This sums it all up real well

[Michael Tee]

<<When you keep claiming something as fact, when it's been demonstrated over and over and over and over again as not, that is an outright lie in my book, & you'll be called on it. >>

In that case, since it's been demonstrated as a fact that Bush lied AND that the election was stolen, and you keep claiming as a fact that he didn't lie and didn't steal the election, YOU are the liar and will be called on it every time.

<<At the point where you clarify that "in my opinion, Bush is a monstrous liar . . . >>

FACT.  He lied when he asserted there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.  He lied to the SEC investigators who investigated his insider trading violations.

<< & in my opinion he lied us into war . . . >>

FACT:  see above

<< & in my opinion the U.S military is a big mass of butchers"  . . . >>

FACT:  My Lai Massacre, Falluja, current Iraqi death toll and hundreds of other examples.

<<then I'm required to take a different tact>>

We're still waiting.

[Michael Tee]

<<We feel your pain.>>

Who gives a shit what you feel?  Feel whatever the fuck you feel like feeling, just spare me your hypocritical bullshit advice not to take insults personally.  I don't like them, and you seem to be under the impression that you can convince me to like them.  You can't.

[Plane]

<<When you keep claiming something as fact, when it's been demonstrated over and over and over and over again as not, that is an outright lie in my book, & you'll be called on it. >>

In that case, since it's been demonstrated as a fact that Bush lied AND that the election was stolen, and you keep claiming as a fact that he didn't lie and didn't steal the election, YOU are the liar and will be called on it every time.

<<At the point where you clarify that "in my opinion, Bush is a monstrous liar . . . >>

FACT.  He lied when he asserted there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.  He lied to the SEC investigators who investigated his insider trading violations.

<< & in my opinion he lied us into war . . . >>

FACT:  see above

<< & in my opinion the U.S military is a big mass of butchers"  . . . >>

FACT:  My Lai Massacre, Falluja, current Iraqi death toll and hundreds of other examples.

<<then I'm required to take a different tact>>

We're still waiting.

"and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks"

Since you are wrong about this you are just as untruthfull as Bush was about WMD.

[sirs]

<<When you keep claiming something as fact, when it's been demonstrated over and over and over and over again as not, that is an outright lie in my book, & you'll be called on it. >>

In that case, since it's been demonstrated as a fact that Bush lied

That'd be a LIE

AND that the election was stolen

Bald faced LIE

YOU are the liar and will be called on it every time.

Opinion

FACT.  He lied when he asserted there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Acute Distortion/LIE.  Bering wrong does not equate to lying, and he never said that Saddam was behind anything regarding 911

He lied to the SEC investigators who investigated his insider trading violations.

No indictment, no trial, no crime, and not even in Public office yet, hard to see the Bush lie there.  I guess that's another LIE

My Lai Massacre, Falluja, current Iraqi death toll and hundreds of other examples.

Examples of when some soldiers crossed the line and citing a current death toll in a war zone, hardly validates that the military is one big mass of murderous butchers.  Especially when a vast majority of those Iraqi deaths are likely caused by your so called "freedom fighters"  Will call this one Ignorance vs a bald face lie

<<then I'm required to take a different tact>>

We're still waiting.

So are we

[Plane]

Don't get carryed away Sirs.

there is hardly any such thing as one sided fault , but when there is an imbalance , you want to be on the cool side.

[sirs]

Don't get carryed away Sirs.  there is hardly any such thing as one sided fault , but when there is an imbalance , you want to be on the cool side.

You're absolutely right Plane.  I myself have criticized & condemned Bush many a time, not that Tee or Brass would ever take note.  It's just sad to see such hatred for 1 man, blind some folks to the point they can't see, think or type straight.  And when it gets perseverative, occasionally I'm going to have to speak up.  In this instance, reminding those folks who pass by and simply read these passages of where the truth lies, and where the lies start

[Plane]

Don't get carryed away Sirs.  there is hardly any such thing as one sided fault , but when there is an imbalance , you want to be on the cool side.

You're absolutely right Plane.  I myself have criticized & condemned Bush many a time, not that Tee or Brass would ever take note.  It's just sad to see such hatred for 1 man, blind some folks to the point they can't see, think or type straight.  And when it gets perseverative, occasionally I'm going to have to speak up.  In this instance, reminding those folks who pass by and simply read these passages of where the truth lies, and where the lies start

It isn't needed every time to confrount directly, when an egregious error is especially evident , it can be most edifying to have the error simply remain evident , earning it sown scorn as sure as Manure grows grass .

[sirs]

It isn't needed every time to confrount directly, when an egregious error is especially evident , it can be most edifying to have the error simply remain evident , earning it sown scorn as sure as Manure grows grass .

Right now it's startin to stink up the place, IMHO.  But I'll let it go for now.  I'll go get some fresh air to stem the stink   

[Michael Tee]

There isn't one position I've taken that can't be backed with fact - - be it direct or circumstantial evidence.  That Bush is a liar, that he lied the US into war, that the US army are a bunch of torturing, murdering thugs, or that the Florida election was stolen. 

Anyone who wants to debate me on those issues is welcome to do so - - with facts, with arguments.  "You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that I am used to.  But it's one that I am perfectly capable of dealing with on my own.

When a piece of shit with an IQ that the average house plant could easily match and a store of knowledge of historical events that is probably equivalent to that of a low-grade moron chooses to label me as a "bare-faced liar," it is something that I don't mind dealing with on my own.

When some gratuitous advice comes my way, basically not to take a personal insult personally, it doesn't really deserve a response, but if out of politeness, I respond, I don't expect to be rewarded with "We feel your pain."  But that's OK plane - - fuck you too, my friend.

In general, I've enjoyed debating with the members of this group.  I tried, not always successfully, to stick to the issues and to be as factual as I was able.  It took time and time is something I don't have a lot of - - family, business, travel and other hobbies and pursuits all make their claims.  When I have to spend a couple of hours, not arguing the issues, but defending myself against ad hominem attacks by morons, I figure there are better ways of spending my time.  I would just as soon be writing something more interesting than "No I am not a liar."

[sirs]

There isn't one position I've taken that can't be backed with fact - - be it direct or circumstantial evidence.  That Bush is a liar, that he lied the US into war, that the US army are a bunch of torturing, murdering thugs, or that the Florida election was stolen. 

Anyone who wants to debate me on those issues is welcome to do so - - with facts, with arguments.  "You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that I am used to.  But it's one that I am perfectly capable of dealing with on my own.

When a piece of shit with an IQ that the average house plant could easily match and a store of knowledge of historical events that is probably equivalent to that of a low-grade moron chooses to label me as a "bare-faced liar," it is something that I don't mind dealing with on my own.

Don't even try pulling this "poor me" victim card.  Your versions of what is is, is consistently chalk full of barely credible circumstantial evidence, and prescious little direct evidence, if any.  Then conveniently fill in these massive ommissions with your version of common sense, & then claim these accusations as supposed validated fact.  The closest you come is with the supposed SEC violation, that had no indictments of any kind.  Was a Grand Jury even convened?  And I can't tell you how weak it is for you to use 1 example back in Vietnam as supposed examples of a current murderous military, that always seems to be validated by how well everything is covered up

Every time the challange was given you to prove one of these Bush lies, you would quickly run to "it's been proven countless times", thus avoiding having to answer the challenge.  You apply the weakest effort by posting a Bush-lied web site, and claim "there".  As if I could pull up Newsmax.com and claim "there" that proves he didn't.  You at least made a paltry attempt at trying to prove Bush lied about WMD, but not just the facts, but human common sense blew that one out of the water, when at no time could you ever prove Bush knew there were no WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways.  You came close when you originally were accusing everyone of lying, but then quickly reverted back to the completely illogical nonsense of everyone else was mistaken, but Bush lied.

So yea, I called you on it Tee.  And instead of taking this supposedly "ad hominem attack" on you and putting me in my place by PROVING your accusations, you have to cry foul & how dare I call you a liar, throw a temper tantrum, & toss out a bunch of gradeschool insults to boot.  I just shouldn't be able to.  I should just let you keep repeating your accusatory garbage as supposed fact, and be thankful we have such a brilliant mind in this forum to show us the error of our ways.

I don't think so.  I do hope you reconsider however, as I don't see you as a too hot in the kitchen kinda guy

[Michael Tee]

<<Don't even try pulling this "poor me" victim card. >>

Huh?  that was the "Fuck you too" card.  Try reading for comprehension just once in your life.

<<Your versions of what is is, is consistently chalk full of barely credible circumstantial evidence, and prescious little direct evidence, if any. >>

Only a moron would expect direct evidence in most of these cases.  What, a signed confession from Bush, "I knew all along but lied?"   Or maybe from Brother Jeb, "How we stole the election for Dubya?"  With regard to torture and massacre, the evidence is massive and indisputable; over 90% of it, in the case of Abu Ghraib alone, still unreleasd by the Pentagon.  Only a moron would be unable to figure out why.  In the stolen election or the lies of Bush, without circumstantial evidence, there's NO evidence.  As for whether it's "barely credible" or not, a case which convinces three good investigative journalists and the editors of a national magazine is not "barely credible."  It's credible enough for me and millions of others.

<<Then conveniently fill in these massive ommissions with your version of common sense, & then claim these accusations as supposed validated fact.  >>

My version of common sense?  There's only ONE kind of common sense, connect the dots, not that YOU'D know anything about it.  Some people see it, some want more dots before they connect.  I never claimed anyone who couldn't connect the dots my way was lying about it.

<<The closest you come is with the supposed SEC violation, that had no indictments of any kind.  Was a Grand Jury even convened? >>

Now you're being stupid instead of crazy.  Do you really think that every lie to every SEC investigator has to end up under indictment?  Especially when the liar is linked by very powerful family connections to the SEC and its counsel?  Bush told TWO DIFFERENT STORIES at two different times to SEC investigators looking into why he was NINE MONTHS LATE in filing an insider trading report.  They couldn't both be true.  One of them HAD to be a lie.

 <<And I can't tell you how weak it is for you to use 1 example back in Vietnam as supposed examples of a current murderous military, that always seems to be validated by how well everything is covered up.  >>

There are many more than one but you are just too fucking ignorant to know of them.  There were about 60,000 victims of the Phoenix Program.  Bob Kerrey's Silver Star, it turns out through the pure fluke of one guy confessing  years later, was won under circumstances which, had they been committed by a Nazi in WWI, could have earned him a death penalty.  Norman Poirier, for Esquire Magazine, wrote a story, later turned into a movie "Spoils of War," about the rape and murder of several Vietnamese women and their families by Marines - - one of them, about 15, being kidnapped and used as a sex slave for about a week by the whole squad, which then blew her head apart, extracted the gold teeth (how close to Nazis can you get?) and also getting "caught" through the fluke of one guy ratting out his buddies just like the rape and murder of that teenager in Iraq, except they killed her on the spot with her family.  Common sense tells you most of these guys will just keep their mouths shut about it.  Even if they don't, nobody is ever really punished for any of this shit.  Look at the Mickey Mouse treatment of Lt. Calley for a classic example - - 800 people massacred, he's charged with the deaths of less than thirty, gets house arrest for a short time and is pardoned.

Your whole, "one bad apple" argument is bullshit, it's stupid, it's ignorant: but I don't call it a lie, just ignorance, stupidity and bullshit.

<<Every time the challange was given you to prove one of these Bush lies, you would quickly run to "it's been proven countless times", thus avoiding having to answer the challenge.>>

That is a direct lie.  "Every time?"  I  had given numerous proofs of "Bush lied" and simply got tired of your waiting around a few weeks and then stating once again and despite whatever I and others had previously posted that there was no evidence that Bush lied.  How many times can I be expected to put together a case that I had already put together in the past?  At that point I told you I wasn't going to waste my time proving for the Nth time that shit runs downhill. 

<< . . . the weakest effort by posting a Bush-lied web site, and claim "there".  As if I could pull up Newsmax.com and claim "there" that proves he didn't.  >>

More bullshit.  The lies on many of the sites are numbered and concisely set out.  You or another poster of your persuasion was easily able to pick out representative "lies" with which you disagreed and say what you could to disprove them.  You certainly had a wide enough range of choices.  Those sites had more Bush lies than any one person could possibly know about.

<<You at least made a paltry attempt at trying to prove Bush lied about WMD, but not just the facts, but human common sense blew that one out of the water . . . >>

If you think THAT attempt was "paltry," as paltry goes, it's nothing compared to your rebuttals, which consist, as here, of pathetic claims that they have been "blown out of the water," and similar grandiose claims of non-existent logical proofs.  The attempt, as I recall, was quite detailed and in fact unanswerable, which is why most people now believe that Bush DID lie about it.

<< . . . when at no time could you ever prove Bush knew there were no WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways.  >>

Well, of course that's exactly what I DID prove.  As best as circumstantial evidence can.  Which is about all the evidence you're going to ever find in a case like this, unless Bush gets REAL religion and decides to confess.

<<You came close when you originally were accusing everyone of lying, but then quickly reverted back to the completely illogical nonsense of everyone else was mistaken, but Bush lied.>>

Uh, sorry, that never happened.  It was a possibility to be considered and I might have considered it, but it doesn't seem likely and even if it did, a schmuck who is convinced by a bunch of lying subordinates on an issue as vital as war and peace has no business being President.  HE is the one who has to get to the bottom of the whole thing and if he can't do it, must get out.  Besides, if he were really deceived in the first instance, he would have fired all who lied to him and reversed course in Iraq immediately, apologized for the "mistake" and paid reparations.  As even YOU must know, none of this has ever happened.

<<So yea, I called you on it Tee. >>

Yeah, you did, sirs.  THAT'S what I am pissed off about.  I make a case and you - - unable to prove your point in any logical or factual way - - resort to calling me a liar.

<< And instead of taking this supposedly "ad hominem attack" . . . >>

Supposedly?  Fuck you, sirs.

<< . . . instead of  . . . putting me in my place . . . >>

Oh, yeah, THAT would be a good idea.  Why didn't I think of that before?

<< . . . by PROVING your accusations . . . >>

Yeah . . . next time I call Bush a liar, I'll have to provide some PROOF of the accusation.  Next time I accuse the U.S. military of atrocities, I better have some EXAMPLES of the atrocities.  Next time I refer to the stolen elections, I could show some FACTS that the allegation could be based on.  Fuck you again, sirs.

<<you have to cry foul & how dare I call you a liar, >>

THAT can't be right.  Standard debating practice: call your opponent a liar.  Case closed.  It's how everyone else here does it.  What's the problem?

<<throw a temper tantrum, & toss out a bunch of gradeschool insults to boot.>>

Since you yourself are a liar, sirs, let me tell you something about people who aren't, which obviously you would know absolutely nothing about:  they DO get pissed off when somebody calls them a liar.  It is a natural reaction.  One you should expect.

<<  I just shouldn't be able to [call you a liar].  I should just let you keep repeating your accusatory garbage as supposed fact, and be thankful we have such a brilliant mind in this forum to show us the error of our ways.>>

TRANSLATION:  Why should I have to prove that what Tee is arguing isn't true?  Why can't I just call him a bare-faced liar and settle it then and there?  Sure wouldn't have to waste my time looking up facts and articles like Tee does.  Wouldn't have to sort through any left-wing garbage and be accidentally infected by bad ideas. 

<<I don't think so.  I do hope you reconsider however, as I don't see you as a too hot in the kitchen kinda guy >>

I did reconsider.  This post basically settles it for me.  The issue is not heat but time.  Life's too short, sirs.  When I have to prepare a post demonstrating that Bush lied or that the US military are thugs and killers, or that the Bush administration defends torture, or stole the election, that's real debate and I enjoy taking the time to do it.  When the entire topic of my post has to be  "Why I am Not a Liar" it's a complete waste of my fucking time.  It's a response to an ad hominem attack, not a debate.  I'm simply not interested in "debating" with the likes of you and I'm not going to waste any more of my life doing it.
 
 
 

[Plane]

<<We feel your pain.>>

Who gives a shit what you feel?  Feel whatever the fuck you feel like feeling, just spare me your hypocritical bullshit advice not to take insults personally.  I don't like them, and you seem to be under the impression that you can convince me to like them.  You can't.

"
 "You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that I am used to. "


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


What I mean is to not feel like the Lone Ranger , we do not beleive that Bush is a liar because we are sceptical of the evidence and you do beleve he is a liar because you are eager to beleive the evidence.
Without your predisposition the evidence looks very thin , but I am not claiming objectivity for myself either.

Neither should you "You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that you are used to. It seems just as impolite to us as it does to you when the tide is running the other direction.

It is by no means resolved as fact due to frequent repetition or widespread beleif.

[Michael Tee]

<<Neither should you [claim objectivity for yourself].>>

That's a red herring.  I have no problem with anyone, myself included, claiming to be objective.  It's a claim like any other, it can be tested and accepted or rejected.

<<"You're a bare-faced liar" is not a debating tactic that you are used to. It seems just as impolite to us as it does to you when the tide is running the other direction.>>

Except that this is a tide that only seems to run in one direction.  I'm the one who is accused of being a bare-faced liar and the accusations all come from the same source.

[sirs]

......I did reconsider.  This post basically settles it for me.  The issue is not heat but time.  Life's too short, sirs.  When I have to prepare a post demonstrating that Bush lied or that the US military are thugs and killers, or that the Bush administration defends torture, or stole the election, that's real debate and I enjoy taking the time to do it.  .......

And with all that energy, all that time, did Tee use any of it to demonstrate how Bush lied us into war?, lied about WMD?, provide anything outside of 1 Vanity Fair article on how Bush supposedly stole the election?, or actually provide evidentiary proof of how Murderous our military is, outside of repeating a paltry few examples of where our troops did cross the line?  Nope.  Just 1 big long rant aimed at me, yet ironically never being able to refute my claim, citing basically it would take too much time, life's too short.  Apparently Tee's "debate enjoyment" is where he doesn't have to provide any cooroborating back-up or provable facts.  His say so and his version of common sense should suffice.  And don't anyone dare call him on that.  We could have another meltdown

[Universe Prince]

I don't know why everyone is picking on Michael Tee. He and I had a nice discussion going, but that got sidetracked by people calling him a liar and then expecting him not to be upset by that. I'm frankly rather annoyed that this ended up having to be about Michael Tee rather than the issues.