick why not ask, what did you mean by that statment instead of ASSuming like you have done....

    'reasoning' is different than my previous posts how exactly? It's a new word that's about it, it has the same meaning. Your 'reasoning' is of course what we were debating, such as your argument of ex presidential executive orders, that is part of your 'reasoning'.............................................



    Your reasoning as in you giving a blank check, as in you stating previous admins did it, etc, etc, etc,, We've been down this road so long it's very sad that you don't get it yet :rolleyes:


    I DID NOT SUGGEST BUSH VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, your posts suggest even if a president did in the name of 'safety' you would have no problem with it!

    I typed the words, I have no shame in saying I did, your twist of what you think they mean is what I will debate...You are so far off it's a joke, it realy is.

    I have been stating it for much longer than a few posts :rolleyes: I have been continuing to try to explain to you what the debate was about as you obviously have forgotten.

    My position is crystal clear and has been from the beginning!
    If GWB did not use the power against US citizens I support him, if he used it against US citizens I do not support him. That's more of a 'real' position than your blank check you would offer.

    Thank you for the great opening to get back to what the debate was actually about!!!!!!!

    Do you agree if it was used against US citizens without a warrant it would be unconstitutional? This was the real debate, lets get the actual debate underway instead of you whining and complaining on some trivial issue!



    I wish you merry christmas as well, I hope however you take the time to think of what my posts were trully meant for and not to twist them to your own reasoning.
     
    GRIM, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  4. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3944
    Recap in hopes Gtech will now understand...

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=514423&postcount=3643
    A post I made simply disputing a link Gtech put up, and Mia's reason...of which of course Gtech decided to chime in which led to
    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=515003&postcount=3651
    Of which I responded with

    Clearly showing I'm not debating what Bush did or did not do, I am waiting on the full story, and I was debating Mia's post for factual basis not Bush or anything of the sort.

    Gtechs response.

    Directly showing he's having a problem with me stating I would not support for US citizens, which is a huge factor of what the debate was about. Further goes on to say.

    Again right away he's 'attempting to attack on the Bush issue, even though that had nothing to do with my point. My point was directly to ex presidents executive orders....

    I actually don't disagree with him here, I simply want the full story I have clearly laid out my positions on what I will support GWB to do and not to do..Anyone who thinks this is the full story good or bad is a fool..A secret spy act such as this takes up more than a page to tell the entire story.

    I went on to respond to Gtechs previous comments with the following of my own.

    Not saying anything against GWB here am I?

    Showing outright my argument is against the previous presidents executive orders and using them as a reason, not against GWB yet again...
    Showing yet again I'm debating the 'reasoning' and not the GWB issue itself, yet again.

    Yet again arguing the reasoning, not GWB or the issue.

    Again showing my stance on the issue, and the point that I'm arguing the 'reasoning' not the GWB issue, yet again...

    Now back to Gtechs next responses
    This is him claiming he doesn't remember me disputing Mia's post of ex presidential executive orders and attacking me on having 'ifs' yet again directly going to the point of him offering the president a blank check.

    Showing Gtech does cherry pick who deserves protections under the constitution, and showing it's a continued argument over what ex presidents did.

    He again is forgetting the entire point of my argument against Mia's what started this whole thing, and instead trying to claim I'm attacking Bush which I most certainly am not...

    Yet again he's continuing to try to turn it around on somehow my stance is anti bush, even though I've already stated if the spying was used against non US citizens I support Bush, if it is US citizens I do not.
    He is attempting to yet again attack my position, stated above this is the true nature of this debate throughout the entire argument.

    Again completely bypassing my point, again on the attack of thinking I'm againt Bush, again cherry picking who the constitution is for.

    IMO again stating safety above constitutionality.....

    Again taking issue to my stance of Non US citizens I support, US citizens I do not...Again showing he's willing to cherry pick which US citizens deserve constitutional freedoms and protections.

    My responses

    Again debating on the reasons to support, not trashing GWB at all.

    Again directly to the point of disputing Mia's post, which Gtech decided to chime in on but forget existed.
    Same as above.

    Responding to Gtechs problem with me having an 'if', he of course having a blank check.

    Stating my stance yet again that Gtech is arguing about the 'if'....

    Clearly showing I am debating Mia's post with Gtech now, and his reasoning or cherry picking of when to use the constitution and who it's for.

    Again arguing my point on when I will or will not support the Presidents decision, I'm laying it out there for one day the entire story comes out unlike some people....

    Gtech again
    Again arguing that I have an 'if', I have already stated that if the article is the entire story I support GWB...If it was only used against Non US citizens I support him, yet Gtech is still having a problem understanding this and still arguing from the starter, Mia's post.

    Clearly again showing cherry picking of which US citizens deserve protection under the constitution.

    self explanatory hopefully
     
    GRIM, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  5. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3945
    Continued, still on Gtechs post

    Again he's attacking on the basis I'm against Bush on this issue, if you've read the above it's news to me and I'm sure you as well..

    Again cherry picking. If it is a US citizen in my opinion as most who hold the constitution to any standing would say yes they still deserve rights. Throw them in the slammer, execute them for all I care once they've been convicted, but they still deserve rights. Especially with the governments ability to name any group they want a terrorist organization in this day and age. Again it's arguing my 'if' position, not GWB in the least.

    Yet again attacking because I have an 'if', I disputed mia's post about ex presidents, yet I've already stated if the story is the full story I support GWB in this instance...Getting confused yet? I know I was.

    Again missing the point of constitutionality and claiming not to have sene my post which is what he bagan attacking from.

    I never said it was destroyed, he's responding to my post of
    which was a reword of his
    IMO showing he favors safety over the constitution. I was trying to get his input, nothing more. It also goes back directly to my 'if' he has such a problem with.

    Again he's slipping in the GWB issue with the overall debate on the 'reasonings' this is my true debate in this argument, I have clearly stated my position but good ol Gtech continues to twist anything he can.

    Again I have not said it went against the constitution, I have been arguing the 'if' I have placed out that Gtech has such a huge problem with and the fact that we as citizens do not know but a fraction of the true story.

    I go on to say

    Again stating I'm waiting for the entire story, hence I am not debating the GWB issue, I am debating the 'if' the executive order, etc.

    Again I'm showing at this point I support GWB if it's the full story, I am not debating against GWB nor have I ever been...

    Gtechs response..

    He at least realises I haven't taken an overall position because I do not feel it's the true story thank god, do we have a break through. Does he realise I am not debating the GWB issue itself but an underlying subissue....


    I respond....

    I am flat out telling him he's taking items out of context, such as attacking me on being against GWB of which I never was in this argument.

    This is where he gets his famous quote of mine from, bolded above...

    I have been arguing many things in this debate, but not anti Bush, not one time was my posts meant to be anti bush on the case of the NSA spying...
    Gtech did try to twist it to that, this is the reason I thought we should start over because he was not getting it.

    I've wasted a ton of time posting this...I hope you can decide for yourself, was I stating Bush violated the constitution as Gtech states...

    Or was I debating Gtechs reasonings as I believe I was.

    I'll let you make the call.

    I hope this puts this issue to rest once and for all. Sorry for typos, and other mics errors, I'm extremely tired now and I'm sure there are tons of them :D
     
    GRIM, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  6. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3946
    GRIM, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  7. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3947
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  8. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3948
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  9. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3949
    Reducing the number of deployed troops is quite a bit different than a total pull out, which is what the democrats want.

    Nice try...

    Yeah, pissed off quite a few muslams doing that. What a poser. Let's see, she changed her name, moved away, told stories of how she balled her little eyes out over the 9/11 attacks, and now sluts around on the cover of GQ was it? Anything to prove her disloyalty for blood. What a waste.
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  10. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3950
    You wanna be my bitch too?
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  11. Crazy_Zap

    Crazy_Zap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    305
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #3951
    Now, mia, everyone knows that if you actually had the power to make someone your bitch, you wouldn't have to ask for permission. :D
     
    Crazy_Zap, Dec 24, 2005 IP
    UsernameInUse likes this.
  12. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3952

    It was a rhetorical question. Looks to me like you are owned.
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  13. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #3953
    It is the new trend among the white trash, all of them trying to pretend that they are gangsters and pimps. In his little brain, he wants to be a white version of 50 cents. ;)
     
    gworld, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  14. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #3954
    You guys are like soooo kewl. Nothing like a couple of Canadians ganging up on an American. I wish I was just like Chris and Julian. You guys are so friggin kewl!!!
     
    Mia, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  15. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #3955
    Did you read the news today!! I can't believe that Bush was having them scan areas for radiation to make sure no one had a dirty bomb - and without a warrant!! Now this has gone too far!! I would hate for someone to get busted for something radioactive without a warrant, I think my grandparents keep some uranium remnants for keepsakes and kicks, what if they get busted??

    argghh when will the abuses stop!! Isn't radioactive materials part of the amended 2nd amendment stating the right to bear nuclear arms or something like that?
     
    debunked, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  16. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3956
    just face it guys, if we lived in germany in 30's you guys would be the first ones out goose stepping
     
    ferret77, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  17. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #3957
    Huh???....... now what are you trying to say and too whom?
     
    debunked, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  18. bigdoug

    bigdoug Peon

    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    54
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3958
    This is true. I hate bullets shot at my feet. When the United Nations comes after all us religious nuts to kill us, I will be goose-stepping as far away as possible. ;)


    D
     
    bigdoug, Dec 24, 2005 IP
  19. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #3959
    Merry Christmas Day to all of those in the war thread that celebrate, to all others I still wish you an excellent fun filled safe day



    He at least realises I haven't taken an overall position because I do not feel it's the true story thank god, do we have a break through.
    Hard to see, waited until today as an Xmas present for Gtech, put in to test how he'll twist this, 'true story' as in it's not the full complete true story, but sure he'll make it into I am stating I think the story is false, lets wait and see


    :) :) :) :)
     
    GRIM, Dec 25, 2005 IP
  20. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3960
    Christmas fishing sucked, I had to out run a thunder storm , from like 5 miles out in the ocean

    these modern world cartoons are hilarious don't you think

    [​IMG]
     
    ferret77, Dec 25, 2005 IP