1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[maineman]

Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.

if you could prove an opinion, it would no longer be an opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if you could prove an opinion, it would no longer be an opinion.

According to you:

Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.

So, its pretty clear that you're happy to use the term "opinion" and "fact" whenever it suits you.

In the end, Skippy, you believe whatever you -want- to believe, regardless of what evidence you have to back it up, just like the partisan bigot yo' momma raised you to be.

 

[maineman]

According to you:



So, its pretty clear that you're happy to use the term "opinion" and "fact" whenever it suits you.

In the end, Skippy, you believe whatever you -want- to believe, regardless of what evidence you have to back it up, just like the partisan bigot yo' momma raised you to be.

It is factual to say that the administration talking heads conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda repeatedly.... it is my opinion that they did so deliberately.... you think it was all just a giant coincidence. Our opinions differ.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is factual to say that the administration talking heads conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda repeatedly.... it is my opinion that they did so deliberately

Of course they did.

You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.

You then say you KNOW this to be a fact.

What you cannot do is SHOW this to be a fact, even though you claim that it is a fact.

 

[Shogun]

You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.

 

[maineman]

Of course they did.

You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.

You then say you KNOW this to be a fact.

What you cannot do is SHOW this to be a fact, even though you claim that it is a fact.

I KNOW they conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda. I know that they claimed significant contact between the two BEFORE 9/11. I know that everyone in America knew that AQ and 9/11 were inseparably linked. I know that most folks are laughing at you for your continued suggestions that those three facts do not inevitably lead to the implied connection between Iraq and 9/11. As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state. It is my opinion that they did. Again... I know some things to be factual...and I have opinions about other things. DO try to keep up!

 

[M14 Shooter]

I KNOW they conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda. I know that they claimed significant contact between the two BEFORE 9/11. I know that everyone in America knew that AQ and 9/11 were inseparably linked.

None of this is in dispute.
The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ. Often.

But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact.

As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration...

So, you must then admit that what you 'know' is NOT a fact, contrary to your claims.

Not that you will, of course.

 

[maineman]

None of this is in dispute.
The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ. Often.

But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact.


So, you must then admit that what you 'know' is NOT a fact, contrary to your claims.

Not that you will, of course.

can you fucking READ??????

"As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state. It is my opinion that they did. Again... I know some things to be factual...and I have opinions about other things. DO try to keep up!"

 

[maineman]

The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ. Often.

But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact.

but.... for you to continually attack my opinion that the administration repeatedly linking AQ and Iraq and making the case - repeatedly - that that relationship existed before 9/11, caused people to connect those dots is silly. The fact that I cannot prove their intent is irrelevant... the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to their guilt even if it does not conclusively prove that guilt... and, as I said before, it is just my opinion. Conclusive proof is for a court of law. The court of public opinion has much less stringent rules of evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

but.... for you to find my opinion that the administration repeatedly linking AQ and Iraq and making the case - repeatedly - that that relationship existed before 9/11, caused people to connect those dots is silly. The fact that I cannot prove their intent is irrelevant... the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to their guilt even if it does not conclusively prove that guilt... and, as I said before, it is just my opinion.

You've made it very clear that you believe what you -want- to belive, regardless of the fact that you dont have the evidence necessary to support that belief, Skippy.

That's why you're a classic example of a partisan bigot.

 

[Alpha1]

can you fucking READ??????

"As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state. It is my opinion that they did. Again... I know some things to be factual...and I have opinions about other things. DO try to keep up!"

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

--------------------------------------
May I share your sentiments...?

 

[maineman]

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

--------------------------------------
May I share your sentiments...?

of course.

my sentiments were specifically in regard to settled law previously decided by the Supreme COurt, however. I think you would agree that your opinion about the constitutionality of Plessy v. Ferguson was, in fact, worth nothing.

but leave it to RGS to quote me out of context, and leave it to YOU to come following me around like some sort of stalker trying to play cute little "gotcha" games.

 

[maineman]

You've made it very clear that you believe what you -want- to belive, regardless of the fact that you dont have the evidence necessary to support that belief, Skippy.

That's why you're a classic example of a partisan bigot.

that is your opinion. I have made it very clear that I believe what I believe based upon a series of facts that point strongly towards my conclusion.

If I were to repeat over and over again for the media:

"M14 Shooter and Osama bin Laden were repeatedly seen together at planning meetings prior to 9/11", it is perfectly understandable that people would get the idea that you might have had something to do with the attacks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

that is your opinion. I have made it very clear that I believe what I believe based upon a series of facts that point strongly towards my conclusion.

Except for the parts where you can't show the necessary conditions, presume the idiocy of the audience, and rely on faulty logic -- yes, you 'facts' point 'strongly' to your conclusion.



What really happened, Skippy, and what you'll never admit to, is that you're a useful idiot that has fallen for The Big Lie, fed to you by your masters.

 

[Alpha1]

of course.

my sentiments were specifically in regard to settled law previously decided by the Supreme COurt, however. I think you would agree that your opinion about the constitutionality of Plessy v. Ferguson was, in fact, worth nothing.

WTF are you talking about....? Plessy v. Ferguson ? Where the hell did that come from, Goober...

but leave it to RGS to quote me out of context, and leave it to YOU to come following me around like some sort of stalker trying to play cute little "gotcha" games.

Don't whine and cry now...I might let you win one in the future....

 

[maineman]

Don't whine and cry now...I might let you win one in the future....

Plessy v. Ferguson was an example...of settled law decided by the supreme court in Brown v. Board of Education. the quote you had purloined from RGS in your pathetic attempt to play "gatcha" was specifically in relation to his "opinions" about settled law. I said, and still say, that he, or you, or anyone else is welcome to have an opinion about Brown or Miranda or any of the other legal issues of our past settled by prior supreme court decisions, but that those opinions were, in fact, worthless.

and regarding you letting me "win" one of your juvenile gotcha games....please please understand that I really will let you "win" them all for as long as you care to chase me around "winning" them. I really have much better things to do, here and elsewhere, than play your adolescent games.

 

[Shogun]

 

[maineman]

succinct. pithy. brief.

I LIKE it!

 

[Dr Grump]

Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.

Says who? You? This is a messageboard Sparky

All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.

Can't prove that man landed on the moon either. Just have to believe Nasa and Armstrong and Aldrin. I never witnessed the incident first hand. As stated, there is a thing called circumstantial evidence, and I look at all the evidence. So, according to M14, politicians will always come out and say what they mean. You are no longer M14, from now on you are Mr Naive. What is pissing you off is that you think you can score cheap points by trying to find literal answers to complex questions. Maybe Mr Simple instead...hhmmm

And why are you doing that? Because you know you cannot prove it. It does make me wonder why you believe what you are arguing about though...

How many posts am I going to have to say that it is based on previous actions and the fact that I wouldn't trust this admin as far as I could throw it? There are many things I cannot prove that I believe. I think Bruce Springsteen is the best song writer of his generation. Can I prove it? No. I think Rocky Marciano was the best heavyweight boxer ever. Can I prove it? No.

But then, its clear that you simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.

I think there is plenty of evidence this admin can't be trusted, is full of chickhawks, and will go down as one of the worst admins in the history of US politics. You? You're just another neocon apologist who'd defend them til the cows come home..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Says who? You? This is a messageboard Sparky




Can't prove that man landed on the moon either. Just have to believe Nasa and Armstrong and Aldrin. I never witnessed the incident first hand. As stated, there is a thing called circumstantial evidence, and I look at all the evidence. So, according to M14, politicians will always come out and say what they mean. You are no longer M14, from now on you are Mr Naive. What is pissing you off is that you think you can score cheap points by trying to find literal answers to complex questions. Maybe Mr Simple instead...hhmmm



How many posts am I going to have to say that it is based on previous actions and the fact that I wouldn't trust this admin as far as I could throw it? There are many things I cannot prove that I believe. I think Bruce Springsteen is the best song writer of his generation. Can I prove it? No. I think Rocky Marciano was the best heavyweight boxer ever. Can I prove it? No.



I think there is plenty of evidence this admin can't be trusted, is full of chickhawks, and will go down as one of the worst admins in the history of US politics. You? You're just another neocon apologist who'd defend them til the cows come home..

Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.