# Repeal the 22nd amendment ???????



## Plainsman

*Repeal the 22nd amendment*​
For313.04%Against1982.61%Undecided14.35%


----------



## Plainsman

I see democrats and republicans are considering repealing the 22nd amendment. I wouldn't want to see Clinton in for a third term, but hmmmm Bush in 2008. So what do you think good or bad?

Heck, lets make it a poll.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You must have a time limit on the presidency or you risk having a near monarchy. It would have been nice to have another 8 years of Clinton, better for the US and the world at large but on the same note I don't think the country can handle even 4 more years of Bush's poor fiscal responsibility. The really unfortunate thing is that with the conservative majority who votes as one (Really, take some time to watch CSPAN. The conservatives vote as a single unit and cannot be defeated. With their guys currently in power, they would all vote for and it would be a shoe in, whether its bad for the country or not.) it will pass if it ever comes to review.


----------



## ej4prmc

Imagin, Bill, g.W.b, Hillary, Mcain, Arnold in debate, maybe we could get that wild little Texan out there also. Man I did like o'l Ross. He would have charts and graphs for all of us.


----------



## indsport

regardless of party affiliation, if you are not the party holding the presidency, would you want your nemisis to have 3 terms? That is what drove congress and the states to ratify the 22nd amendment. When Clinton was in, did conservatives want him to have a shot at three terms? With Bush in, do the liberals want Bush to have three terms? I doubt it from either side. Since its passage during FDR's time, the only talk that comes up for repealing the 22nd is by the party in power at the time.

That brings up another topic. What ever happened to all those conservative term limit folks that was such a big issue in 1996? Seems to me most of them ran for a third and fourth term and if I recall correctly, but don't have the data at hand, that most of them weaseled out. Just another bunch of conservative flip floppers.


----------



## jdpete75

Very against it.

Go Mcain in 08 :bowdown:


----------



## BigDaddy

Listen, it is the people who should decide who they want for their president. What if the people really wanted a person to serve as president for 3 or 4 terms? If he or she is the best person for the job and people elect him or her in an open election, shouldn't we allow it?


----------



## Bobm

I agree with big daddy, even though I would like to see a lot of congress changed I feel if the people don't bother to get involved and vote them out, then they deserve what we have in congress, some good some very bad but we elected them. We don't need to amend the constitution we need to force our politicians to follow it as written. Every election is a potential term limit.


----------



## Plainsman

I didn't vote how I feel yet. I begin as an undecided, but Big Daddy and Bobm are swaying me. Good argument by both. Militant had me thinking on his first sentence, then went into his diatribe and pushed me the other way. Indsport pushed me further, ej4prmc's comment about Ross P. reminded me of his ears. He could detect a Russian missile at 1500 miles. One person very against it with no reasons. Then Big Daddy and Bobm made some comments that make sense in a free nation I guess. I'm a little reluctant yet, mostly because I keep thinking about Clinton. Three terms for him :******: scares the heck out of me. But, then I think he may have escaped the courts, but I doubt he would have escaped public opinion at the voting booth.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I'm a little reluctant yet, mostly because I keep thinking about Clinton. Three terms for him scares the heck out of me. But, then I think he may have escaped the courts, but I doubt he would have escaped public opinion at the voting booth.


In your dreams, Clinton was one of the best if not the best president(s) of the last 30 years. If he was to run for a third term it would have been a mandate.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... ment.poll/

As much as you would like to think that Clinton was terrible because he lied about an affair to save his marriage, and that his approval of the AWB was just the worst thing since watergate, he was a very effective leader.



> Militant had me thinking on his first sentence, then went into his diatribe and pushed me the other way.


I see, so to be worth listening to I must be non partisan. In that case most of what you write is diatribe as well.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh lord, the stalker is still here.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

More years of Clinton would have been a disgrace :eyeroll: His personal antics (i.e. Monica) were an embarrassment for our country. I have many friends that lived/worked overseas when that debacle happened and we were laughed at. Yes, I know it happened before, but news wasn't transmitted 24/7 either.


----------



## BigDaddy

Looks like Bobm and I now agree on dogs and term limits.

Like the Monica situation or not, you must admit the Clinton would have swept the floor with Bush or Kerry this past election. People like him and remember the prosperity that we had under his administration ( I know that he can't take all the credit for this). In addition, there was a feeling of optimism and social consciousness in the 90s that we don't have anymore.

In a nutshell, I'd vote for Clinton in a heartbeat.


----------



## adokken

Speaking about a disgrace, how about the little Emperor's trip to Europe. We were ridiculed in all the foreign press. The procession in Brussels included the armor plated limousine flown from DC thru the streets denuded of human beings except for riot police and then followed by 19 escort vehicles with 200 hundred secret service agents and 15 sniffer dogs, and 50 white house aids which only added up to part of the emperor's traveling entourage, oh I forgot the 5 cooks plus 50 press tailing along and many of them with their passports in the hands of white house officials. It has been my experience speaking to Europeans that they had a lot of respect for Clinton and in case you are not aware of the opinion of the average European about our fearless leader you should do some traveling, he is ridiculed and despised as a arrogant war monger.
They cannot comprehend that someone with his limited intellect can be the leader of the free world


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Actually I was in Venice Italy during Clinton's reign and I was in Rome Italy during Bush's 1st term. I heard nothing but jokes about Clinton from the speakers at our conference. Didn't hear much conversation about Bush (good or bad) as we were vacationing and did nothing more than check out the sites.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Repeal the 22nd????????????

Hell of an idea, then we could have a King or even a Dictator!!!!!!! :eyeroll:

Cant Wait 

Very few if any of the people that we vote into office are actually public servants. They tell us what we want to hear to get our vote, then they make us believe what they are doing is for our benefit when in reality they are in it for themselves.

My two cents
Bob


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Remmi_&_I said:


> More years of Clinton would have been a disgrace :eyeroll: His personal antics (i.e. Monica) were an embarrassment for our country. I have many friends that lived/worked overseas when that debacle happened and we were laughed at. Yes, I know it happened before, but news wasn't transmitted 24/7 either.


I would far prefer to be laughed at rather than hated as we are now. Yes Clinton made a bad decision in his personal life. Bush makes poor decisions for our country regularly.



> Hell of an idea, then we could have a King or even a Dictator!!!!!!!


You kidding me? The executive branch has been given so much power in the last four years that we have a near king. I don't think that we will ever be able to talk sense to these people. They keep pushing for more power because their guys are in the white house, they do not even consider that they are hurting the country as a whole in the long run. In the end if they do get their way maybe they will see why we fought and kicked and screamed the whole way.


----------



## Plainsman

Bob Kellam wrote:


> Hell of an idea, then we could have a King or even a Dictator!!!!!!!


Militant Tiger wrote:


> You kidding me? The executive branch has been given so much power in the last four years that we have a near king. I don't think that we will ever be able to talk sense to these people.


Ah, MT ---- he was being sarcastic in a humorous way.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

> You kidding me? The executive branch has been given so much power in the last four years that we have a near king.


That is because our country VOTED that way. We have a democracy.......the majority ruled when they voted for the republican senate/house members.

I hate our 2 party system now. They are all so stubborn that they forget they should be voting for the good of the people..........sometimes that requires give and take!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> That is because our country VOTED that way. We have a democracy.......the majority ruled when they voted for the republican senate/house members.
> 
> I hate our 2 party system now. They are all so stubborn that they forget they should be voting for the good of the people..........sometimes that requires give and take!


That is just the thing, there is supposed to be balance between the three branches of government. When you break the balance you get further from a democracy and closer to a despotism.


----------



## Gohon

Remmi_&_I said:


> That is because our country VOTED that way. We have a democracy.......the majority ruled when they voted for the republican senate/house members.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with you that we have a Democracy. We do seem to be moving in that direction which is unfortunate. Truth is our founding fathers framed the constitution to give us a Republic.

Republic = A government in which the sovereign held authority granted by
the people and ruled according to law.

Democracy = A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass
meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.


----------



## jamartinmg2

adokken said:


> Speaking about a disgrace, how about the little Emperor's trip to Europe. We were ridiculed in all the foreign press. The procession in Brussels included the armor plated limousine flown from DC thru the streets denuded of human beings except for riot police and then followed by 19 escort vehicles with 200 hundred secret service agents and 15 sniffer dogs, and 50 white house aids which only added up to part of the emperor's traveling entourage, oh I forgot the 5 cooks plus 50 press tailing along and many of them with their passports in the hands of white house officials. It has been my experience speaking to Europeans that they had a lot of respect for Clinton and in case you are not aware of the opinion of the average European about our fearless leader you should do some traveling, he is ridiculed and despised as a arrogant war monger.
> They cannot comprehend that someone with his limited intellect can be the leader of the free world


And the entourage would be different with Clinton as president? I highly doubt it. Perhaps the Europeans who despise Bush should respect the sacrifices that this country has endured to ensure a free Europe starting with WWII and continuing through the cold war. The socialist countries in Europe will never completely see eye to eye with a capitalistic society like ours no matter who the president is. They will tend to like the more liberal John Kerry types while disliking the Bush/Reagan types.


----------



## adokken

Of course an entourage with Clinton would of been different, number one there would of been the streets teeming with well wishers cheering some one they respected. The European press had a field day with this spectacle. There has never been a foreign dignitary traveling under such security and grandeur. Some of the money spent for this excessive display of pomposity could of been better served by paying for phone calls for our troops in Iraq,
And speaking about Europe being thankful for what my generation did, they showed that after 9/11. I had a lot of mail expressing their support.
It took this cabal of burgeoning Fascists to change that. Don't put the blame on the recipients for our arrogance. My son was in Greece a couple of years ago and he told a lady tour guide that his dad had been on a ship with a load of grain for Greece in 1945, And she said to tell your dad thank you, she said we will never forget what they done for us.


----------



## Plainsman

Where was it Clinton went with about 60 plains, was it China? I know he took an entourage that no other rivaled.

We have digressed. If we wish to speak about Clinton, how do you think he viewed the second amendment. I think his FBI appointee said that it was not intended for private citizens and that he would zealously enforce gun control.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> And the entourage would be different with Clinton as president? I highly doubt it. Perhaps the Europeans who despise Bush should respect the sacrifices that this country has endured to ensure a free Europe starting with WWII and continuing through the cold war. The socialist countries in Europe will never completely see eye to eye with a capitalistic society like ours no matter who the president is. They will tend to like the more liberal John Kerry types while disliking the Bush/Reagan types.


So they should blindly agree with us no matter what the proposition is because we helped them out in the past? There seems to be a lapse of morality there.


----------



## huntin1

As much as I would like to see President Bush remain in office for as long as possible, I think that term limits are good for this country. I would not have wanted Clinton to be reelected to another term and there are just too many people out there who do not consider what a candidate stands for, just the party that they are affiliated with.

huntin1


----------



## jamartinmg2

Frankly, I don't give a rats behind what the French or Germans think of us. George Bush did what he thought were in the best interests of protecting our country when we went into Iraq. I don't feel too bad for hurting the feelings of some Europeans who aren't concerned one way or the other what happens to our country. I think the last election shows that most people would agree with that assessment. Sorry Plainsman... I am veering off the subject. I'll shut up now :-?


----------



## Plainsman

Jamartinmg2

Hey, you don't have to stick to a subject. One thing leads to another. I think everyone on a site like this agrees that the second amendment should stand forever anyway. It was perhaps a moot point to try and make.

I agree with you about the Europeans. If they don't like us defending ourselves kiss off. As for the liberals wanting to keep Europe happy, that is because they think socialistic like Europe and feel we must appease them. Of course that is always their first line of defense, appease, or outright beg. The only people they have the outright guts to dislike is conservatives.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Frankly, I don't give a rats behind what the French or Germans think of us. George Bush did what he thought were in the best interests of protecting our country when we went into Iraq. I don't feel too bad for hurting the feelings of some Europeans who aren't concerned one way or the other what happens to our country. I think the last election shows that most people would agree with that assessment. Sorry Plainsman... I am veering off the subject. I'll shut up now


You don't care what all of Europe has to say? I'm gonna go ahead and say that they have a wee bit more experience than us on the subject, and we should just maybe listen to what they have to say. I'm not sure how the invasion was in our best interest, unless you still believe that he really thought based on the so called evidence that there were real WMD's there, in which case you live in your own little world. I think the last election shows how impressionable some Americans are. As well, notice that the elections ran just about 50/50.



> Hey, you don't have to stick to a subject. One thing leads to another.


I see, but when I cause a topic to change in subject I am a terrible person. You have mastered the double standard.



> If they don't like us defending ourselves kiss off.


Notice how nearly all if not all of the European countries agreed with and supported the attacks on Afghanistan, because that was defending ourselves. Going into Iraq was not defense, it was prevenge.



> As for the liberals wanting to keep Europe happy, that is because they think socialistic like Europe and feel we must appease them.


Based on no fact, and goes against what most liberals believe, but hey it sounds good!



> Of course that is always their first line of defense, appease, or outright beg. The only people they have the outright guts to dislike is conservatives.


And your defense is bomb first, ask questions later? Yes reasoning is quite a barbaric and ridiculous method.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> You don't care what all of Europe has to say? I'm gonna go ahead and say that they have a wee bit more experience than us on the subject, and we should just maybe listen to what they have to say.


More experience about what? Please explain.



> I'm not sure how the invasion was in our best interest, unless you still believe that he really thought based on the so called evidence that there were real WMD's there, in which case you live in your own little world.


Okay, guess I'll have to ask again ............ please cite one single speech where the President said one of the reasons we were going to war with Iraq was because of WMD's. Just one ............



> Notice how nearly all if not all of the European countries agreed with and supported the attacks on Afghanistan,


Of course not, they wern't getting kick backs from the leaders of Afghanistan and they weren't owed billions of dollars for under the table weapons they were selling them. But other than that...........



> And your defense is bomb first, ask questions later? Yes reasoning is quite a barbaric and ridiculous method.


And you know how to reason with people willing to blow themselves up in planes just to kill others......... Sadam paying money to the families of terrorist makes him the same as they but hell, you're certainly free to go to Iraq and reason with them. Might even get a collection started here to pay your plane fare ..........


----------



## IAHunter

First off, I believe it is hypoctitical to have term limits in one branch of government and not the other. Judges I can understand, but tell me how a president in his 5th term (20 years) has more power than a Senator on their 5th term (30 years). But lets take a look at who makes the laws... hmmmmm. I believe that there should be term limits on every elected office holder. If Iowa reelects its senators over and over, and North Dakota elects ones that keeps screwing up and can't get reelected, does that justify Iowa having more power within congress? Same with a president. I still have yet to see where "certian" presidents had any great power over the economy. Market trends and Alan Greenspan have greater short term influences while the government has greater long term influences (6-12 years). I say instead of repealing the 22nd, add to it to include the congress. You have a greater chance of getting new blood into the moldy buildings, even if it is a party you detest (for the most part). And lets add a new admendment. All air conditioning units must be ripped out of the halls of congress. You want to stay in the summer? Sweat your piggy @$$ off!!!!

And on another note....why is it every time that a topic is started it turns immediately into a name calling situation? Bush is a moron that the rest of the world hates. Who cares. We, as a nation, elected him, they didn't, shouldn't, and DON'T have a voice in the matter. Don't like the fact your guy didn't win? Move, other wise shut the hell up and get ready for the next election. And Clinton. I've already stated the only good thing he did in office, but he is out of office now. Let's get over it. The American public elected him twice. They saw something we didnt, good for them. Or maybe it was just the money talking that got both of these guys reelected, which goes back to the ORIGINAL question of this thread.

I think I'm going to swear off this site entirely because I'm finding it to be like FOX and CNN. Let's argue without getting any real info out there. Jesus, people.

IaHunter


----------



## Plainsman

IAHunter

I certainly hope you don't swear off. You put thought into this, and I enjoy your perspective. We keep trying for serious discussion, hopefully we will eventually get there. Posts like yours lead us in that direction, and for that I am thankful. It's your type of comments we need. Constructive criticism is good.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Plainsman said:


> IAHunter
> 
> I certainly hope you don't swear off. You put thought into this, and I enjoy your perspective. We keep trying for serious discussion, hopefully we will eventually get there. Posts like yours lead us in that direction, and for that I am thankful. It's your type of comments we need. Constructive criticism is good.


I'll second that!


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Gohon said:


> Okay, guess I'll have to ask again ............ please cite one single speech where the President said one of the reasons we were going to war with Iraq was because of WMD's. Just one ............


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

* The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
*


----------



## Plainsman

Robert
Yes, I remember that speech. I think we loose the original ideas when we argue our points with people. If I remember right the entire world thought he had WMD. I know England did, we did, and the Russian leadership told us he did. At that time I think all of us believed that. Where we get in the argument is people that hate Bush now claim he lied. They know that Bush believed it like everyone else, and when you believe something you are not lying. They know this, however they hate him so much they think if they keep saying he lied a certain segment of society will begin to believe it. You know who lies? The people that say Bush lied. They know better, but they hate him so much they do it for partisan advantage.

I remember Bush saying a number of times that there were WMD's. I still suspect there may have been. I know many people will jump on that. In their heart they know this is true, but they deny it even if they know there is still that chance. Some people still proclaim Sadam was a good leader, better than Bush. Then those same people will call conservatives radical. Go figure.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Quote:
> Notice how nearly all if not all of the European countries agreed with and supported the attacks on Afghanistan,
> 
> Of course not, they wern't getting kick backs from the leaders of Afghanistan and they weren't owed billions of dollars for under the table weapons they were selling them. But other than that...........


Any proof or just some more horse **** that sounds pretty?



> Militant_Tiger wrote:
> You don't care what all of Europe has to say? I'm gonna go ahead and say that they have a wee bit more experience than us on the subject, and we should just maybe listen to what they have to say.
> 
> More experience about what? Please explain.


In dealing with international relations, hey have had several hundred years more experience than we have.



> Okay, guess I'll have to ask again ............ please cite one single speech where the President said one of the reasons we were going to war with Iraq was because of WMD's. Just one ............


My thanks to Robert for handling this one, really where have you been? Do you really live in your own world?



> And you know how to reason with people willing to blow themselves up in planes just to kill others......... Sadam paying money to the families of terrorist makes him the same as they but hell, you're certainly free to go to Iraq and reason with them. Might even get a collection started here to pay your plane fare ..........


Afghanistan was reasonable. We were attacked, we attacked back. We were not attacked by Iraq and Saddam nor his country was the largest supporter of terrorism in that area by a longshot.



> Yes, I remember that speech. I think we loose the original ideas when we argue our points with people. If I remember right the entire world thought he had WMD.


Yes, everyone except for Europe who said they weren't sure and wanted to wait for the inspectors to finish their jobs.



> Where we get in the argument is people that hate Bush now claim he lied. They know that Bush believed it like everyone else, and when you believe something you are not lying. They know this, however they hate him so much they think if they keep saying he lied a certain segment of society will begin to believe it. You know who lies? The people that say Bush lied. They know better, but they hate him so much they do it for partisan advantage.


Man do you ever sound corney. They just hate him SO MUCH that they say he is the devil. Don't you wonder why I dislike Bush? It couldn't be because he makes poor decisions right? No I just hate him because he is a republican. Do you have any proof on either side? I know that you can't prove that he was telling the truth, nor that those who say he lied are lying. I really do think he knew that there were probably no WMD's, but say it as a good time to act and most people would be able to justify it, like you.



> I remember Bush saying a number of times that there were WMD's. I still suspect there may have been. I know many people will jump on that. In their heart they know this is true, but they deny it even if they know there is still that chance. Some people still proclaim Sadam was a good leader, better than Bush. Then those same people will call conservatives radical. Go figure.


You know Plainsey its sad, you just hate my group SO MUCH that you have to pretend like there were WMD's there the whole time. You know better, you just want a partisan advantage.


----------



## Gohon

Robert A. Langager said:


> Gohon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guess I'll have to ask again ............ please cite one single speech where the President said one of the reasons we were going to war with Iraq was because of WMD's. Just one ............
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
> 
> * The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
> *
Click to expand...

You are right he does mention WMD ............ I think how I should have worded the question was a cite that says THE reason we are going to war is WMD. That seems to be the war cry from the left even though they know that is not so. WMD's were only part of the reason.


----------



## Gohon

> Any proof or just some more horse &$#* that sounds pretty?


Apparently you missed the news on the day it was announced that our troops found weapons with dates less than a year old and said weapons were made in France. Direct UN violation ...... Or I suppose the oil for food scandal has escaped you also.



> In dealing with international relations, hey have had several hundred years more experience than we have.


Well now there is a thought ......... be like the French who have never won a single war they started and their President has been linked with direct ties to Sadam, or the Germans who have started the last two world wars............ they sure have a lot of experience.



> Afghanistan was reasonable. We were attacked, we attacked back. We were not attacked by Iraq and Saddam nor his country was the largest supporter of terrorism in that area by a longshot.


 ....Afghanistan attacked us? I thought they were just giving safe haven to those that did. Just like Iraq only Iraq had WMD's and if you don't think they didn't then you are living in a dream world. The WMD's were there and it should make you very nervous that they haven't been found yet. Sitting on your butt and waiting to be attacked is for fools and fortunately we have a President that is no fool.


----------



## Plainsman

> I know that you can't prove that he was telling the truth, nor that those who say he lied are lying.


MT at least this tells me you understand my point about the "Bush lied" theory. It can't be proven, but it is repeated over and over like it was certain truth. Why????? Because the more likely scenario is that it isn't true?
So how is it you can understand this, but not my point. Pretending not to understand perhaps?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Well now there is a thought ......... be like the French who have never won a single war they started and their President has been linked with direct ties to Sadam, or the Germans who have started the last two world wars............ they sure have a lot of experience.


Man, thats cute. Seriously stop, you can't be that ignorant.



> Apparently you missed the news on the day it was announced that our troops found weapons with dates less than a year old and said weapons were made in France. Direct UN violation ...... Or I suppose the oil for food scandal has escaped you also.


Must have missed that one, mind finding a link? It wasn't reported on by jeff gannon was it?



> ....Afghanistan attacked us? I thought they were just giving safe haven to those that did. Just like Iraq only Iraq had WMD's and if you don't think they didn't then you are living in a dream world. The WMD's were there and it should make you very nervous that they haven't been found yet. Sitting on your butt and waiting to be attacked is for fools and fortunately we have a President that is no fool.


They were there because you really wanted them to be? No the country of Afghanistan did not physically move and smack the united states, but they were a major funder of terrorist activities and housed many terrorist training camps.



> MT at least this tells me you understand my point about the "Bush lied" theory. It can't be proven, but it is repeated over and over like it was certain truth. Why????? Because the more likely scenario is that it isn't true? So how is it you can understand this, but not my point. Pretending not to understand perhaps?


It is simply that your point doesn't make sense. You are just spewing bile that sounds great, par usual.


----------



## IAHunter

> Man, thats cute. Seriously stop, you can't be that ignorant





> You are just spewing bile that sounds great, par usual





> Do you really live in your own world





> Man do you ever sound corney


9 posts!!! All it takes is 9 little posts. :roll:

IaHunter


----------



## Plainsman

Come on MT I asked a question. You have repeated I don't know how many times "Bush lied". Now you say " I know you can't prove he was telling the truth", by that same measure of proof, you can not say he lied, so you do understand. Saying I am just spreading bile as per usual is ducking the question. You have multiple standards. One for MT, one for liberals, one for conservatives, one for trooper, one for gohan, one for me etc etc. You can't have your cake and eat it too MT. I think everyone understands my point. Some may say they do not, but we know better don't we ? And you say I attack *your* credibility????? Another double standard isn't it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Come on MT I asked a question. You have repeated I don't know how many times "Bush lied". Now you say " I know you can't prove he was telling the truth", by that same measure of proof, you can not say he lied, so you do understand. Saying I am just spreading bile as per usual is ducking the question. You have multiple standards. One for MT, one for liberals, one for conservatives, one for trooper, one for gohan, one for me etc etc. You can't have your cake and eat it too MT. I think everyone understands my point. Some may say they do not, but we know better don't we ? And you say I attack *your* credibility????? Another double standard isn't it?


And yet again you twist my words, I said you can't prove that bush was telling the truth, nor that those who say he lied are lying. Yet another weak stab at ruining my credibility, you know one would think you would have learned after the fifth failed attempt.


----------



## Plainsman

You fail to understand MT, I am applying the same logic. You say I can't prove he is telling the truth, I say you can't prove he lied. Hey, what is ok for you is ok for me isn't it? You call me an idiot, say I spread bile etc etc and then say I attack your credibility. I question your assertions and hold your feet to the fire at times. I am asking a serious question and you respond with "



> You are just spewing bile that sounds great, par usual.





> Yet another weak stab at ruining my credibility,


I am simply asking for an adult like answer before we forget the original question.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You say I can't prove he is telling the truth, I say you can't prove he lied. Hey, what is ok for you is ok for me isn't it? You call me an idiot, say I spread bile etc etc and then say I attack your credibility. I question your assertions and hold your feet to the fire at times.


Think of it this way. For a theory to be proven right and made into law all opposition must be proved wrong. Unit that point, it is just theory. There are an infinite amount of chances that he did not have any WMD's, but only one that he did. There was no hard proof that he had any weapons, but then and now many if not most things point to the fact that he had none. I suppose this is a lot like if you said that the sun has a core of cheese, I certainly can't prove you wrong, but all of the information shows that it most likely does not.


----------



## Plainsman

Your still ducking the question. Can you prove he lied?

Somehow we need to get to serious discussion not simply accusations, so I guess we need to take this one little step at a time. Lets settle this point.

For a start down this new path I will admit I can not prove he told the truth. Can you prove he lied. 
After we settle this then we can present any circumstantial evidence. Until then we can make no headway.

Do you and I not owe this to the people on this form?


----------



## huntin1

Here's one view,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=37616

The article reads in part:

"In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 2002, "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

In January 2003, Kerry added, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." "

(Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. )

And from this site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html

"The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:

* 26,000 liters of anthrax-enough to kill several million people
* 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
* 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities."

Of couse, this is all right wing propaganda isn't it M_T.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Your still ducking the question. Can you prove he lied?
> 
> Somehow we need to get to serious discussion not simply accusations, so I guess we need to take this one little step at a time. Lets settle this point.
> 
> For a start down this new path I will admit I can not prove he told the truth. Can you prove he lied.
> After we settle this then we can present any circumstantial evidence. Until then we can make no headway.
> 
> Do you and I not owe this to the people on this form?


Man, you must be slow or something. I have just stated multiple times that I cannot prove he lied, and you cannot prove that he did not lie.


----------



## Plainsman

So MT, I don't want the republicans to go to far right. How about the liberals do you think they can go to far left? 
My main concern is I want the republicans to be a little more environmental.
I want the democrats to be less gun control. 
I have said this before: I think republicans are more likely to listen to a fellow conservative so I call them about environmental concerns. I know you are pro second amendment. You may not vote yet, but your representatives know you will, do you call them with concerns about the second amendment?

I think if enough of America gets a little more involved we can push both parties toward the center. The problem is so many Americans say they don't want to hear anymore about politics, the election is over.

You know Bobm had a point a while back that if we can't get serious we are doing no good. So tell us seriously about what you do for the second amendment. Don't think you can't have an impact.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I think if enough of America gets a little more involved we can push both parties toward the center.


At this point I have serious doubts of pushing the conservatives who are in office and the hopefuls anywhere but right.

This is quite a trek off topic from our off topic, but I have done nothing for the second ammendment other than purchasing guns. Why don't I pester my represenatives with e-mails? Because there is no looming problem with firearms in my state nor in the country abroad at this point in time. As well, I know there are greater forces at work than a few hundred e-mails.


----------



## Plainsman

They still need to hear from you MT. The chance of firearms registration looms constantly. I made a post here a few days ago about a woman from Australia that thinks we should be forced to give up the second amendment through binding UN treaty. We can never let down our guard MT. The republican perhaps would not respond well to you when it comes to environmental concerns. Therefore it is my duty to talk to them. Democrats will not listen to me as a conservative, therefore MT you should be doing something. Our parties will go where their constituents want them to go. They want our vote so conservatives will want to keep me happy, and liberals will want to keep you happy.

Gun control rears it's ugly head often. The problem is present as we speak, just not on the surface. If you are passionate as you say you will do something. I hope it isn't all talk.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Democrats will not listen to me as a conservative, therefore MT you should be doing something.


I explain to everyone I know the wonders of shooting, but I'll be damned if my reps will listen to me on this issue because im a liberal.

You know these are quite reasonable and nice things that you are saying, but I am still at a loss as to how it ties in with anything that we have been discussing in this thread.


----------



## Plainsman

It is off subject, but we have dealt with our differences and all we do is argue. I thought I would be more of service to people on the site if I started to talk about common ground.

You're a stubborn person on here, why do you have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to your representatives? They will not roll over and agree with you right away, but if you don't say something to them they will think everyone agrees with them. They need to know it isn't only conservatives that respect the second amendment to the constitution. You can argue with me 24/7 why give up so easy on gun rights?

Those who do nothing have no right to complain about anything.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You can argue with me 24/7 why give up so easy on gun rights?


Because there is no current problem. I'm not going to waste my time telling them to let me keep my gun rights if they are already doing exactly that. If there was some sort of bill going thru to limit firearm ownership, I would indeed say something.



> Those who do nothing have no right to complain about anything.


And those on the losing side of an argument switch the subject mighty fast. :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

We settled the argument that I can not prove Bush is telling the truth and you can't prove he lied.

I said if we could agree on that then we could present our circumstantial evidence. That isn't exactly arguing is it? I don't know if we can get anywhere that way though. Maybe I can ask you some questions and we can get through this incrementally.

Do you agree that England, France, Germany, Russia, and our intelligence agency thought Sadam had WMD's?



> There are an infinite amount of chances that he did not have any WMD's, but only one that he did.


Seriously, why are there infinite chances he did not and only one that he did. To me it is simply he did or he didn't, one on one.


----------



## Gohon

huntin1 said:


> Here's one view,
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=37616


I think one of the problems is some people simply see WMD's as nuclear weapons and to that end will argue with that thought as their base. As we both know, that simply is not the case.


----------



## Gohon

> Man, thats cute. Seriously stop, you can't be that ignorant.


translation = I can't deny anything he said so I'll just spin my way out.



> Must have missed that one, mind finding a link? It wasn't reported on by jeff gannon was it?


Take your pick from this 10 second search. BTW, who is jeff gannon?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -1796r.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisi ... /58568.stm

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/artgall ... ction.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Oct7.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2218.shtml

Quote from the last cite above = "What the U.N. does not want to talk about is which of our illustrious allies were openly violating the ban on arms sales to Iraq. U.S. inspectors found Russian and French made weapons at the Iraqi munitions site that were manufactured during the 1990s.

The U.S. military teams uncovered several examples of U.N. violations, including a number of French bomb fuses with a production date of "2001-Sep-5".

The French bomb fuses, which had documentation noting that the devices were produced in 2001, were stored in a box stating the manufacture date was 1985 in an apparent effort to mislead U.N. and U.S. inspectors".


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Do you agree that England, France, Germany, Russia, and our intelligence agency thought Sadam had WMD's?


I suppose this is like asking if I believe that the moon landings were faked because there was some shakey evidence to say that they were. No I do not believe that there was sufficent evidence to prove that Saddam had weapons, I can't say what the leaders really thought, but they probably had alterior motives.



> Seriously, why are there infinite chances he did not and only one that he did. To me it is simply he did or he didn't, one on one.


This isin't easy to explain, basically any theory cannot be proven true until you prove that every other reason to prove it wrong is false. Basically it was infinitely more likely that he did not have them.



> I think one of the problems is some people simply see WMD's as nuclear weapons and to that end will argue with that thought as their base. As we both know, that simply is not the case.


We were told that he had nukes, WMD was just another word to explain it.



> Quote:
> Man, thats cute. Seriously stop, you can't be that ignorant.
> 
> translation = I can't deny anything he said so I'll just spin my way out.


Did you not take any foreign history classes? Out of the major wars France is actually had 17 wins and 9 losses. Now if you are going to ignore basic facts by saying completely ignorant stuff like France has never won a war I'm not going to debate anything with you.



> Take your pick from this 10 second search. BTW, who is jeff gannon?


Didn't figure FOX would let you know about that...



> Quote from the last cite above = "What the U.N. does not want to talk about is which of our illustrious allies were openly violating the ban on arms sales to Iraq. U.S. inspectors found Russian and French made weapons at the Iraqi munitions site that were manufactured during the 1990s.


You do realized that we gave both Iran and Iraq weaponry during their war in hopes that they would knock each other down to the point where they wouldn't be a threat, right?


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> No I do not believe that there was sufficent evidence to prove that Saddam had weapons,


My God M_T you really are quite dense aren't you. Your own parties leaders believed that there was sufficent evidence to prove he had them. Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and even your hero John Kerry all believed he had them and yet you bad-mouth President Bush for acting on the information that made them all believe that they were there. I don't think that I've ever met a bigger hypocrite than what you are on this issue. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> My God M_T you really are quite dense aren't you. Your own parties leaders believed that there was sufficent evidence to prove he had them. Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and even your hero John Kerry all believed he had them and yet you bad-mouth President Bush for acting on the information that made them all believe that they were there. I don't think that I've ever met a bigger hypocrite than what you are on this issue.


Yes I do criticize him, war is a last resort. It was not used as a last resort, I have a big problem with that. He should have let the inspectors finish their jobs, run a few spy missions and then decide.


----------



## huntin1

I don't understand M_T, not too long ago you were spouting off about how he lied about the weapons and you were mad about us going to war because of his lies, now all of a sudden it is just because war is a last resort. Jeez, you flip-flop just like Kerry.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I don't understand M_T, not too long ago you were spouting off about how he lied about the weapons and you were mad about us going to war because of his lies, now all of a sudden it is just because war is a last resort. Jeez, you flip-flop just like Kerry.


Both of my reasons are still valid. I don't believe he told us the whole truth, and I don't believe it was used as a last resort. Do you still have a hard time understanding this?


----------



## Plainsman

Hunt1, I think we have to realize the truth. You can't win with a 16 year old boy that knows everything. Mt you don't like us to talk about age, but you do act like a little boy. You are in no way a serious debater, your a person that whoever brought you up was more concerned with self esteem than teaching you respect. Maybe it is time people treat you like an adult. You have been given a pass on your mouth.

You don't realize when people don't push something and really hold your feet to the fire. When I say something is BS I am being kind to you. Do you really think that I think your 25? Not a chance, I think you make things up. Would you care again to explain how you remember the Gulf War happening in your early teens, your 16 right? Then you said oh it was when Clinton bombed the terrorist site in Afghanistan. It was such an image in your mind watching it on TV the bombs and everything. We pretty much let it go there. However, hunt1 did mention Clinton told the nation about it afterwards. It was never on TV. And that would still make you at least 20.

So you mentioned on another post how you always have facts. Prove it explain how you watched something that didn't exist. Get serious or we will not appreciate your company anymore. This isn't the second grade where you make up things to win arguments. I am deeply disappointed that a fellow liberal hasn't told you to act like you are 16.

I think trooper had a wonderful post that describes debate I would appreciate everyone looking at it.

Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:30 pm find it under liberal feelings vs. 
Judeo - Christian values


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You don't realize when people don't push something and really hold your feet to the fire. When I say something is BS I am being kind to you.


This is pretty funny, you keep trying to justify losing a debate to a 16 year old. You know we grow up a lot faster these days, don't be so down.



> Then you said oh it was when Clinton bombed the terrorist site in Afghanistan. It was such an image in your mind watching it on TV the bombs and everything. We pretty much let it go there. However, hunt1 did mention Clinton told the nation about it afterwards. It was never on TV. And that would still make you at least 20.


Iraq, I said we were bombing Iraq. I will admit that I really don't know what conflict it was, and the time of the memory is rather vague but the memory itself is very clear.



> So you mentioned on another post how you always have facts. Prove it explain how you watched something that didn't exist.


Why do you assume the worst? In your mind because not all of the parts of my memory are crystal clear (really what do you remember clearly from the age of 8, odds are you wouldn't remember something that insignificant perfectly) it must be contrived. I know what I saw, I just don't recall when it was that I saw it.



> Get serious or we will not appreciate your company anymore.


Oh please, you never did because I am as fanatical about my beliefs as you are about yours.


----------



## Plainsman

I am not that far right. There are a few things I am not happy with about the republican party, and I voiced that to them. It could be discussed more openly here, but that would be giving you an inch, and you would make a mile of it. You polarize people MT and no I am not as radical as you, no one on here is nearly as radical as you. Civilized people can debate without anger, your smart a$$ attitude angers people. What could be enjoyable, entertaining, and education is turned to stress. I can learn from some people, but I have no trust in your word so learn nothing.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> Did you not take any foreign history classes? Out of the major wars France is actually had 17 wins and 9 losses. Now if you are going to ignore basic facts by saying completely ignorant stuff like France has never won a war I'm not going to debate anything with you.


Just as well because actually there were 35 wars the French have been involved in through out history. In any event I wasn't talking about their religious and civil wars. So much for your basic facts..........



> Didn't figure FOX would let you know about that...


Gee .... does this mean I can make up a childish tag line now. I think not.........



> You do realized that we gave both Iran and Iraq weaponry during their war in hopes that they would knock each other down to the point where they wouldn't be a threat, right?


Good Lord .............. what does that have to do with UN violations or WMD's. Your getting desperate now and besides as far as I know we gave Iran nothing. IIRC we supplied Iraq with weapons because we considered him the lesser of two evils. BTW, the President has declared after 40 years of use that was a policy the US would no longer employ with any countries at war.


----------



## the_rookie

hey everbody im back how is everyone hows my fav republican plainsman anywho about the 22nd ammendment the problem is it was always a good idea and without id hate to say but MT's right it would result in a monarchy but all we gotta do is find another good republican to run the country maybe you should run plainsman and the problem is pretty much everybody here is basibly in the middle just over on the right or just over on the left except for MT who is still extremely left but me im just about in the middle and im republican and what MT fails to realize is some of us republicans agree with SOME things the democrats are for so im back and be ready to get hammered MT cause im on fire


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Just as well because actually there were 35 wars the French have been involved in through out history. In any event I wasn't talking about their religious and civil wars. So much for your basic facts..........


How exactly does one win a civil war? Gohon it seems that you refuse to lose an argument, you just leave things vague or leave yourself an out so you don't have to eat crow. Heres an idea, how about getting some actual information so you don't to eat the crow in the first place.



> be ready to get hammered MT cause im on fire


Bring it.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> How exactly does one win a civil war? Gohon it seems that you refuse to lose an argument, you just leave things vague or leave yourself an out so you don't have to eat crow. Heres an idea, how about getting some actual information so you don't to eat the crow in the first place.


There is no argument despite your attempt to have one. I was attempting a debate, something you still haven't been able to grasp the meaning of. Why does someone have to eat crow? What is it with you that you think there has to be a clear winner or loser. Don't throw out your usual crap about clear information or facts as you have failed to present any so far on any subject. Your comment "How exactly does one win a civil war" is just plain stupid and shows your desire to spin instead of answering something. What you didn't like is your comment that France was involved in 17 wars which was wrong and you didn't like me pointing that out. When you decide what you want to be when you grow up let me know............. until then I'll just keep you listed in the troll group where you rightfully belong. Now go ahead and come on back with some of your expected dribble then go play in your sandbox.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> There is no argument despite your attempt to have one. I was attempting a debate, something you still haven't been able to grasp the meaning of. Why does someone have to eat crow? What is it with you that you think there has to be a clear winner or loser. Don't throw out your usual crap about clear information or facts as you have failed to present any so far on any subject. Your comment "How exactly does one win a civil war" is just plain stupid and shows your desire to spin instead of answering something. What you didn't like is your comment that France was involved in 17 wars which was wrong and you didn't like me pointing that out. When you decide what you want to be when you grow up let me know............. until then I'll just keep you listed in the troll group where you rightfully belong. Now go ahead and come on back with some of your expected dribble then go play in your sandbox.


You are changing what was said. You stated that France never won a war, to which I stated that you were ignorant. When I proved you wrong you retorted that you were speaking of religous and civil wars (which was not the topic, and what the hell is a religous war) which is ridiculous as there is no winner in a civil war, it is a war within one country fighting itself. Now if you aren't going to admit when you are wrong you shouldn't make silly comments in the first place. Apparently I'm a troll because I like to use facts, more talking points.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> When I proved you wrong you retorted that you were speaking of religous and civil wars


No I didn't ...... never said any such thing. Which proves you read what you want to see and not what is written. Go back and read it again.

It is just like when I said the French never won a major war THEY started you cam back as if I had said never won any war. You read what you wanted and in the process continue to make a *** of yourself. Why don't you list by name these 17 major wars the French STARTED and WON. Here I'll give you some material to work with.........

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.



> (which was not the topic, and what the hell is a religous war)


The eight French Wars of Religion began in 1562 and lasted for 36 years.
But ........ aren't those part of your 17 wars???????



> which is ridiculous as there is no winner in a civil war, it is a war within one country fighting itself.


Wrong, a civil war is a government fighting a group trying to over throw it. The only way a country could possible fight itself is if the goverenment is trying to over throw it's own self.



> Now if you aren't going to admit when you are wrong you shouldn't make silly comments in the first place. Apparently I'm a troll because I like to use facts, more talking points.


I'll just wait and see if you take your own advice on this one since you screwed this up as usual. BTW, just because you say something is fact doesn't make it a fact. Something else you know very little about.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> It is just like when I said the French never won a major war THEY started you cam back as if I had said never won any war. You read what you wanted and in the process continue to make a a$$ of yourself. Why don't you list by name these 17 major wars the French STARTED and WON. Here I'll give you some material to work with.........


Aha, missed the "wasn't". They lost but one war under Napoleon, most of which they started.



> American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".


Considering that we wouln't have won our independence without their help I wouldn't talk quite so much smack.



> WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.


You are an idiot.



> Wrong, a civil war is a government fighting a group trying to over throw it. The only way a country could possible fight itself is if the goverenment is trying to over throw it's own self.


It is an attempt by citizens of a country to overthrow the leadership, if French are fighting French there is no victor.



> I'll just wait and see if you take your own advice on this one since you screwed this up as usual. BTW, just because you say something is fact doesn't make it a fact. Something else you know very little about.


No, it is not fact because I say it is, it is fact because it is in the textbooks.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.





> You are an idiot.


Interesting how you simply pick out one or two lines of a post and then throw out childish innuendoes in a attempt to avoid the fact you had made a jackass of yourself. BTW dummy, nothing on that list were my words but a political joke from about.com that has been all over the net for a couple years. You just proved with your idiot comment that are light years from manhood. Still haven't seen any cited facts from you ........... even your little tag line is misleading as the one cite someone posted doesn't support the question it asked. Read it for yourself.......


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Interesting how you simply pick out one or two lines of a post and then throw out childish innuendoes in a attempt to avoid the fact you had made a jackass of yourself. BTW dummy, nothing on that list were my words but a political joke from about.com that has been all over the net for a couple years. You just proved with your idiot comment that are light years from manhood. Still haven't seen any cited facts from you ........... even your little tag line is misleading as the one cite someone posted doesn't support the question it asked. Read it for yourself.......


I see, so you posted it as your own work, and then tell that it is someone elses when everything falls apart, yet another exit to a poorly formed argument. I thought about taking the Plainsman approach to this and ignore you, but you are just too funny to pass on.


----------



## Gohon

Militant_Tiger said:


> I see, so you posted it as your own work, and then tell that it is someone elses when everything falls apart,


Sorry little boy, I never done any thing of the sort. Simply told you "here is some MATERIAL" to get you started. Nothing fell apart, you simply took your only functional brain cell and assumed again. Again you stuck your foot in your mouth, again you try to spin out. I'm sure most are tired of this thread by now so take you normal childish shot then drop it .......... I'm very much through with you here................. unless you intend to post a factual cite as requested .............. what am I saying, of course you won't.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Sorry little boy, I never done any thing of the sort. Simply told you "here is some MATERIAL" to get you started. Nothing fell apart, you simply took your only functional brain cell and assumed again. Again you stuck your foot in your mouth, again you try to spin out. I'm sure most are tired of this thread by now so take you normal childish shot then drop it .......... I'm very much through with you here................. unless you intend to post a factual cite as requested .............. what am I saying, of course you won't.


I see, so by material I am meant to assume that you have just copied and pasted something instead of writing your own horse ****. I am then told not to assume, make up your mind. As to a factual site, to support what? I really don't know what we've been arguing about since you took it to an argument over your ignorance about Europe.


----------



## ej4prmc

RUN BILL RUN!


----------



## Plainsman

ej4prmc said:


> RUN BILL RUN!


I guess I am dense tonight, I don't understand.


----------

