Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:24:49 -0700
On 14 Nov 2005 09:43:03 -0600, Jim Blansett
<jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:24:59 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
><snipped for brevity>
>>There was no "stream." Only a phony intellectual doing his best to derail
>>any honest discussion on these important issues.
>>
>>What a waste of time.
>>
>>Wage Peace
>>
>><snip><UNSNIP>
>>>It's no joke. If these people are emphatically against joining the
>>>military, they should have no problem saying "No!" to a recruiter.
>>>OTOH, the implicit presumption that they are somehow "damaged" by
>>>getting [a maximum of five] calls sounds positively silly.
[Silence.]
Shawn has no answer. And neither does Jim. All that Shawn can do is
SNIP the question.
>I think I've finally figured it out, Shawn; phil is afraid. phil is
>afraid that he is going to discover that it is he who "has no
>clothes."
Yet it is Jim and "Snipper" Shawn who fail to engage. Your theory is a
No Pass.
> While the majority of Americans, many of whom formerly
>supported "shrub" and his ridiculous and deadly decisions
And an even smaller number of Americans realize: if Bush were "lying",
then those Democratic senators were also "lying" to the American
People.
They fail to realize that the onus was exclusively on Saddam to prove
that he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles -- not the other way around.
They fail to realize that Saddam never ever complied with any UN
resolution -- including the Armistice and UNSC 1441.
They fail to remember that the UNSC unanimously promised "serious
consequences" to Iraq in UNSC 1441 if Saddam failed to comply -- and
France failed to deliver on that promise.
They fail to realize that we still have no proof that the WMDs were
simply moved outside of Iraq.
I thank God that we don't have a president who is obsessed with the
polls. Of all of Bill Clinton's sins, that obsession may have been the
worst thing.
>, are running
>away from him in droves, phil is afraid he is going to be left
>standing alone. Well, maybe not alone - Sharon and Dan will be there
>with him. But worse, phil will still be supporting those bad
>decisions.
I'm pondering a world where Joe Wilson's denials that Saddam was
shopping for Uranium were rebuked by a 2004 Senate Intelligence
Report, but only a tiny of fraciton of Americans will listen to that
truth.
>The Emperor has no clothes, indeed.
If that were really the case, you would really be willing to
scrutinize those threads -- talk about the issues. But you do not.
> All hail emperor phil.
All hail Jim: the master of the ad hominem attack.
How about talking about the issues, Jim?
--phil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: fluty1
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Jim Blansett
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- References:
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Phil Earnhardt
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Phil Earnhardt
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Phil Earnhardt
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Phil Earnhardt
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- From: Wage Peace
- Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- Prev by Date: Re: Caption This For Tuesday!
- Next by Date: Re: Guess Who?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|