So what are they proud of?

:lol:

 

well what i'm trying to get across is that in this case the warmongers are trying to make you doubt reality. in "1984" winston as part of his interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation), as part of this wearing down of resistance the interrogator is bending winstons mind to accept nonsense, as do the warmongers on the minds of their victims, chances are the warmongers themselves have been conditioned to accept nonsense at some point, this is why logical argument frazzles their brains.

 

:lol:

 

A little bit I guess.

My point apart from him being blindingly unoriginal was :
I'm not concerend with him cutting and pasting - the point is he has not even bothered to give the source [wich I think the point somebody else was making].
He has not bothered to look into ever accusation for himself.
He has not bothered to check if any of the accusations are in the least bit accurate.
He is not concerned if any of it is accurate.
He thinks posting long lists is making his point - when infact it just makes him look like he has no arguement himself.
You [HTH] can't back up every point raised in the article - buy you choose to use it as a ''zinger'' to make a point.
As I said many of the points have a element of truth in them - but they are skewed towards being negative and do not show the points in context.

Then when we got over all of that he said:
''Either respond to the contents of the post or ignore it''.
I responded in post 52 to the content of the thread.:
As usual I was then forced to write:
I'm responding to the content of the thread - why not respond in kind ?.
When he chose to ignore what I said.

You can post whatever you like as long as you give credit for it - and have something original to say apart from repeating the same thing in response.

The point about copyright was talking about this sites content - wich is missing the point.
If you highlight the source of your info - then we might be able to work out if you were infringing any copyright.
I'm not sure about all of that - i just think it is not right to not disclose were you get a copy/paste from.

Have a look at post 52 -

 

More now .

Every war you can imagine critics have said there is a lack of resource and adequate something or other.
This is not down to a lack of will.

They were by a large proportion of the Iraqi population. Ofcourse not every single person - that would be ridiculous.
You can not say that even today even after all the violence a large proportion of the Iraqi populace does not feel ''we'' should still be in Iraq.
Ofcourse they are not all jumping up for joy anymore or have not altered their opinion - typified by http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2037219,00.html.

More now.

At the time true.

Neither did the Iraqis / Afghanis or the tribal leaders not to mention the iraqi people themselves.

Might need a bit more clarity on that one - from what I have read :

Department officials said none of Mr. Ashcroft's budget recommendations or priority memorandums before Sept. 11 detracted from the government's counterterrorism efforts. A department budget official said the listing was intended to focus new attention on "specific presidential initiatives, such as gun violence and immigration services," and not to suggest that other department functions were unimportant.

Under Mr. Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001.

One outside consultant who has worked with the Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies for many years said Mr. Ashcroft's initial focus on other priorities was "not unusual."

New attorneys general, he said, always come with their "local agenda," and Mr. Ashcroft highlighted greater enforcement of existing gun laws. He said Ms. Reno ended her tenure as "perhaps the strongest advocate" of counterterrorism spending, after starting her tenure emphasizing how the department would try to protect children.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How Sept_ 11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept.htm

Not true.

Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm

 

:lol:

 

Point out were I am wrong. Is ''blur / deastrct etc'' all you can say when somebody does what you ask of them [respond to the content].
It suggests to me you have nothing to say in response - wich is what I thought in the first place.

No not really - I thought you were correct - we were or I was getting bogged down with trivia outside of what you had posted.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and responded to what you were posting .
Lke I said you have nothing in response - to anything in this thread [well apart from ''Blur - Destract'' wich I think somebody should put on your grave stone].

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

Who is talking about these ''facts'' - not you that is for sure.
You just parrot something you have read and not looked into properly [or are not willing to look into properly].
Come on - do not prove me correct - PROVE ME WRONG.

 

What have I said that is not true ?.

 

:lol:

 

Whether it's original or not is irrelevant. Some of the figures might be off (the national debt gets higher and more soldiers die every day after all), and it's even possible some the sources are inaccurate, but there's enough evidence out there to put the Bush administration to shame, that's for sure. They have nothing to be proud of, and that's the point.

 

:lol:

 

Is it really - show me.

If there is enough evidence out there then maybe he could spend the time to correct his errors - remove the inaccuracies. - or be original with information that is ''out there'' and then stop calling me a liar.
If you go through them ALL they are ALL riddled with inaccuracies.
So many infact I feel sorry for him.
Nothing I have said is a lie. If I have 'lied' maybe he could point out where - I do not think he could or would. He is a hypocrite if he calls me a liar.

He wanted the content of the thread to be discussed [if not why post it in the first place]. I've obliged him.

No you keep reposting it because you have no response - apart from repetition and insult. If you just wanted people to agree with you - you should have said.

 

HTHs ''qualities''

Self serving:
Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests
Dishonest:
1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
Incompetent:Bungling: showing lack of skill or aptitude; "a bungling workman"; "did a clumsy job"; "his fumbling attempt to put up a shelf"
not doing a good job; "

 

higher than hell

now you see why i normally try to debate using logic rather "facts".

no facts will be acceptable , they will argue that there is no sun.

in this case

the warmongers on this site will rarely go to war themselves.

 

Not me guy - I accept where his ''facts'' are true and question where he is just wrong. Claiming it does not matter about the truth - it is what anybody can see - is ridiculous.
He has done everything that you said about ''1984''.

 

mbworkrelated you are on a roll

 

Well guy it is nice to see you are self aware and come up from that bunker of unreality from time to time - thanks.