In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

It is my understanding that one of the few enforceable rules of this forum would be that it is an acceptable practice to alter quoted material as long as special emphasis is made to distinguish it from what was actually said. That clearly was not done in the quoted material (attributable to me) that is found below:

Did you learn that "rule" before or after you misquoted me?

CARRY ON with your drivel, BitTitsLyingStalker!

[herfacechair]

Dickssucker: Holy shit, herassment. I refuse to quote your entire voluminous post

You refuse to quote me in entirety because facts to you are like kryptonite to Superman. "Voluminous" to you in a derogatory sense, because you got seriously but hurt when I destroyed your drivel point by point.

Yssup Rider: because it's discourteous to people who want to see the happy ending to this one-man circle jerk.

If by "one-man circle jerk," you actually mean a one-sided ass kicking with me doing other ass kicking and you receiving the ass beating, then you're onto something. As for seeing the end of this, I actually told you how to make that happen. Again:

Let "X," be your reply to me.

Let "Y," be my response to you.

What you're seeing on this thread is this relationship: If "X," then "Y." As long as you keep supplying the "X," I will consistently supply the "Y." Meaning, if you want to see an end to this, your side of the argument needs to quit advancing "X." If you guys do that, I'll have no reason to advance "Y," in response.

You just told me here that you got royally butthurt that I refuse to quit hammering you. I have news for you, that's not going to happen. As long as you reply to me, I'm going reply to you. If I don't get back with you this evening, tomorrow, this weekend, next week, next month, etc., I'll still get back with you.

My replies to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

The only people I see that want a happy ending to this are your side of the argument. Again, I'm treating this like a combat operation. As long as your side of the argument, including you, keep firing in my direction, I'm going to keep firing back at your direction.

In other words, as long as you insist on replying to me, quit bitching about my consistently hammering you.

Yssup Rider: You are entirely nuts.

You're not the first person to do this. Over the past 10 to 11 years, numerous people like you tried to label me one psychological term or other on the account of my refusal to cease fire on your people.

The reality is that you, and your side of the argument, are entirely nuts for being completely wrong yet insisting on continuing to argue your wrong assessments.

Each time you, or anybody in your side of the argument here, continues on this thread, you give me additional opportunities to keep destroying you people's credibility.

Yssup Rider: How do you know exactly what I meant. Are you that fucking paranoid? READ WHAT IS WRITTEN, goober. That's usually the best way to determine what another poster is saying.

Not only do I read what's written, I rebut you guys point by point. Not only do I do this, but I read, and reread, my replies to you before I post them. I read your responses more than once as I review my drafts.

In addition to that, I have well over 180 Microsoft Word pages containing my replies to this thread. Researching what you said, or what anybody else said, is as simple as applying the "Control F" key combination on the keyboard. A simple matter of typing keywords automatically brings me to specific statements.

If you did what you preached, and read what exactly I meant, you would have no need to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on this message board. If you read what's written, you would've seen this:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

That's right, you would've seen those two statements had you done this:

"READ WHAT IS WRITTEN, goober." -Yssup Rider

We wouldn't be having this part of the argument, and I wouldn't be persistently asking you this question, had you done precisely what you told me to do here. Quit demanding that I do things that you yourself refuse to do.

Yssup Rider: Yet YOU have spent God knows how much time and wasted bandwidth to argue assumptions of what I'm thinking.

First, these aren't assumptions, but accurate inferences being made based on what's been written by both sides. I clearly indicated, via statements that I've made, that I know that there are other veterans on this board. Had you done what you preached, what you demanded I do, you would've read those statements.

Had you read those statements, there would have not been any need for you to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on the board.

Second, if you feel that I'm spending a lot of time and bandwidth arguing accurate observations, it's because you're spending a whole bunch a time and wasted bandwidth refusing to admit that you're wrong.

I don't consider this exercise as being a waste of time. Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm breaking in new speech to text software. Speaking into a microphone, dictating my responses to a Microsoft Word document that I had copied and pasted your replies to, doesn't take much time.

Even if I were to type this, it wouldn't take much time. I could rapidly type something without even looking at the keyboard. People have reminded me before that there "is" a keyboarding "speed limit".

Either way, dismantling your erroneous assumptions, as well as that of the other people and I'm arguing against here, doesn't take that much time. Like I said before, I have a great time doing this. Your reactions to my posts are added incentives to keep hammering you here.

I have every intention to continue to keep hammering you until you wizen up and shut up on this specific argument.

Yssup Rider: I'll make it crystal clear for you:

I've made my posts here, all my posts here, crystal clear. Yet, you're on this thread pulling shit out of your ass about what it is that I'm saying or arguing. If you have problems understanding what I'm saying on this thread, you need to hire an interpreter that interprets from 5th grade level English to retard level English. Hopefully, this interpreter would be able to break things down for you into retard terms so that you could hopefully understand what I'm saying.

Yssup Rider: Prove (PROVE) you're right,

I've proven that I'm right. The results of my proving myself right are scattered throughout this thread. What's really happening here is that your ego is blinding you to reality. Deep down inside, you know that I've destroyed you on this thread. Your ego can't handle that, so it's denying that I've proven myself right and you wrong.

Here, let me simplify this for you.

Remove your head from your ass, then remove your massive horse blinders from your eyes. That should help you see that I have proven myself right and you wrong.

It's like what I've told other people on this message board, I don't argue on a topic unless I know far more about it than the opposition. This is very applicable on this thread just as it has been on the other threads.

Yssup Rider: admit you're wrong

Why should I admit to something that isn't the case? Expecting me to "admit" that I am "wrong," the latter quotes strongly used, is like expecting me to "admit" that the sun is a big giant purple ball of fire with yellow polka dots scattered all over its face as seen through the naked eye.

Your expecting me to do that is like someone that I had just checkmated in chess expecting me to admit that I "lost" when I actually won. Neither logic nor common sense supports your opinion.

Yssup Rider: or shut the fuck up!

Expecting me to not provide a counter rebuttal to you, and to those on your side of the argument, is like expecting an alcoholic to stay away from alcohol... or expecting a hungry fat man, who loves to eat at buffets, to stay away from a free buffet when he's hungry.

Again, don't reply to me and expect me not to say anything back. The cold hard reality is that you're getting your ass handed to you in this argument. Here's what it boils down to... You want it both ways, you want me to stop making you look like a fool but at the same time you want to continue replying to me.

It doesn't work that way.

You're clearly wrong with regards to your assumption about what I was arguing, or thinking, that I was the only veteran on this thread or message board. I called you out on it, reminded you of statements that I made that indicated that I knew that, and asked you if you were wrong for making that assumption.

You were wrong about that, and I'm holding your feet to the fire. You're the one that needs to admit that you're wrong. I've proven my argument on this thread, you failed to do the same for yours. If you want me to "shut the fuck up," then you need to go back and analyze the "If 'X,' then 'Y,' relationship that I explained above in this post.

The ball is in your court.

Yssup Rider: that would include presenting facts and assuming that NOBODY is going to take you at your arrogant word.

Since you're blinded by arrogance, here's one part of my argument:

"How about that only the veterans on this board have a fucking clue about foreign policy? ( ) YES ( ) NO" -Yssup Rider

Added to this:

"Oh, and you're not the only Veteran on this board." -Yssup Rider

You were clearly making a strawman argument. This thread is about an issue involving Iraq. Being an Iraq war veteran, as opposed to you not being one, I have credibility in this argument where you have none.

My disagreement with your argument, as well as those of the oppositions', stems in large part from my boots on the ground experiences in Iraq. You know that you've lost just on those grounds, before I even post a comment. You know for a fact that you can't even take my actual arguments on.

So, how do you handle this so that you could arrogantly plow on? Your replies no longer make this about Iraq but about foreign policy in general; you no longer make this about the Iraq war veterans, but about veterans in general.

A careful analysis of what you posted indicates that this is your thrust. I called you out on it and you are rightfully embarrassed and pissed. You've been tap dancing ever since I called you out on it.

Don't mistake the hard facts, as I presented them in my replies to you, as "arrogant words," quotation marks used strongly.

I presented a fact-based reasoned argument on this thread against you and those that I'm arguing against. I've presented hard facts. So have those who are arguing on my side of the argument against your side of the argument.

I'm not being "arrogant" about this. I'm simply telling it like it is the way I would describe a red fire hydrant as being a red fire hydrant. You can't handle the truth, the facts seriously harm your argument. Your own words harm your argument.

It speaks volumes that I could use your own words against you in the argument supporting what I said on this thread.

My statements, indicating that I recognize other veterans on this thread, are cold hard fact. You ignore those facts in order to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on this board. I see two realities with your consistently refusing to admit that you're wrong with that assumption.

Let's assume that you simply made that statement as a standalone statement. Before you did that, I made two statements indicating that I recognize other veterans on this board. You follow that up by reminding me that I'm not the only veteran on this board in a futile attempt to "weaken" my argument.

This would tell me that you're outright stupid. You demonstrated stupidity on this thread, but I'm refusing to believe that you're that stupid that you'd make a statement that you wouldn't need to make had you read what I've previously stated.

However, if you go back and read the context of argument, as well as the trend, you made a statement for a specific purpose. That bothers the hell out of you that in an argument about the Iraq war, I have a leg to stand on you don't. Instead of accepting the fact, you try to create a strawman.

Sucks lots of dicks: BTW -- the 2014 Dipshit of the Year award hasn't been presented yet. Might look good on the mantelpiece of your bunker, you raving lunatic.

Is this is a Freudian slip? Given how easy it is to get you to emotionally react, I wouldn't be surprised if you are the biggest dipshit on this message board. Now, what will go near a mantelpiece? If I were a hunter, maybe the head of an animal that I had shot. Are you suggesting here that I'm going to symbolically have a symbol of your argument's head over my mantelpiece?

He who eats bags of dicks: Prove that anything I said was wrong, or that I really meant something else by it. (REPEAT POINT + STRAWMAN)

I've thoroughly proven my argument right on this thread. Your statement, that I wasn't the only veteran on this thread, was intended to put assumed veterans on your side of the argument on "equal" footing to me. You are doing so via a strawman argument. Again, this argument is about the Iraq war. Unlike you, I have combat deployed to Iraq which gives me experiences relative to this argument. You, not having combat deployed to Iraq, don't have the similar experiences.

This means that I have credibility in this argument where you lack it.

Both of us know that. However, your arrogance doesn't want to accept it. To make up for it, your arrogance advances a strawman trying to diminish this as any veteran versus just Iraq war veterans, and as foreign policy in general versus just the Iraq war.

You are attempting to shift the goalposts because you know that your lack of experiences compared to mine dictates that you're wrong in this argument were in disagreeing with you.

You're trying to backpedal.

Assup Ridee: I fully expect another ridiculous retort. Have at it, fool.

once again, like a juvenile reacting to a parent that's trying to give them a clue, you're dismissing my fact-based, reason, logical argument against your lack of such an argument as nothing but a "ridiculous retort."

It's a given that I'm going to use as many words as I need to prove you wrong.

Assup Riden:You are distinguishing yourself as the Board's new laughingstock. I guess that puts you in fine company.

Definition of laughingstock as used by Yssup Rider: a very effective debater that's very good at destroying Yssup Rider's nonsense arguments, as well as those advanced by like minded posters. We pulverize you people in debate, we destroy your arguments, and that leaves you lefties with nothing else to do but to call us names.

Yssup Rider: And don't forget, you're not the only vet in this forum... (REPEAT POINT)

First, I've made additional posts indicating that I recognize another veteran on there besides me, in addition to the quotes I shove into your face. You've just brought yourself back to where you started.

Second, sigh, Yssup Rider, please give him another reminder, thanks.

"I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more time reading the high literature on this forum before you start complaining about anything." -Yssup Rider

Because if you did what you preached, you would've seen this:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

if you reply to me while failing to answer this question per the parameters that I set, I'm going to consistently ask you these same questions.

Yssup Rider: Just the stupidest.

In the past 10 to 11 years that I've been debating online, I found an inverse relationship between those that debate me and their intelligence. As one goes up, the other goes down. Here's how it works.

The stupidest people debate against me the longest, or more frequently. The smarter ones either don't debate me, or stop debating me earlier in the debate. With all things being equal, both the dummies and the smart ones take the same course of action in the end of their thread run.

The stupidest keep arguing with me despite the fact that they're wrong. The longer they debate with me, the more credibility they lose... and the more they expose of themselves to those on my side of the argument.

In fact, your responses shows you as someone with anger and control issues. You want me to stop hammering you, you have dropped hints that I should do that, and you have gotten pissed when I refused to do that.

I could also tell, by your responses, that people around you see you as being extremely arrogant... perhaps your relatives describe you as missing a bolt or two up there. I won't be surprised if your friends and relatives see in you what you label me here.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you threw things, and shouted at anger, in response to something that you saw on TV, or on the Internet... like my replies to you.

Your mom "knows" this, and "wanted" this to be posted here so that others understood you:

Originally "posted" by Yssup Rider's "mom":

First, I'd like to apologize; I've been going through my son's computer and have been seeing the sites he visits! I am afraid the things he says here are what he is like in real life. But since he has found this site he has stopped hitting people so often and does not abuse people in our road and at his support work program quite so much.

Please let me give you some background on my son, known as Yssup Rider here and maybe you will feel more sympathetic to our tragic situation.

I have had problems with him since his freshman year. My son went through what was labeled "stress induced psychosis" and then severe depression. This was when he hit me often and he'd play with his penis while shouting abuse at people in the street from his bedroom window.

He has been diagnosed with everything from undetermined psychosis, masturbation addiction, Tourette Syndrome, transgender confusion, Bi-polar, OCD, etc. His school diagnosed him with ADHD as early as the third grade. He has been in resource sense first grade. His doctors are now diagnosing him with Asperger's Syndrome. Because of his rituals violence towards me, addiction to masturbation and oppositional behaviors in the mornings, he has a tendency to be tardy.

Almost every morning would be the same. I'd have to drag him to the car, with him kicking and screaming every morning, after I'd force him into boys clothing. He loves his sister's clothes!

I have homeschooled him for his last 4 years. Each year I register him into the schools, he'd always end up showing up late too many days. As usual, they file charges against him, and I'd have to remove him from the school and home school him.

He is still having a lot of anxiety about the transition from the house to the car and then to his mentally challenged supported employment program. He has outgrown me and I can no longer pick him up and force him. He is being chronically late again and they are already threatening to put me in jail and/or him in the asylum.

If the judge in my town were helpful or reasonable, I would trust his judgment. He is not. Even the sheriffs' department in my area is filing complaints against him. The person in charge of the developmentally challenged adult program in my state suggested that I give him up to the state. They told me that they have the services he needs and that I'm not knowledgeable to provide.

The only group home, in my area for adults, is for those who are violent, addicted to drugs, or coming out of prison. I am afraid someone in that home would hurt him, or that he might end up in the asylum. I will end up having to take him out and pamper him.

This work program is his chance to become social. He is trying so hard and wants to go so bad. But he isn't able to overcome the transitional problems. Putting a red wire in the red Ziploc bag, and a green wire in the green Ziploc bag, as required by his work program for each empty bag, confuses the hell out of him, and causes him to have headaches. He seems to have consistent trouble folding and unfolding boxes.

On top of that, he consistently gets lost at his work place. I've asked his support staff to color code the inside of the building. That move helped, as he can get around there now. They've also made him a color coded schedule to help him coordinate time, activity, and location. Even with those precautions, the support staff calls every time they can't find him at his work place.

If I could only help him understand that the medicine is there for him to feel good, and be nice, he wouldn't have problems with his social life. He keeps placing the meds under his tongue, then spitting them out when he's out of my sight.

So you see, he has it hard back here, and ECCIE is the only place he gets attention. Every time I see him post on ECCIE, I know that he's cheeking his medications. I think it's that retarded ghost that possesses him that makes him cheek his medications. If you guys could give me a contact number for a good exorcist, I'd very much appreciate it. Together we might be able to solve this. I might even get him to go back and finish high school. It'll mean so much to me, and even more to him.

Created to reflect reality.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by bigtex

(STRAW MAN)

herfacechair:

The following quote which you attributed to me was found included in your post at the following link.

http://www.eccie.net/newreply.php?do...y&p=1055538668

While it was clearly presented by you as being completely factual and unedited, I have absolutely no recollection of having ever made the statement credited to me. If my memory serves me correctly (and I believe it does), you are crediting me with something that I never said or even implied.

In the (extremely) unlikely event my memory does not serve me correctly, you can easily rectify the situation by doing the following:

Please provide the actual link where you found the following quoted material attributed directly to me:

(Here's what I actually said, UNEDITED!)

herefacechair, you are probably correct in saying that the "guys with the white smocks are coming after" somebody.

And you happen to be the Idiot they are coming after!

bigLIAR, where, in that post, do I "clearly" present that parodied post of yours as completely factual and unedited? The only way that you could present that argument is if you EDITED my quote to remove my actual comments. If you didn't edit out what I said, you'd have your answer.

In fact, you wouldn't have had a need to generate your most previous reply. You must have some shitty memory if you can't even remember everything that you've read. If my memory serves me correctly (and I believe it does), I put the following statement in my quote:

Fixed to reflect accuracy.

Extremely unlikely event that your memory doesn't serve you correctly? I'll tell you what's up. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your memory serves you correctly, and that you saw that quote of mine saying, "Fixed to reflect accuracy," clearly communicating the fact that I changed the contents of the post that you actually made.

But, with no other form of recourse, you decide to LIE about what happened, and accuse me of doing something that my memory tells me I didn't do. Therefore, the question that you asked is a red herring question that addresses an issue that my memory accurately identifies as a non-issue in my previous post.

Now, if you honest to God think that I did what you're accusing me of doing, you're the idiot that needs to worry about the folks with the white smocks coming after you. I could tell, by your reactions, that I got you good with that parodied post.

Also, if it's unacceptable practice to alter what has been quoted in a quoted text, where where you when I put "Red Herring, Strawman, or Repeat Point" statements within people's quotes? They most certainly didn't make those statements within their quotes, where were you when I did that throughout the thread? Was it because your memory was slow, or was it because I actually got you with that one post?

Why did you delete that section from your own post? Is it because the "extremely unlikely event" that your memory didn't serve you well ended up becoming a likely event?

At any rate, I put my applicable statement back in, no need to "find the link where you said that."

Also, until you answer my questions truthfully, factually, and without your BS, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that I find something for you, or to even answer any of your questions.

So here they are again:

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

I'm going to keep asking you this question for as long as you insist on replying to me or as long as you insist on replying to something I argued:

So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Where you wrong when you insisted that they were ONLY searching for nuclear weapons? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste these questions, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the options that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Dickssucker: Holy shit, herassment. I refuse to quote your entire voluminous post

You refuse to quote me in entirety because facts to you are like kryptonite to Superman. "Voluminous" to you in a derogatory sense, because you got seriously but hurt when I destroyed your drivel point by point.

Yssup Rider: because it's discourteous to people who want to see the happy ending to this one-man circle jerk.

If by "one-man circle jerk," you actually mean a one-sided ass kicking with me doing other ass kicking and you receiving the ass beating, then you're onto something. As for seeing the end of this, I actually told you how to make that happen. Again:

Let "X," be your reply to me.

Let "Y," be my response to you.

What you're seeing on this thread is this relationship: If "X," then "Y." As long as you keep supplying the "X," I will consistently supply the "Y." Meaning, if you want to see an end to this, your side of the argument needs to quit advancing "X." If you guys do that, I'll have no reason to advance "Y," in response.

You just told me here that you got royally butthurt that I refuse to quit hammering you. I have news for you, that's not going to happen. As long as you reply to me, I'm going reply to you. If I don't get back with you this evening, tomorrow, this weekend, next week, next month, etc., I'll still get back with you.

My replies to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

The only people I see that want a happy ending to this are your side of the argument. Again, I'm treating this like a combat operation. As long as your side of the argument, including you, keep firing in my direction, I'm going to keep firing back at your direction.

In other words, as long as you insist on replying to me, quit bitching about my consistently hammering you.

Yssup Rider: You are entirely nuts.

You're not the first person to do this. Over the past 10 to 11 years, numerous people like you tried to label me one psychological term or other on the account of my refusal to cease fire on your people.

The reality is that you, and your side of the argument, are entirely nuts for being completely wrong yet insisting on continuing to argue your wrong assessments.

Each time you, or anybody in your side of the argument here, continues on this thread, you give me additional opportunities to keep destroying you people's credibility.

Yssup Rider: How do you know exactly what I meant. Are you that fucking paranoid? READ WHAT IS WRITTEN, goober. That's usually the best way to determine what another poster is saying.

Not only do I read what's written, I rebut you guys point by point. Not only do I do this, but I read, and reread, my replies to you before I post them. I read your responses more than once as I review my drafts.

In addition to that, I have well over 180 Microsoft Word pages containing my replies to this thread. Researching what you said, or what anybody else said, is as simple as applying the "Control F" key combination on the keyboard. A simple matter of typing keywords automatically brings me to specific statements.

If you did what you preached, and read what exactly I meant, you would have no need to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on this message board. If you read what's written, you would've seen this:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

That's right, you would've seen those two statements had you done this:

"READ WHAT IS WRITTEN, goober." -Yssup Rider

We wouldn't be having this part of the argument, and I wouldn't be persistently asking you this question, had you done precisely what you told me to do here. Quit demanding that I do things that you yourself refuse to do.

Yssup Rider: Yet YOU have spent God knows how much time and wasted bandwidth to argue assumptions of what I'm thinking.

First, these aren't assumptions, but accurate inferences being made based on what's been written by both sides. I clearly indicated, via statements that I've made, that I know that there are other veterans on this board. Had you done what you preached, what you demanded I do, you would've read those statements.

Had you read those statements, there would have not been any need for you to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on the board.

Second, if you feel that I'm spending a lot of time and bandwidth arguing accurate observations, it's because you're spending a whole bunch a time and wasted bandwidth refusing to admit that you're wrong.

I don't consider this exercise as being a waste of time. Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm breaking in new speech to text software. Speaking into a microphone, dictating my responses to a Microsoft Word document that I had copied and pasted your replies to, doesn't take much time.

Even if I were to type this, it wouldn't take much time. I could rapidly type something without even looking at the keyboard. People have reminded me before that there "is" a keyboarding "speed limit".

Either way, dismantling your erroneous assumptions, as well as that of the other people and I'm arguing against here, doesn't take that much time. Like I said before, I have a great time doing this. Your reactions to my posts are added incentives to keep hammering you here.

I have every intention to continue to keep hammering you until you wizen up and shut up on this specific argument.

Yssup Rider: I'll make it crystal clear for you:

I've made my posts here, all my posts here, crystal clear. Yet, you're on this thread pulling shit out of your ass about what it is that I'm saying or arguing. If you have problems understanding what I'm saying on this thread, you need to hire an interpreter that interprets from 5th grade level English to retard level English. Hopefully, this interpreter would be able to break things down for you into retard terms so that you could hopefully understand what I'm saying.

Yssup Rider: Prove (PROVE) you're right,

I've proven that I'm right. The results of my proving myself right are scattered throughout this thread. What's really happening here is that your ego is blinding you to reality. Deep down inside, you know that I've destroyed you on this thread. Your ego can't handle that, so it's denying that I've proven myself right and you wrong.

Here, let me simplify this for you.

Remove your head from your ass, then remove your massive horse blinders from your eyes. That should help you see that I have proven myself right and you wrong.

It's like what I've told other people on this message board, I don't argue on a topic unless I know far more about it than the opposition. This is very applicable on this thread just as it has been on the other threads.

Yssup Rider: admit you're wrong

Why should I admit to something that isn't the case? Expecting me to "admit" that I am "wrong," the latter quotes strongly used, is like expecting me to "admit" that the sun is a big giant purple ball of fire with yellow polka dots scattered all over its face as seen through the naked eye.

Your expecting me to do that is like someone that I had just checkmated in chess expecting me to admit that I "lost" when I actually won. Neither logic nor common sense supports your opinion.

Yssup Rider: or shut the fuck up!

Expecting me to not provide a counter rebuttal to you, and to those on your side of the argument, is like expecting an alcoholic to stay away from alcohol... or expecting a hungry fat man, who loves to eat at buffets, to stay away from a free buffet when he's hungry.

Again, don't reply to me and expect me not to say anything back. The cold hard reality is that you're getting your ass handed to you in this argument. Here's what it boils down to... You want it both ways, you want me to stop making you look like a fool but at the same time you want to continue replying to me.

It doesn't work that way.

You're clearly wrong with regards to your assumption about what I was arguing, or thinking, that I was the only veteran on this thread or message board. I called you out on it, reminded you of statements that I made that indicated that I knew that, and asked you if you were wrong for making that assumption.

You were wrong about that, and I'm holding your feet to the fire. You're the one that needs to admit that you're wrong. I've proven my argument on this thread, you failed to do the same for yours. If you want me to "shut the fuck up," then you need to go back and analyze the "If 'X,' then 'Y,' relationship that I explained above in this post.

The ball is in your court.

Yssup Rider: that would include presenting facts and assuming that NOBODY is going to take you at your arrogant word.

Since you're blinded by arrogance, here's one part of my argument:

"How about that only the veterans on this board have a fucking clue about foreign policy? ( ) YES ( ) NO" -Yssup Rider

Added to this:

"Oh, and you're not the only Veteran on this board." -Yssup Rider

You were clearly making a strawman argument. This thread is about an issue involving Iraq. Being an Iraq war veteran, as opposed to you not being one, I have credibility in this argument where you have none.

My disagreement with your argument, as well as those of the oppositions', stems in large part from my boots on the ground experiences in Iraq. You know that you've lost just on those grounds, before I even post a comment. You know for a fact that you can't even take my actual arguments on.

So, how do you handle this so that you could arrogantly plow on? Your replies no longer make this about Iraq but about foreign policy in general; you no longer make this about the Iraq war veterans, but about veterans in general.

A careful analysis of what you posted indicates that this is your thrust. I called you out on it and you are rightfully embarrassed and pissed. You've been tap dancing ever since I called you out on it.

Don't mistake the hard facts, as I presented them in my replies to you, as "arrogant words," quotation marks used strongly.

I presented a fact-based reasoned argument on this thread against you and those that I'm arguing against. I've presented hard facts. So have those who are arguing on my side of the argument against your side of the argument.

I'm not being "arrogant" about this. I'm simply telling it like it is the way I would describe a red fire hydrant as being a red fire hydrant. You can't handle the truth, the facts seriously harm your argument. Your own words harm your argument.

It speaks volumes that I could use your own words against you in the argument supporting what I said on this thread.

My statements, indicating that I recognize other veterans on this thread, are cold hard fact. You ignore those facts in order to "remind me" that I'm not the only veteran on this board. I see two realities with your consistently refusing to admit that you're wrong with that assumption.

Let's assume that you simply made that statement as a standalone statement. Before you did that, I made two statements indicating that I recognize other veterans on this board. You follow that up by reminding me that I'm not the only veteran on this board in a futile attempt to "weaken" my argument.

This would tell me that you're outright stupid. You demonstrated stupidity on this thread, but I'm refusing to believe that you're that stupid that you'd make a statement that you wouldn't need to make had you read what I've previously stated.

However, if you go back and read the context of argument, as well as the trend, you made a statement for a specific purpose. That bothers the hell out of you that in an argument about the Iraq war, I have a leg to stand on you don't. Instead of accepting the fact, you try to create a strawman.

Sucks lots of dicks: BTW -- the 2014 Dipshit of the Year award hasn't been presented yet. Might look good on the mantelpiece of your bunker, you raving lunatic.

Is this is a Freudian slip? Given how easy it is to get you to emotionally react, I wouldn't be surprised if you are the biggest dipshit on this message board. Now, what will go near a mantelpiece? If I were a hunter, maybe the head of an animal that I had shot. Are you suggesting here that I'm going to symbolically have a symbol of your argument's head over my mantelpiece?

He who eats bags of dicks: Prove that anything I said was wrong, or that I really meant something else by it. (REPEAT POINT + STRAWMAN)

I've thoroughly proven my argument right on this thread. Your statement, that I wasn't the only veteran on this thread, was intended to put assumed veterans on your side of the argument on "equal" footing to me. You are doing so via a strawman argument. Again, this argument is about the Iraq war. Unlike you, I have combat deployed to Iraq which gives me experiences relative to this argument. You, not having combat deployed to Iraq, don't have the similar experiences.

This means that I have credibility in this argument where you lack it.

Both of us know that. However, your arrogance doesn't want to accept it. To make up for it, your arrogance advances a strawman trying to diminish this as any veteran versus just Iraq war veterans, and as foreign policy in general versus just the Iraq war.

You are attempting to shift the goalposts because you know that your lack of experiences compared to mine dictates that you're wrong in this argument were in disagreeing with you.

You're trying to backpedal.

Assup Ridee: I fully expect another ridiculous retort. Have at it, fool.

once again, like a juvenile reacting to a parent that's trying to give them a clue, you're dismissing my fact-based, reason, logical argument against your lack of such an argument as nothing but a "ridiculous retort."

It's a given that I'm going to use as many words as I need to prove you wrong.

Assup Riden:You are distinguishing yourself as the Board's new laughingstock. I guess that puts you in fine company.

Definition of laughingstock as used by Yssup Rider: a very effective debater that's very good at destroying Yssup Rider's nonsense arguments, as well as those advanced by like minded posters. We pulverize you people in debate, we destroy your arguments, and that leaves you lefties with nothing else to do but to call us names.

Yssup Rider: And don't forget, you're not the only vet in this forum... (REPEAT POINT)

First, I've made additional posts indicating that I recognize another veteran on there besides me, in addition to the quotes I shove into your face. You've just brought yourself back to where you started.

Second, sigh, Yssup Rider, please give him another reminder, thanks.

"I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more time reading the high literature on this forum before you start complaining about anything." -Yssup Rider

Because if you did what you preached, you would've seen this:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

if you reply to me while failing to answer this question per the parameters that I set, I'm going to consistently ask you these same questions.

Yssup Rider: Just the stupidest.

In the past 10 to 11 years that I've been debating online, I found an inverse relationship between those that debate me and their intelligence. As one goes up, the other goes down. Here's how it works.

The stupidest people debate against me the longest, or more frequently. The smarter ones either don't debate me, or stop debating me earlier in the debate. With all things being equal, both the dummies and the smart ones take the same course of action in the end of their thread run.

The stupidest keep arguing with me despite the fact that they're wrong. The longer they debate with me, the more credibility they lose... and the more they expose of themselves to those on my side of the argument.

In fact, your responses shows you as someone with anger and control issues. You want me to stop hammering you, you have dropped hints that I should do that, and you have gotten pissed when I refused to do that.

I could also tell, by your responses, that people around you see you as being extremely arrogant... perhaps your relatives describe you as missing a bolt or two up there. I won't be surprised if your friends and relatives see in you what you label me here.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you threw things, and shouted at anger, in response to something that you saw on TV, or on the Internet... like my replies to you.

Your mom "knows" this, and "wanted" this to be posted here so that others understood you:



Created to reflect reality.

Oh my.

My "mom?"

After all this bullshit, please remind me what point you're trying to win? You hammer away at people, explaining how you're kicking their ass, but ABOUT WHAT? You're arguing no point at all.

Fucking hysterical.

LMAO @ self-important, ignorant, arrogant dipshit!

Take your incredibly experienced military boots off the ground and stick them up your ass, numbnuts.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

(My big factual Post posted here)

Oh my.

My "mom?"

LMAO @ self-important, ignorant, arrogant dipshit!

Why don't you take your incredibly experienced boots off the ground and stick them up your ass?

Take it away Assup Ridden:

"Holy shit, herassment. I refuse to quote your entire voluminous post because it's discourteous to people who want to see the happy ending to this one-man circle jerk." -Yssup Rider

Where you wrong when you said that? Don't you get tired of proving yourself wrong? Keep this up and I'll be able to sit back and watch you destroy your own argument.

As usual, you can't get straight what you're going to do, what makes you think that anything else you say is going to be factual?

You know what points I've actually won, which includes the main point we were arguing. Go through this thread and watch me prove you wrong, both about the main topic of this thread, and about some of the minor topics that were later brought up.

You were wrong about the main topic, you were also wrong about what you were going to do. Once again, you're blinded by your arrogance, which is protecting your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason. If it weren't for your head shoved up your ass, you'd see what points I'm arguing, and what topics we were arguing about.

Anybody capable of understanding English written so that even a fifth grader could understand what's being said would know that I'm hammering you guys on the topic on this thread.

What topics would those be? Why, the events on the ground in Iraq leading up to what's going on now, and who really should get pinned a lion's share of the blame. Also, we're arguing about what you intended, which is captured in the questions that I'm asking you... questions that you keep ignoring.

The reason to why I'm explaining how I'm kicking your ass in this debate is that you're too dense to see that you've been defeated in this debate... defeated in an argument about the main topic, as well as defeated with regards to the points that you brought up.

Self importance, ignorance, and arrogance describes the side of this argument that refuses to recognize defeat... that refuses to answer my simple, straightforward, questions.

As for my boots on the ground, I'm sorry, I can't do what you demand. I'm too busy kicking your head further up your ass with them.

I doubt that you're laughing at anything that I said. I'm doing the laughing, you're doing the "getting pissed" action.

Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass, removed your incredibly large horseblinders, and exorcised that retarded ghost that's possessing you, you'd you'd see the points that you're losing on, and you'd see how you got your ass kicked in this thread... by multiple posters.

Having said that, you owe me some questions:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Where you wrong when you said that you refuse to quote my entire "voluminous" post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste those questions, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

if you reply to me while failing to answer this question per the parameters that I set, I'm going to consistently ask you these same questions.

[Yssup Rider]

You never said you were the only veteran in this forum. I said you weren't the only veteran in this forum.

That's the answer.

I was correct. You aren't the only veteran in this forum.

I did not quote the entire voluminous thread in the post you now so childishly question.

Enough already. Thats all you get. I don't owe you shit.

And, I don't take kindly to threats, son.

[juuicyjvasquesz]

WHEN OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT A LOT OF THINGS WERE ALRDY MESSED AND HE HASN'T MADE ANYTHING BETTER SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You never said you were the only veteran in this forum. I said you weren't the only veteran in this forum.

I was correct. You aren't the only veteran in this forum. (STRAWMAN)

That's the answer.

That's only a PART of the answer, but not the full answer. As I've stated repeatedly on this thread, you mentioned that statement as part of a strawman argument. If you take two of your quotes, stated side by side, they communicate a theme:

"Oh, and you're not the only Veteran on this board." -Yssup Rider

And this one:

"How about that only the veterans on this board have a fucking clue about foreign policy? ( ) YES ( ) NO" -Yssup Rider

The intention is clear. The second statement touches up on the reason you'd make the first statement. You didn't just say that "out in the open, intending that as a stand-alone statement.

Whether I'm the only veteran or not wasn't the argument on this thread. However, the fact that I'm a veteran of a war that's being argued on this thread is the issue for you, as it gave me a vantage point and credibility where you had none.

You were making a strawman argument in that you tried to expand this to "veterans in general" from "Iraq War Veterans." You were trying to expand this to "foreign policy in general" vice just "the Iraq War."

Veterans in general, and foreign policy in general, constitute a strawman argument. You made a statement that supported something that I said earlier in the thread... a statement that you wouldn't be making had you addressed the actual argument instead of creating a strawman, given the statements that I previously made.

What you stated with regards to your statement above had nothing to do with our actual argument. You were incorrect with regards to the argument, and with regards with the majority of the points that you were getting across. You were incorrect with regards to the insinuations that you were making with that statement about my not being the only veteran on the board... not with regards to the statement itself.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I did not quote the entire voluminous thread in the post you now so childishly question.

Considering that quoted material within a post that you "quote" disappear, you can't use that as an argument that you didn't quote my entire "voluminous" post. The fact of the matter is that you selected "quote" to respond to my "voluminous" post, despite the fact that you indicated that you weren't going to do that.

Here's your statement that sheds a light into what I'm talking about:

"THE REMAINDER OF THIS IMBECILIC POST CAN BE READ IN THE PREVIOUS RANT SUBMITTED BY THIS RAVING LUNATIC. I WILL NOT WASTE FURTHER BANDWITH REPEATING THIS IN ITS PAINFULLY TEDIOUS ENTIRETY...." Yssup Rider

To prevent this post from getting longer, I have an idea of what you're going to say on this point, so I'll hold off on that part of my reply until then.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Enough already. Thats all you get. I don't owe you shit.

Whether this is "enough already" or not is entirely up to you, not to me. You're attempting to do both, back-peddle and have it both ways. The fact of the matter is that you made the statement, "You're not the only veteran on this thread" to support the strawman argument that you were advancing. You also argued that you weren't going to quote my entire "voluminous" post... something that you later contradicted.

Now that I called you out on it, you're attempting to back peddle and argue that you meant something entirely different... or didn't "technically" do it.

The most effective way to stop me from asking you those questions repeatedly is to not give me the excuse I need to provide another post countering something that you said.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And, I don't take kindly to threats, son.

Where, in my posts, did I threaten you? Are you talking about my telling you that I'm going to keep repeating my questions if you don't answer them per the parameters that I set? That's not a threat... unless you know, deep down inside, that they address your actual intentions, you know that you're wrong, and you hate being reminded of the fact that you're wrong, etc.

In that case, it's a threat to your pride, not to you physically.

I'll temporarily hold off on the first question on the account that you recognized the fact that I didn't claim to be the only veteran on this board; however it's blatantly obvious that you're tap dancing hard to get away from the second question. So here goes:

Where you wrong when you said that you refuse to quote my entire "voluminous" post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste those questions, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

I'll keep asking these questions until you answer them per the parameters I set. Don't forget the new question that I added, with regards to the "threat" that you claimed that I made.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by juuicyjvasquesz

WHEN OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT A LOT OF THINGS WERE ALRDY MESSED AND HE HASN'T MADE ANYTHING BETTER SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE

What happened before Obama because president was three decades in the making. The free market was bound to make a major correction after decades of the government trying to dictate elements of the free market.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

[color=blue]
I'll keep asking these questions until you answer them per the parameters I set. Don't forget the new question that I added, with regards to the "threat" that you claimed that I made.

More threats of continued harrassment. Make this the last time I have to tell you to Back the fuck off. Take the "perimeters you set" and stick them up your ignorant ass.

You don't get to make the rules, you insignificant little worm.

However, you probably ought to use a dictionary as the pearls of wisdom come flowing from that festering gob you call a mouth. I can only assume that your verbal diarrhea is the product of a serious inferiority complex most likely born of a substandard education. The chip on your shoulder is NOT my fucking problem? it's yours.

Your questions are answered. Your assault is complete. You have admitted to 180-plus pages of replies to this thread. Most of it, meta-discussion, not germane to the topic of discussion, no matter how much you mewl to the contrary.

I still stand. You continue to squeal like a schoolyard bully.

Jerk off elsewhere, asshole.

Next player.

[lustylad]

Whoa, wouldya look at that! assup is hysterical! He's gone ballistic! He is fulminating, vituperating, steaming, frothing and drooling! Hey assup, isn't it maddening when someone actually takes your posts seriously and won't stop holding you and your faux arguments accountable?

By the way, you probably ought to use a dictionary too so you can look up the difference between perimeter and parameter.

And don't forget to pop a valium before bed.

[JD Barleycorn]

While you're bedeviling FuckZup the ISIS crew has gotten their hands on some uranium which is odd because haven't we been told repeatedly that Hussein didn't have any and that Bush was lying. I guess not.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

While you're bedeviling FuckZup the ISIS crew has gotten their hands on some uranium which is odd because haven't we been told repeatedly that Hussein didn't have any and that Bush was lying. I guess not.

Even Bush admitted he was lying about WMD's.


''Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction..''

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Even Bush admitted he was lying about WMD's.

Do you have a quote in which Bush admitted "he was lying about WMD's"?

Probably about like BigTits (Your Big Brother) has a quote in which Bush announced on the deck of the carrier that the Iraq was over! You know ... BigTits proclaiming that Bush said "Mission Accomplished" on the carrier!

You guys (and your ilk) don't have facts so you just fabricate shit! And it's SHIT!

As the invading terrorists raid more warehouses (how did they know where to look) and pull out more WMDs and materials for WMDs ... your LameAssPresident and his dwindling loyalits are getting more and more egg on their faces .... or is that fecal matter turning yellow ... regarding this BushBashing for all these years.

You don't even have the integrity to admit the terrorists are finding WMDs.

Kinda like you don't admit you are part of the illegal immigration problem.... making money off illegal immigrants tied to the construction business .... lower wages paid by your subs = lower costs to you for the sub work being done .... you are profitting from the illegal alien trade. You turn and look the other way.

Now you can pay for the increase school enrollment for the illegals enrolling in our public schools in Texas, who you have facilitated and encouraged to come to the U.S. for the "good life" working in the construction business for subs you hire!!!!

[JD Barleycorn]

Those lies are called propoganda and the democrats are full of it. They could watch a lion charge across an open field in Kansas towards them and they would want to argue if a lion is an indigenious to Kansas. They are a little on the stupid side.

I point out that terrorists have their hands on nuclear material and WTF wants to take time to blame Bush.