President Bush's speech - The troops are going home

Wasn't addressed to you. Will you be responding to guerilla's? Oh, wait, he wants defeat like you do, so he probably gets a pass, huh? Hypocrisy is their mainstay

You are contradicting yourself. In one sentence you say he has never suggested such, yet guerilla has argued this very point to be true, according to RP. Thank you, though, for reconfirming that if RP was at least a second tier candidate, and actually had a chance, his foreign policy when America is attacked, is to rush to the typewriter and issue a letter saying "please stop."

Six on one, half a dozen on the other. I believe RP has made it very clear, he would do absolutely nothing, anytime our country is attacked. I also believe that is why people like you and guerilla support him.

The military is being used in their capacity and role. We don't need RP to wussify our military.

Incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to point those reports and findings? Probably not, huh?

Thanks for confirming you have dual accounts on DP.

What is your agenda?

guerilla's, or mine? Probably mine, huh?

 

I did try and put the lunatic on ignore before but couldn't leave him on ignore.

Although he posts 99.99% here in the P&R he has a glowing green rep from all dat Green Lovin' he receives and he is the self proclaimed leader of the crazy gang I kind of rely on his insanity to keep me posting here in DP P&R forum as bizarre as that may sound.

As I said ages ago, the US could be fooked, GT could be ruined by the actions of his corrupt lovers Bush and Cheney and he would still be saying everything is rosy. I remember a post from him months ago that saying Baghdad was doing really well and was prosperous, if I was a stalker like he is I would have the thread URL somewhere but sadly I am not and I don't.

 

awww, this is sweet. AGS is playing the victim role and guerilla is cozying up with someone who has openly admitted to supporting terrorists. That's so sincere!

Was just a matter of time.

 

I'm responding to you, and hence not going to debate your personal attack, regardless of who it was addressed to. By saying "wasn't addressed to you", you seem to be suggesting that a personal attack is valid as a tool of debate, and that people aside from the one attacked can not point out that it is not. Are you suggesting this? I'm doing a point by point rebuke of your words, so I'm not going to address him. I'm also not going to tell him how to respond to you and others, although personal attacks from either side just weaken the respective side's argument and competence. So I would hope he also in the future would not stoop to personal attacks.

You need to read what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are, because you clearly are showing you don't understand the concept. There is a big difference between funding private organizations to foresee some of what our government is doing overseaas without giving them express written authorization, whereas Ron Paul's proposal expressly authorizes private organizations to do some of what our government seeks to accomplish overseas, without giving them federal funding. See how they seek to accomplish the same thing but in completely opposite manners?

He doesn't seek to wussify the military, he seeks to use it as appropriate. We aren't designed to be a police force, and should be out of Iraq anyway. They wouldn't even need to be over there if we got out of Iraq. How is this wussifying our military? He also seeks to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal so private groups can seek Bin Laden and other terrorists, as I've said earlier. Again, the intention is that private groups with their own funding can do the job of hunting people out more efficiently.

Keep in mind that Ron Paul supported our original attack on Afghanistan, because he felt that was actually targeting the source of the terror attacks, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Guerilla was addressing which groups had conflicting reports. I'll trust him to get links to reports up here quickly, I'm sure he can find that information quicker than I since he already told you what groups had conflicting reports.

I wasn't aware that pointing out you are debating with a personal attack is analogous with saying that the person you are attacking is when when it was someone else. I'm pointing out that in your argument, I'm moving past that section without responding, and explaining why. You could try debating without resorting to personal attacks and I wouldn't have to explain why I won't dignify them with a response.

I don't have an agenda. I'm being told something, and questioning its truthfulness before accepting it. In this case, I'm questioning the truthfulness of a report saying things are going well in Iraq coming from a top government official. The reason I'm skeptical is because I have seen some evidence to the contrary that it is not. The government would have a vested interest in being able to justify successes in Iraq, to continue their mission there, whereas someone like myself who wants us out of Iraq can use it as a further justification for getting out. So I suppose my "agenda" is in finding evidence to support my anti-Iraq stance, just as your "agenda" is in finding evidence to support your pro-war stance. I wouldn't call it an agenda to try and analyze information for use in arguing your stance on an issue, it's just good debate.

Yes, yours.

 

fletch, just ignore him. I'm not going to get into the pointless exercise of responding to GTech, or surfing up links from bi-partisan authority sources only to engage and listen to the mindless accusation rhetoric of treason.

On page 1 of this thread, I posted an AP link that references the stuff that points out that Petraeus was providing heavily modified data, using an incomprehensible method for qualifying violence.

My argument is based on National Intelligence Estimates, United States Government Accountability Office, Iraq Study Group (Bipartisan). if that's not good enough, I yield to the forces of ignorance who would pacify us with fear and lies while they implement their NWO agenda of destroying America from above.

Partisan fanatics will use this to whatever affect they want, the Left arguing that Petraeus "betrayed us" and the right that questioning an officer shows a lack of support for the military. We've been trained to argue left and right, when the true terror and treason lives above in the executive branch and our impotent congress.

The truth is what it is, and thankfully we have the internet to aid in the dissemination of data. History will not be kind to warlord Bush and his neo-conservative agenda. What you and I think will largely be irrelevant, just like arguing with the Grand Dragon of the Nixon Gang.

 

Guerilla, I believe a lot in what you say, but as I've said, personal attacks just weaken your argument. Be the better man and stop using terms like the "Grand Dragon of the Nixon Gang", as it just feeds him into his rhetoric. If we make an effort to watch what we say as much as we tear into their arguments, we stand a much better chance of showing how true we are.

 

Nope, I was just pointing out hypocrisy. Your opinion on whether something was a personal attack is nothing more than that. Just make sure your standards are the same across the board. And to that, I say again, whatever I said, was not addressed to you. I'll treat you accordingly, as you treat me.

I'm quite aware of the concept and I do believe I've summarized it quite well. Perhaps not in the defeatist tone you may be seeking, but none-the-less, it is accurate. Private organizations do not need RP's permission to act on what they want to do.

I reject RP's attempt to outsource our national security and use mall guards as first line responders. I reject his battered wife syndrome, blame America first attitude. On national security, RP is weaker than democrats and that is saying a lot. Of course, he's not even a second tier candidate (yet?), so it really doesn't matter much.

This is a silly notion, as if people are just lining up to go off and defend America because they want to. Even sillier that they need RP's permission to do so (not that *anyone* is lining up to do so). It's also reflective of someone not thinking things thoroughly through. I submit you haven't given much thought to what happens with an immediate "pull out." Who do you want to take over in Iraq and what implications do you believe that will have?

I take no exception to that.

But you said he already had them?? That was the basis of my argument. One minute you were sure, the next you are not so sure. I did go back and read the report (the wapo story) he posted. It doesn't match what he is asserting. It basically says that various groups have various opinions. No offense, but duh!

You presume being aware of the truth is a personal attack. You are responsible for that, not I. Again, I'll treat you accordingly. I'm flattered that you hold me to a higher standard than others. That is a sign of respect and I thank you for that.

I must have missed that "questioning." Lots of people pretend to question things, when in fact, they make allegations. This is a popular, but easily identifiable fallacy. There are successes in Iraq. I know that greatly troubles some. In fact, some go to great lengths, when they are brought to light, to find a way to quell them.

I find it interesting you say you don't have an agenda, but then say you do. I really don't need a lot of "evidence" to illustrate when others are tearing my country down (as was the usual case with guerilla). They go out of their way to make that point for me. I simply highlight it.

Thanks for the confirmation. I was pretty sure it was hypocrisy, but thought I'd give you the chance to confirm.

 

Friend, get back to me in 3 months on this ok? You haven't realized that they don't care if their arguments hold water, they don't care if you have irrefutable proof on a position.

They exist, solely to consume your time in endless debate, manipulating your evidence, and then having the audacity in the face of defeat, to start calling people treasonous or terrorist supporters.

You will find that GSpot is indeed the Grand Dragon of the Nixon Gang, and that name is very appropriate for it's members. While their numbers are declining, they still are a collection of "Tricky Dicks".

 

Yup and it's the same M.O every time. It is tired rhetoric.

Against the war = Terrorist supporter.
Don't support Bush and other neocons = Terrorist supporter.

 

Against the war = Fine you have a choice.
Don't support Bush and other neocons = Fine you have a choice.
Supporting terrorists = Terrorist supporter

Get your facts right AGS.

It's the same MO everytime for you.

Terrorists = All innocent
Terrorist supporter = "I'm not, i'm anti administration"

 

don't forget..."Alex Jones does my thinking"