Sirs, you want a critique? Here's one...

[hnumpah]

1. You constantly ignore what others try to tell you about their motives and substitute your own reasons for why they post what they post, or if they don't reveal their motives, you make them up for them. Thus despite my telling you repeatedly that I am not Obama's 'buddy' nor even in his camp, you keep accusing me of being so. In a forum where most of the active members are in Romney's camp and posting only articles praising him, without telling the entire story, I told you I posted to bring about more of a balance, and to tell the full story behind some of the claims I had seen. What can I say, I enjoy playing the Devil's advocate, though I do so with fact checked articles that give details those out for political blood choose to leave out. I prefer not to be someone's parrot and simply regurgitate what I am told by someone with an agenda.

2. You refuse to admit that Sirs might be wrong. Even when it was pointed out that I never said Bush lied us into the war in Iraq, or even that Bushco lied us into the war in Iraq, you refused to admit you were wrong and instead grasped for some other niggling little detail you could use to prove Sirs was right. When I showed you where you had said everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, you brushed it off. When I posted the source material and reference to the article that showed not everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, again you brushed it off - with no sources to back up your claims, simply your statements that almost everyone did. Proof? There was none, at least none you offered.

3. You refuse to acknowledge that other's opinions and beliefs are just as valid to them as yours are to you.

4. Your objectivity exists only in your mind. Where I presented proof Obama's first public statement about the Benghazi attack was that it was an act of terrorism, you blew it off. When I point out that investigations and bureaucracies take time, I am accused of trying to spin for the White House and of adopting some mysterious double standard. You go on about the bail hearing for the person who made the infamous video not being held until after the election as though that were part of some plot to shut him up. You don't stop and think he could make whatever statement he might want tomake just as easily from jail, or that his attorney could have asked for an immediate bail hearing. The whole thing is, you don't stop and think. You simply parrot whatever the pundits who are out for blood put out.

5. Last, over the last day or so, I have seen that even though I have moderated my tone somewhat, it makes not one whit of difference in the posts directed at me. Ah well, I tried.

[Christians4LessGvt]

When I showed you where you had said everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, you brushed it off. When I posted the source material and reference to the article that showed not everyone believed Iraq had WMD's, again you brushed it off - with no sources to back up your claims, simply your statements that almost everyone did. Proof? There was none, at least none you offered.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

[sirs]

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong.  Show me an example of a fact I got wrong please. 

Perhaps when you start demonstrating some of this "objectivity" in claiming how you're not Obama's buddy, but consistently defending him from every legitimate criticism, I'll start reassessing my initial logical conclusion

As far as your effort to hang on the specific phrasing of how you didn't claim" lied us into war", but then present ongoing criticisms of how dishonest & dastardly Bush was, and Bushco was, that all that grey apparently hides....kinda defeats the effort in trying to make this about a single phrase, doncha think?  but hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong in saying that H specifically said Bush lied us into war.  What he has said is pretty much analogous, but specifically, he never apparently said such

I've NEVER referred, implied, or claimed that someone's opinion was no less valid than mine.  That's horse*$#* to claim that I have or even blieve that.  Here's a heads-up...DEMONSTRATING HOW AN OPINION IS WRONG, OR DEBUNKING AN OPINION WITH FACTS, IS NOT CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE INVALID, OR THAT I THINK THEY ARE.  THEY'RE JUST WRONG

My objectively is just fine, as I've demonstrated frequent criticisms to all parties, all ideologies, Bush & Romney included.  Your effort to try and defend Obama's "1st reference to Benghazi being an act of terrorism" wasn't brushed off...it was demonstrated to be in ERROR.  That's going to happen alot as you try to defend the indefensible.  Same with with the WMD, as you tried to hang me on 1 word, as if I had repeatedly used the word everyone, when I painstakingly repeated predominance and most everyone, in so many other posts.  But hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong to use that 1 word that 1 time, when I knew that wasn't the case

If you think that calling me less names while still providing erroneous accusations was supposed to change my highlighting when you're in error......well, sorry.  I have not called you any names, I have remained civil, I have simply demonstrated where you've either been in error, or not being terribly objective in your efforts at trashing the right, while defending the left.   

I appreciate all this time you took to try and critique me, though, it failed to actually address what I might try to do better.  When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  When I'm being misrepresented, I'm going to clear that up.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine, as they are of Xo's, as they are of Plane's.  That doesn't mean your opinion is automatically right.  That requires some facts & evidence.  Someone's say so, only goes so far, and when that opinion is shown to be wrong, that doesn't invalidate them, it merely....shows it to be wrong

And I do appreciate the improved tone.....I did notice that, and I think everyone else did as well.  Too bad your friends Xo & Bsb couldn't have learned a bit from your example

[BT]

CU, I don't see where showing that Harry Reid believed there were WMD's does anything to refute Bears point that Not Everybody agreed on the danger or presence of WMD's in Iraq.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'd say hnumpah's critique is right on the money.

[sirs]

LOL...and your opinion, as valid as it is, would be wrong     

[BT]

Who's opinion would be wrong?

[kimba1]

wow my job is advertising here
am i the only one seeing a deyoung ad?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Harry Reid is not everyone. I know that the whole WMD bit seemed very fishy and dubious to me.

[Christians4LessGvt]

CU, I don't see where showing that Harry Reid believed there were WMD's does anything to refute Bears point that Not Everybody agreed on the danger or presence of WMD's in Iraq.

BT the video shows many of the highest ranking members of the Democratic Party including:
a sitting Democratic President
a sitting Democrat Secretary of State
a sitting Democrat National Security Advisor
and many, many other senior Democratic Party elected officials
speaking about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program

So I think it destroys the "Bear" claim to "back up your claims, simply
your statements that almost everyone did. Proof?"

In fact "almost everyone did" that mattered in the most elite positions of political power in the United States

I suppose if one is desperate enough they can turn obvious non-absoute words into such...
When I ask people at work "is everyone going to the Christmas Party?"
They don't respond with "well not everybody in the world is coming".
So when someone says "not everyone" agreed on something....
Well duh of course in the literal sense not "everyone" in the world is going to agree on anything!
But for the sake of having practical discussions in life we take things like that for granted...
But of course not here......sometimes people need a reason to wiggle out of the obvious BS they are sprewing!

[BT]

France didn't agree, Germany didn't agree, Russia didn't agree

All that was in Bears rebuttal.

And we didn't find a huge stock pile of them.

Bush even did a comedy bit about not finding them.

There were reasons to topple Saddam. Wmd's may not have been the best selling point for doing so.

And since there is not time machine. Does it matter?

[hnumpah]

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong.  Show me an example of a fact I got wrong please.

 

Okay. 

...but hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong in saying that H specifically said Bush lied us into war.  What he has said is pretty much analogous, but specifically, he never apparently said such...

An admission of just that.

Perhaps when you start demonstrating some of this "objectivity" in claiming how you're not Obama's buddy, but consistently defending him from every legitimate criticism, I'll start reassessing my initial logical conclusion

I explained that in my opening post, which it seems you ignored - yet again.

...DEMONSTRATING HOW AN OPINION IS WRONG, OR DEBUNKING AN OPINION WITH FACTS, IS NOT CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE INVALID, OR THAT I THINK THEY ARE.  THEY'RE JUST WRONG...

Just saying they are wrong without references to back up your claim, as I gave with mine, is well...not really proof of anything.

Your effort to try and defend Obama's "1st reference to Benghazi being an act of terrorism" wasn't brushed off...it was demonstrated to be in ERROR.

I gave you my source- where's yours?

Same with with the WMD, as you tried to hang me on 1 word, as if I had repeatedly used the word everyone, when I painstakingly repeated predominance and most everyone, in so many other posts.

LOL, but you were out to hang me for some thing I never said, even in error.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong to use that 1 word that 1 time, when I knew that wasn't the case

Ooh, another fact wrong admitted to, and I don't even have to search for them.

If you think that calling me less names while still providing erroneous accusations was supposed to change my highlighting when you're in error......well, sorry.  I have not called you any names, I have remained civil, I have simply demonstrated where you've either been in error, or not being terribly objective in your efforts at trashing the right, while defending the left.

   

Error? I gave references for all my supposed errors. Where were yours?

I appreciate all this time you took to try and critique me, though, it failed to actually address what I might try to do better.  When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  When I'm being misrepresented, I'm going to clear that up.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine, as they are of Xo's, as they are of Plane's.  That doesn't mean your opinion is automatically right.  That requires some facts & evidence. 

Which I presented. And you didn't.

Someone's say so, only goes so far, and when that opinion is shown to be wrong, that doesn't invalidate them, it merely....shows it to be wrong

Yep. Sources, sources, sources.

[Plane]

I for one never accept that anyone has any right to fail to accept my opinions as fact.

My assertions shall be the truth elese why should I assert them?

Only my own self is competant for evaluation of my own intent.

So...

Why am I reading anything you guys write?

Seems like I am wasteing my time or yours.

[hnumpah]

...Only my own self is competant for evaluation of my own intent...

A point I have tried to make.

[Plane]

...Only my own self is competant for evaluation of my own intent...

A point I have tried to make.

Hahahahahahaahha!

That line is truer out of context than in.

Good catch.