But Of Course! - the thread was doomed to death by

Post #41,671 by Ashton 6/8/02 6:48:34 PM Reply	But Of Course! - the thread was doomed to death by ex-post-facto analysis. Again. You never state a position on anything - well, Hardly anything. You just drop an Equal-and-Opposite and then the counter 'clarifications' commence. Deconstruction - the breakfast of weasel-hints. Of course, ever to say ~~ "in this situation, I'd first try __, then if __ happens I'd reconsider or do __" leaves one open to having Missed something, originally. Maybe. Quoting (other's) slogans is ever so impersonally revealing of any thought process whatsoever. "I didn't say THAT!" is the natural denouement. Didn't I make my criticism clear, or do you deny your (I say) fav (but gotten boring) ploy? Ashton
Post #41,679 by bepatient 6/8/02 9:05:48 PM Reply	Follow the bouncing threads. I made a very simple statement. jb4 seemed under he impression that this was the work of GW. In fact...it was not...though in deference to Brandioch...the exact plan laid out 2 nights ago is GW's >version< of something thats been around for a while. That was my >entire< point. Multiple postions were then >invented< for me so that the inventor could form an argument...an unecessary one at that. They have a >plan< now in Washington...I'm sure it will work as well as every other >plan<...unless, of course, they discover a one-eyed albino slug living amongst the terrorists...then we'll have to appoint another panel to go into the Homeland defense fund to analyze the effects of the war on terror on the albino slug...and maybe we'll spend 50 zillion or so to figure out how these slugs live...then hire another 1000 civil servants to make sure we don't hurt the slugs as we take out the terrorists. Hmmm... Do you think I like the plan???? 169000 civil servants. How many >should< there be??? Half is my guess. Do I care if the meat analyzers are "accountable" to the President against terror? No. Do I think this is the 2nd coming of the SS. No. Do I think its a few hundred jerks trying to make a few million ignorant folks feel safe? I think you can answer that yourself. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,708 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:48:50 AM Reply	That's bullshit. In fact...it was not...though in deference to Brandioch...the exact plan laid out 2 nights ago is GW's >version< of something thats been around for a while. That was my >entire< point. That's pure bullshit. If you were discussing Bush's "version" then you wouldn't be outright saying that it was bipartisan. The same concept can be implemented in COMPLETELY divergent manners. And it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is being discussed. You know, the bits about combining different agencies to actually PERFORM the mission. To put it in terms that even you can understand, "government" is a concept. "Government" has been discussed before. "Fascism" is someone's "version". "Democracy" is someone else's "version". Now, claiming that someone advocating "Democracy" somehow suggests that "Fascism" is acceptable is pure BULLSHIT. And THAT is what you are doing here. You're taking votes for DIFFERENT plans and saying that this means Bush's plan was suggested by Democrats. Do I care if the meat analyzers are "accountable" to the President against terror? No. Then you are an even bigger idiot than I had previously supposed (and that is quite the achievement). Or is it that you are unfamiliar with the bureaucratic process? As I've said before, too many people on too many mission lead to BREAKDOWNS. This plan has ONE person responsible for TOO MANY UNRELATED ITEMS. It makes NO SENSE. Particularly when the EXPERTS on counter-terrorism in the FBI and CIA will STAY in the FBI and CIA. Do I think its a few hundred jerks trying to make a few million ignorant folks feel safe? I think you can answer that yourself. My, you've ALMOST stated a position there. Again, I will publicly ask why you are so afraid of just saying what you mean. Anyway, if this plan will not (as you seem to imply that you believe it will not) result in reduced terrorist attacks and/or increased security, then why do you not say so? In other words (I have to keep saying this to make sure it can be clearly understood), we'll be wasting time, manhours and resources PRETENDING that we're making the place safer when we're doing nothing of the sort. Now, given that there are still terrorists out there... -and- Given that this plan will not stop them..... -then- Who is responsible for NOT stopping the NEXT attack? We have the time now. We have the people now. We have the resources now. Someone will try another suicide bombing. Now, to me, the fault lies with everyone who doesn't stand up NOW and point out that we are NOT making this place (or the world) any safer. I've already, CLEARLY, stated my position and my plans. And this is the best that you can do? You're beneath contempt.
Post #41,732 by bepatient 6/9/02 2:15:58 PM Reply	Chuckle Shit...I give you credit for being semantically correct and you spout off again? You are one sorry asshole, aren't you? >You< are discussing implementation. >I< was pointing a very simple fact out to jb4. That this idea is NOT new...and it is what the Democrats have been trying to implement for quite a while. I >personally< think that there is >no< organization possible in the Federal government that will effectively stop a suicide bomber. There is >no< organization possible that will not include some idiotic function unrelated to fighting terror. I thought I made that point already. The Fed is too big and too cumbersome to fight this "enemy". They have a >plan<. So they will implement that >plan< and make everybody >feel< safe. You seem to be more concerned about your "fantasy" about my being a Republican...and you also seem to be concerned about where the finger gets pointed >after< the bomb goes off. I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. Will we implement a VISA system for >EVERY NON CITIZEN< who enters this country. No. We certainly won't do full backround checks against all of the applications. Surely Canadians don't need full scrutiny, right? Will we militarily seal the border between the US and Canada/Mexico? No (we even put water stations out so the poor guys don't die out there in the desert) Will we replace the current airport security personnel with fully trained >military< personnel? No Will we deport anyone that is illegally in this country? Will we allow local police to create roadblocks to check ID to accomplish this? No/No Will we control the sale of all materials that can be used to create an explosive device...requiring backround checks and reports on usage? (Waiting periods for Clorox?) No Will we allow the building of the database of information about every US citizen so that the backround checks can be done? No Just a few of the necessary ingredients needed to >guarantee< safety. We can't even agree on a proper waiting period for the sale of AK/47s. And we beat our chest against the airline records being passed through FBI checks as a huge invasion of our privacy. So...tell me your plan. If it involves a simple restructuring of the Federal government my position has been simply stated. It won't work. It will make people >feel< safe. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,735 by Brandioch 6/9/02 3:05:17 PM Reply	And this is the reason you don't ever state your position. It becomes far to easy to point out the gaps in your knowledge. There is >no< organization possible that will not include some idiotic function unrelated to fighting terror. You say that, but you don't support it. Why couldn't a department be constructed who's sole purpose and mission was counter-terrorism? I thought I made that point already. The Fed is too big and too cumbersome to fight this "enemy". We aren't talking about "The Fed". We're discussing a department dedicated to counter-terrorism. Whether "The Fed" is too cumbersome or not doesn't matter. You can have smaller, more efficient departments within that framework. They have a >plan<. So they will implement that >plan< and make everybody >feel< safe. So you support the fantasy rather than the reality? You seem to be more concerned about your "fantasy" about my being a Republican...and you also seem to be concerned about where the finger gets pointed >after< the bomb goes off. Again, you're obsessed with fantasies. Hmmm, so, if I'm saying NOW that this won't reduce the attacks AND I've already posted how it will be EASIER for said terrorists to acquire nukes because of the current regime's nuke policy THEN I'm concerned with finger pointing? Strange, to my viewpoint, I seem concerned with REDUCING the likelyhood of an attack and REDUCING the likelyhood that it will be nuclear. So, if I'm pointing out the FLAWS in the CURRENT proposals, you see that as finger pointing. You, on the other hand, will NOT say anything about the plan EXCEPT that it will produce a FANTASY of security. So, you hide in your fantasy, knowing that the attack will come and praying that it doesn't come to you while I'm pointing out the flaws and how the system can be improved. And you see the problem as being on my side. I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. Really? Yet you refused to state it again when asked? Yet I have no problem stating my position. I'm sure you THINK you stated your position. No. I think this is another of your lies. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! Let's break that statement down. We cannot secure this country against terror. Do you mean 100%? That there will be NO terrorist attacks? Then you are right. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. If by "freedom" you mean the right to travel and learn how to fly airplanes, possibly. If by "freedom" you mean "free speech" and such, then you are wrong. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. So, if we give up "certain freedoms" then there is 100% certainty that future terrorists will not be able to strike us? Pure bullshit. What "freedom" did they use that you are willing to sacrifice when they hit the WTC? The "freedom" to travel. The "freedom" to train in a new skill. Once again, your rhetoric sounds nice (to likeminded fascists) but it tends to break down when reduced to specifics. We are not willing to do that. That is correct. But not for the reasons you imply. #1. It would turn the US into another totalitarian state. #2. It would NOT stop terrorist attacks. So, we lose our freedoms for the fantasy of security. Oh, wait, that WAS your position. See above where you support Bush's plan. We certainly won't do full backround checks against all of the applications. Surely Canadians don't need full scrutiny, right? Why not? Aren't there any Muslims living in Canada? Will we replace the current airport security personnel with fully trained >military< personnel? "Military" is not "Magic". Being military does NOT mean you are any better at detecting terrorists. All it means is that you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 in training. Will we deport anyone that is illegally in this country? Will we allow local police to create roadblocks to check ID to accomplish this? You've combining two concepts here. #1. Deport all illegals. #2. Restrict travel for all citizens. Will we control the sale of all materials that can be used to create an explosive device...requiring backround checks and reports on usage? (Waiting periods for Clorox?) If I recall correctly, they didn't use explosives. They used box cutters. Just a few of the necessary ingredients needed to >guarantee< safety. Okay. You say that if we follow your plan, then 100% of the terrorist threat will be eliminated. Yet I don't see how those items would have stopped someone from taking over a jet with a box cutter. So...tell me your plan. If it involves a simple restructuring of the Federal government my position has been simply stated. It won't work. Gee, I seem to recall stating my plan over and over and over and over. In fact, people have even managed to post specific questions to me about it. Does the word "blockade" ring any bells? How about "Interpol"? You see, I don't believe that ANYONE can EVER stop a terrorist from attacking. But I don't believe that building a fantasy for people is the answer. While we cannot prevent 100% of the attacks, we can REDUCE the THREAT. Again, this gets back to ROOT CAUSES. WHY is Osama targetting us? And do NOT say it is because he "hates freedom". THAT is the kind of bullshit that passes for "thought" in your circles. Once you find out WHY, you will know how to reduce/remove that threat. And we will NOT do this because it will require a COMPLETE re-structuring of how we (the US) operate in the world. And it wouldn't cost us a SINGLE freedom. You're focusing on the following: #1. How to stop terrorists from entering the US. #2. How to find terrorists already in the US. #3. How to limit their attack options once #1 and #2 have failed. And you're saying that you can prevent 100% of the attacks when your plan already dictates that 2/3'rds of the objectives will fail.
Post #41,740 by bepatient 6/9/02 3:51:03 PM Reply	Nope. Because you will then mis-state it to suit yourself. So. Continue on your mission with the fantasy that 1) I support Bush's plan...even though I have stated that I do not. and 2) There is the possibility that the Federal Government..or some efficient department within it...that can stop terrorism in this country. You seem to want to point out that things in my plan wouldn't have stopped people taking over jets with boxcutters. How many of the 19 were in this country legally? Less than half. None were required to submit for visas and have backround checks done before they entered the country. On the explosives front...are you conveniently forgetting that the first attempt on the WTC was with a really big bomb? I guess you are. I guess you think that military training doesn't provide better tools than an ordinary high-school dropout would have...after all...having military secure the airport doesn't mean they're better at detecting terrorists. I didn't offer my suggestions as a 100% foolproof way of stopping terrorists. I don't think 100% security is possible. But you have stated that I did. So, you see...I don't have these discussions with you because you make shit up. And you can >never< be wrong. So...continue your discussion with someone who gives a shit. To make it easy in you... I've created a user ID strawman The password is your user ID. So feel free to invent more of my position. You can post it to your hearts content. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,753 by Brandioch 6/9/02 5:01:21 PM Reply	Let me explain ONE thing to you. 1) I support Bush's plan...even though I have stated that I do not. Right. Whatever. And you will notice that there is no one STOPPING you from saying that you do NOT support it. But you KEEP phrasing it the same way. You have never SAID that you support it. I expect that kind of "logic" from a CHILD. Unless there's something you're trying to hide, why is it that you just can't post whether you support it or not? Why the bullshit with the "I never SAID that I supported it"? Grow the fuck up and scrape together whatever passes for balls in your family and just BE AN ADULT and SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. On the explosives front...are you conveniently forgetting that the first attempt on the WTC was with a really big bomb? I guess you are. No. But if you will recall, that failed. I'm looking at what SUCCEEDED. It was box cutters and plane tickets that succeeded. Low tech. Low organization. High success rate. Learn from that. I guess you think that military training doesn't provide better tools than an ordinary high-school dropout would have...after all...having military secure the airport doesn't mean they're better at detecting terrorists. Shall I say it again? Military training means you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 under training conditions. No. I do NOT think that military training makes anyone better able to detect a terrorist. Again, you keep mentally switching "military training" with "magic". Let me try another tact. What is it, specifically, about military training that you believe would better equip someone to detect a terrorist? I didn't offer my suggestions as a 100% foolproof way of stopping terrorists. Yes you did. That is what "ensure" means. I don't think 100% security is possible. But you have stated that I did. So, you see...I don't have these discussions with you because you make shit up. Re-read your previous post. Better yet, I'll quote it back at you. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. That sounds pretty 100% to me. Particularly when you take it in context: I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. There, we cannot protect ourselves 100% BECAUSE the terrorists will use our "freedoms" against us. -THEREFORE- The only way to ENSURE that they cannot strike us is to give up some of those freedoms. Your words. In context. Go and run. You don't even have the guts to state your opinion and have to hide behind child'ish games.
Post #41,782 by bepatient 6/9/02 11:23:00 PM Reply	Nitwit 101. 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? And the list was nowhere even close to exhaustive. Just a few that will NEVER happen. And having those few NEVER happen will mean that any >plan< will only give the >illusion< of security. Short and choppy enough for you? No. But if you will recall, that failed. Got a half dozen dead that would disagree. Nope...its not 3000...but its dead people as the result of terrorists and explosives. And...if you think the next attack will be planes I want what you're smoking. Besides...you brought up suicide bombers. Most of them use themselves (or a car) full of explosives. Let me try another tact. What is it, specifically, about military training that you believe would better equip someone to detect a terrorist? Lemme see. A high school equivalence, no rap sheet, an understanding of the word >duty< maybe. Or aren't you aware of just who the airlines were entrusting your >life< to? Unfortunaltely for you...you seem to believe in some fantasy that the Fed will get something right...that complaining will work. Too late...everyone on the hill is in love with this new plan...its going to be implemented and the masses will >feel< safe. I'll make sure I keep the rest of my sentences short enough for you to understand. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,796 by Brandioch 6/10/02 2:11:52 AM Reply	Oh that is too good. So, Bill Pathetic says that military training will enable people to detect terrorists. What, specifically, about military training will do so? A high school equivalence, no rap sheet, an understanding of the word >duty< maybe. A high school equivalence. You see, you can join the military even if you have a "rap sheet". And an "understanding" of the word >duty<. So, someone who manages to graduate high school is equiped to detect terrorists? Just because s/he knows what "duty" means? Remember the other war over there? When some of our people died because they were too fucking STUPID to follow instructions and get to the shelter when the missle alert sounded? Prior to exercises, I had to call up the WIVES of my troops to make sure their HUSBANDS had left them the checkbook (with enough money in the account) and emergency phone numbers. I cannot begin to describe how stupid and irresponsible the average soldier is. And you think that 6 weeks of Basic and some AIT is going to change that? Remember the female pilot with the affair and her court-marshal? And she was college educated. All military training means is that you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 under training conditions. It does NOT make you a responsible individual. (The platoon sergeant gets the calls to get the troops out of jail and when they've stopped paying the bills and for every other infraction.) It does NOT make you an educated individual. It does NOT make you a more aware individual. It does NOTHING that will enable you to better detect terrorists. If anything, the near constant indoctrination and propaganda would do the OPPOSITE. Or aren't you aware of just who the airlines were entrusting your >life< to? I KNOW who they have working security. The lowest bidder. By way of comparision, I made $15K a year as E-6(p) after 7 years. Pay attention to the phrase "lowest bidder". Rather than believing in the magic of the military, why don't you join? Then you could see how stupid they are. Or, if you can't manage that, why don't you talk to people who were in and listen to the stories of stupidity from them. If you can't find any friends, why don't you read about the problems that were reported with the military doing security in the airports just a few months ago. I know they were posted here. Unfortunaltely for you...you seem to believe in some fantasy that the Fed will get something right...that complaining will work. Too late...everyone on the hill is in love with this new plan...its going to be implemented and the masses will >feel< safe. You see, "The Fed" is us. If you don't like the plan, write to your congress critter about it. Have you? I have. Make sure you point out the flaws and recommend ways it could be improved. This is the US government. There is no magic involved. I don't like the plan. Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my. Just a few that will NEVER happen. And having those few NEVER happen will mean that any >plan< will only give the >illusion< of security. Strange. You see, I pointed out how having those implemented would STILL not stop the attack. But you DID use the word "ensure" in your statement. Got a half dozen dead that would disagree. Nope...its not 3000...but its dead people as the result of terrorists and explosives. Sorry, I was using the word "failed" as in "failed to achieve the terrorist's objective". They didn't do what they set out to do. They failed. And...if you think the next attack will be planes I want what you're smoking. I was illustrating the holes in your "logic". You need more illustration? NYC. Rush hour. A small plane (prop) with a guy tossing out pipe bombs as he flies along the streets. Or, if that is too complicated for you, there are always Mexican airliners. Sure, the explosion wouldn't be as big as with a full fuel tank, but the terror would be maintained. And security in Latin America isn't as strict as in the US. More? Does Saudi Arabia have it's own airline with stops in the US? Why yes they do. Even to NYC. Would it be simplier for a terrorist to just get a job as a pilot or co-pilot? Sure, it would take a few years to get in the right spot, but Allah doesn't care. More? Well there are more, but I think I've made my point. Even when we KNOW we're vulnerable from aircraft, we STILL cannot defend ourselves. Well, not with a plan as stupid as that one. The point is that we CAN defend ourselves. Just as was outlined in that OTHER plan. But it will require that the US change it's policies and mindset. Something that you have demonstrated is impossible for the average idiot to comprehend. Rather than dealing with the problem, we'll just piss away our freedoms while knowing that we aren't any safer and that will be that because that's the way it is. And anyone who disagrees with you is living in a fantasy. Whatever. You still haven't answered WHY Osama is targetting us. #1. Know your enemy. Besides...you brought up suicide bombers. Most of them use themselves (or a car) full of explosives. And I file "hijackers who crash planes into buildings" as "suicide bombers". And your point is? The explosives are used because it is the simplest method. You don't need to be particularly intelligent or adept to manage that. Now, the problem they have is that there are a limited supply of those kind of people. Of course, more are born everyday. But we could practically dry up their supply in one generation. Ever wonder why there are so few US citizens who become suicide bombers in the US? We have our fundamentalists. We have our poverty. We have fundamentalists in poverty. So, what is the difference? Why do we see so many in the mid-east but NONE in our mid-west? Again, the root cause. Find that and you can end the supply of bomb carriers. That will leave the few professionals. Which will have to be dealt with differently.
Post #41,808 by bepatient 6/10/02 9:02:02 AM Reply	That pretty much settles it... Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my. Where? Who's posts were you reading? This is why I created the "strawman" login...so you could use it when you decide to invent my position. There are quite a few other places in this post that also qualify... So why don't you just log in and have your own discussion. It'll save me the time of posting things that you'll subsequently ignore or misstate. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
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]
Post #41,707 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:31:55 AM Reply	I think you give him far too much credit. You just drop an Equal-and-Opposite and then the counter 'clarifications' commence. He doesn't even get that far. I have posted NUMEROUS times about his "strawman" crap. He will lie about what he posted, what I posted, and then will "forget" and demand I re-explain what I had JUST finished explaining to him. He SELDOM states an actual position because this will require that he defend it. And, as I have shown, he doesn't have the background knowledge to defend his position. So he attacks others with lies and strawmen. Bill "Strawman" Pathetic. Why he does so is anyone's guess.

Welcome to IWETHEY!