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

[maineman]

No, you do it because you know your point can't stand on its own and you need to deflect attention away from your own incompetence.

you really need to get over this mistaken belief that you know people's motivations so well that you can contradict them....it really is quite tedious and sophomoric.


This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

For you to be right, you must show that, in Iraq, this to be the case.

Get busy.

No...for me to be wrong, you would need to prove that the result of the leader stepping down would be even greater destabilization... pretty tough to quantify... and, beyond that, you would need to prove that democrats "hoped for" and "actively promoted" that further destabilization and not merely improved performance and increased accountability. Perhaps YOU should get busy.

 

[maineman]

you need to rethink your entire approach here....you really are not the amazing Carnak. You should maybe wait until I actually have said something rather than you current MO of "predicting" what I would say and then criticizing me based upon your prediction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No...for me to be wrong, you would need to prove that the result of the leader stepping down would be even greater destabilization...

Its your claim, Skippy -- its up to you to prove it.
Of course, you know this, and, of course, you know you cannot prove it, so you'll do everyting you can to avoid it - but:

YOU claim that:
The act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of DESTABILIZING that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

Its up to you to show this to be true re: Iraq.

So, get busy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you need to rethink your entire approach here....you really are not the amazing Carnak. You should maybe wait until I actually have said something rather than you current MO of "predicting" what I would say and then criticizing me based upon your prediction.

Whatever you say, Skippy.

 

[maineman]

Its your claim, Skippy -- its up to you to prove it.
Of course, you know this, and, of course, you know you cannot prove it, so you'll do everyting you can to avoid it - but:

YOU claim that:
The act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of DESTABILIZING that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

Its up to you to show this to be true re: Iraq.

So, get busy.

my claim is that democrats are not actively promoting destabilization in Iraq. I stand by it and would suggest that the record of democratic commentary on the Maliki government proves my case. Clearly, one can never KNOW what the future holds - but it is clear that the democrats are not actively promoting failure or destabilization in Iraq. We are actively promoting accountability, effectiveness and results from the Iraqi government.

 

[maineman]

Why not?
After all, according to your pathetic ass, linking Iraq and AQ is the same thing as linking Iraq and 9/11.

Linking Saddam's government to AQ operatives at a time before 9/11 who were central figures in the 9/11 attacks is the same thing. But your statement is an inaccurate analogy in any case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

my claim is that democrats are not actively promoting destabilization in Iraq.

Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

So, show that to be true.

C'mon, Skippy -- get your boyfriend's penis out of your mouth, and show us that Vastly Superior Intellect (tm) you keep telling us you have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Linking Saddam's government to AQ operatives at a time before 9/11 who were central figures in the 9/11 attacks is the same thing. But your statement is an inaccurate analogy in any case.

Yes, yes -- we all know its DIFFERENT when YOU do it.

 

[maineman]

Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

So, show that to be true.

C'mon, Skippy -- get your boyfriend's penis out of your mouth, and show us that Vastly Superior Intellect (tm) you keep telling us you have.

no. you show it to be false. Show proof that Maliki being replaced by an effective leader who could actually make progress in resolving the sectarian political issues would further destabilize Iraq instead of exactly the opposite.

And I have never told anyone that I have a vastly superior intellect.

and your sophomoric gay insults are unnecessary, I must say, and they detract from the already marginal quality of your presentation.

 

[maineman]

Yes, yes -- we all know its DIFFERENT when YOU do it.

it is only different when I do it if I have, in fact, made a valid analogy. I suppose it might be different if YOU were to make a valid analogy as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no. you show it to be false.

Its YOUR claim, Skippy.
Its up to YOU to support yuour claims when challenged, not for anyone to disprove it.

So, get busy, Skippy.

Or, you can run away from your claim like the coward that you truly are.

And I have never told anyone that I have a vastly superior intellect.

You tell us all the time how smart you are.
Its a good thing you keep reminding us, because your posts certainly don't lead anyone to that conclusion.

and your sophomoric gay insults are unnecessary, I must say,

Its only an insult if it isn't true.
Prove that it isn't true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

it is only different when I do it if I have, in fact, made a valid analogy. I suppose it might be different if YOU were to make a valid analogy as well.

The truly sickening thing here is that you actually believe what you're saying.

 

[maineman]

Its YOUR claim, Skippy.
Its up to YOU to support yuour claims when challenged, not for anyone to disprove it.

no. I have, all along, challenged RGS's claim that democrats are actively promoting destabilization of the government of Iraq. That is the claim that needs to be supported. If you would like to do that for him, please feel free.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no. I have, all along, challenged RGS's claim that democrats are actively promoting destabilization of the government of Iraq.

Yes -- by arguing that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

As I have said, and as you continue to refuse to address - this is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

I knew you were a coward, Skippy -- thanks for the proof.

 

[maineman]

Yes -- by arguing that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

As I have said, and as you continue to refuse to address - this is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

suggesting that an elected leader should step down is not actively promoting the destabilization of the government. As I said earlier, suggesting that Bill Clinton resign rather than put America through the ordeal of an impeachment was a suggestion that was made by republicans. No one has ever suggested that they were actively promoting the destabilization of the government of the United States when making that suggestion. They made that suggestion because they believed it was in the BEST interest of increasing the stabilization of our government. Now, for the sake of this discussion, Clinton HAD stepped down and, the result was that the government DID become destabilized, that would STILL not mean that the republicans who had advocated Clinton resigning had been actively promoting goverment destabilization. Suggesting that Maliki step down so that a more effective leader might take his place is a suggestion designed to promote the stabilization of the Iraqi government, not the opposite. Is that really that hard for you to grasp?

 

[maineman]

and shooter...I have been trying very hard to keep a reasonably civil tone with you in this matter. I really have grown weary of heated pissing contests on here where insults seemingly become the raison d'etre for the discussion and the real subject matter takes a back seat. If you would like to join me in elevating our discussions to a higher plane, I would enjoy it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

suggesting that an elected leader should step down is not actively promoting the destabilization of the government.

Yes. You said that.

Its is NOT actively promoting the destabilization of the government IF, as you said, if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

And so, for you to be right, you have to show that -- wait for it -- the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

As I said earlier, suggesting that Bill Clinton...

This is 2007, dumbass.
Bill Clinton is as irrelevant to anything today as your time in Navy.
Now, stop prancing, corwad-boy - grow some balls.

Prove your claim to be correct, or admit that you can't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?

Your amazing, really you are.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't you among many say we had no business deposing a Dictator in a war he caused? That we were interfering in another Countries affairs?

Haven't you insisted Bush has no business interfering in that duely elected ( by a democratic process of it's citizens) Governments business?

Now your on about how a Liberal run Congress does HAVE just that right. To not only interfer BUT to demand the resignation of a freely elected leader for no other reason then they hate Bush. To threaten an ally with removal of troops to help stabilize their Country, to threaten removal of aid to said Government unless it cow tows to demands of the Liberals.

Lets recap shall we? Bush shouldn't interfere BUT the Liberals should. If Bush tells Iraq what to do and it does it, thats BAD, but if Liberals tell Iraq what to do they better damn do it?

Have I got your position down right? Did I miss something? I did mention that you think OUR Government ( or rather the democrats in congress) should be free to ORDER an other Country to depose their leader, a Leader elected by a democratic vote and the process of their legally applied Documents establishing said Government. That about right? Ohh wait I forgot, doing so is not at all a destabilizing factor at all in said Government? That about right Maineman?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

So, show that to be true.

C'mon, Skippy -- get your boyfriend's penis out of your mouth, and show us that Vastly Superior Intellect (tm) you keep telling us you have.

Uncalled for. Keep the personal insults to a low boil, the above is completely unacceptable. You lose all credibility when you resort to this crap.

 

[mattskramer]

Your amazing, really you are.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't you among many say we had no business deposing a Dictator in a war he caused? That we were interfering in another Countries affairs?

Haven't you insisted Bush has no business interfering in that duely elected ( by a democratic process of it's citizens) Governments business?

Now your on about how a Liberal run Congress does HAVE just that right. To not only interfer BUT to demand the resignation of a freely elected leader for no other reason then they hate Bush. To threaten an ally with removal of troops to help stabilize their Country, to threaten removal of aid to said Government unless it cow tows to demands of the Liberals.

Lets recap shall we? Bush shouldn't interfere BUT the Liberals should. If Bush tells Iraq what to do and it does it, thats BAD, but if Liberals tell Iraq what to do they better damn do it?

Have I got your position down right? Did I miss something? I did mention that you think OUR Government ( or rather the democrats in congress) should be free to ORDER an other Country to depose their leader, a Leader elected by a democratic vote and the process of their legally applied Documents establishing said Government. That about right? Ohh wait I forgot, doing so is not at all a destabilizing factor at all in said Government? That about right Maineman?

This is almost 2008, dumbass.