Awww, are the facts too much for you?

Post #41,829 by Brandioch 6/10/02 12:24:22 PM Reply	Awww, are the facts too much for you? Run away now.
Post #41,831 by bepatient 6/10/02 12:33:34 PM Reply	So when you make things up, they're facts??? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,933 by Brandioch 6/11/02 11:08:22 AM Reply	You must provide support for you statement. It isn't sufficient to start screaming "He's lieing! He's lieing!". As when I was providing support for my position that you were resorting to strawmen and lies, I provided links to previous posts and compared the content there with the content in current posts. You seem to believe that by mere shrill repetition your lies will be mistaken for facts. But I've already established that you follow that pattern. Back when I established that your primary "debate" tactics were lies and strawmen. And you continue to engage in them. You want to call me a liar? That is your perogative. You want to PROVE that I'm a liar? Well, that takes some linking. Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot.
Post #41,948 by bepatient 6/11/02 12:06:36 PM Reply	Simple. Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it. I can't link to something I never stated nor ever did.. yet you claim it to be so and I have already quoted the statement. Beyond that, I have no interest in proving >anything< to you. Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot. Well...goody for you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #42,010 by Brandioch 6/11/02 7:27:09 PM Reply	And once again, you lie. Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it. I didn't say that you said you supported it. I said you supported it. You said I was incorrect. So I told you to clearly state that you didn't. You had a problem with that. You seem to be operating under some childish notion about what you say/don't say. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41703\|here] As for "supporting" it... [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41640\|here] Or do you call it something else? You're attempting to counter my points against it by linking to someone who counters my points against it. But you don't support it? Did you just feel the need to argue with me? If so, why? Either you support the points of the person you linked to or you do not. If you do, you support the plan. If you do not, why did you link to them?
Post #42,022 by bepatient 6/11/02 8:52:40 PM Reply	Wow. There must be a new definition [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41782\|Hmmm...I must have to use short,choppy sentences for you to actually get it. I don't like the plan. Short and choppy enough for you?] I guess it wasn't short and choppy enough for you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41646\|Nope. But by you bringing it up, I'm going to guess that you support his position.] That would be a >no<..excepting you never bother to ask...you just make up my position and then continue on your merry way. ID=strawman password=brandioch. If you want to fight with yourself...be my guest. In addition...that post was a response to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41637\|this one] where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same. That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41704\|claimed] to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan. Wow. You win. Rip me to shreds baby. Like it makes any difference. And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole. Like I said. You've created an all new definition of "lie". Funny how it now means the opposite of what you thought. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #42,030 by Brandioch 6/11/02 10:08:57 PM Reply	No new definition. Look up "chronology". You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements. You refused to post that you didn't support it. Later, after it became apparent even to you that this was an unsupportable plan, you changed your tune and decided to not support it anymore. Otherwise, how do you explain that you posted a link to someone claiming that including animal control would protect our food supply from terrorists? In addition...that post was a response to this one where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same. No. I did not tell you that I watched crossfire. I got that off the CNN website. As for your point about Lieberman, if you will recall, I had previously pointed out that you seemed overly concerned with who was supporting the plan rather than what the plan was. You Lieberman link is more proof of that. Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it? That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you claimed to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan. It wasn't a claim. It was a fact. Again, you seem to be obsessively focuses on who supports this plan. But now you claim to oppose it. But you're still linking to your posts pointing out all the people who support it. Yet you haven't linked to any posts where you point out anyone who opposes it. Very strange behaviour. Or are you indicating your opposition by pointing out the "bad" people who support this plan? Does that make Bush and Lieberman "bad" people, in your opinion? And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole. Well, you're starting to see the whole picture. When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words). You were posting links to people who attempted to justify things like including animal control in the plan. You would not say you opposed the plan. You were posting all of those in response to other people's posts in which they opposed the plan. But you really oppose the plan. What is it that you didn't like? That people were saying Bush was fascist for proposing this? Allow me to kill this thread now. Hitler proposes a Nazi regime. People say Hitler is a fascist. You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans. You provide links to people who justify the specifics of Hitler's plan. And that SOMEHOW, in YOUR mind, translates to you opposing Hitler's plan? Now.... Bush proposes a plan. People say it is fascist. You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans. and so forth. And you think that >I< am the one with the problem? godwin
Post #42,035 by bepatient 6/11/02 11:08:38 PM Reply	Please use the strawman login...and this isn't usenet If you are going to continue to invent my position...post it yourself. I did all the work for you. login=strawman password=brandioch You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements. I posted a link to counter an assenine post by you. That post was an attempt, by you, to act informed by referencing that day's episode of Crossfire...which I happened to have watched. I then called Torricelli an asshole. My prerogative...since he's one of my reps in Washington. I then mentioned that Kit rebutted each one of his statements. A simple effort to point out that one side says one thing...the other another...and in the end its all politics as usual...which I had stated [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41582\|long before] is a >bad thing<. Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it? In case you missed it...I had already [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41602\|explained] that way up at the top of the thread. Right before you decided to invent my position. (on several occasions...by the way...one of those inventions was linked to in my previous post) When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words). No shit Sherlock. My entire fucking point was to point out to jb4 that they were ALL in on it...not just GW. Are you >really...really< that stupid???? Or do you just play an idiot on the internet? And you want to lecture me on chronology? Follow it yourself. I've made these explanations on more than one occasion...each time to be ignored by you as you continue to further invent my position. You are pitiful. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!