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

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I guess if you keep posting that the rest of us ill forget the law he is following, that republicans passed where we have to care for them?

You getting all choked up about him following a "Republican Law"?

The duffus doesn't even follow the "Democrats' Law" aka ACA!!!!

Or do you give your pool-shark a pass on picking and choosing?

Isn't there a law that says you can't sneak into the U.S. without papers?

Was that a "Republican Law" ... about not sneaking into the country?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You getting all choked up about him following a "Republican Law"?

The duffus doesn't even follow the "Democrats' Law" aka ACA!!!!

Or do you give your pool-shark a pass on picking and choosing?

Isn't there a law that says you can't sneak into the U.S. without papers?

Was that a "Republican Law" ... about not sneaking into the country?

Why would you think they are coming ass hat? You sound like the pool shark fast Eddie.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is that your answer for everything in life when folks don't agree with you? No

They are "ignorant"? No again.

That implies, of course, that you are "well informed" or not "ignorant." . What you seem to be ignorant about LL, is the difference between ignorant and ignorant on a certain topic.

You are ignorant on the topic of Bush either lying about there being WMD's in Iraq or lying later and saying he was wrong about there being WMD's in Iraq. One is a lie. Tell me which one you think is a lie. They both can not be the truth.


Since you can't produce a direct quote from Bush in which he admitted LYING about the WMDs (which you will never be able to produce unless it is a forgery), you decide to start the grade school name calling and imply that anyone who disagrees with your "assessment" that Bush lied is "ignorant"! See above...you being ignorant of a certain topic does not make you ignorant....it just means you are ignorant of this topic.



Like I said: Produce the direct quote by Bush and a link. Or move on.
I have produced Bush admitting he was wrong about Iraq having WMD's. That means when he said prior that they had them, he was lying or is he lying now about them not having them?


Good luck with that shit ... away from the Bimbos.

Away from what bimbos?

You have lots of company: BigTits, YouRong, and ImaLittleOne (who has actually toned down a bit in that department, which I respect)...

....., just to name a few.

You can call folks names but when I only call you ignorant on a topic....not ignorant but ignorant on a certain topic, you cry about me calling you a name.

I only brought up your confession about the construction industry (which you disclosed BTW not me), because the construction industry is heavily involved in the use of illegal aliens (your ignorance keeps you from realizing it apparently) My so called ignorance on the subject gave you this.


Bob Perry is maybe who you are thinking of.




http://www.vdare.com/posts/the-slave...would-make-him
, the Texas Observer reported,

In October 2006, a Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute task force that included several influential Republican state representatives released a report full of bold recommendations. It called for new laws denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, taxing the money many immigrants send back to their home countries, and penalizing employers who hire undocumented workers. “The recommendations provide a clear signal that illegal immigration will be high up on conservatives’ legislative agenda in the coming legislative session,” reported Quorum Report, an Austin-based political Web site, at the time. But just as the stage was set, the curtain closed.
An unusual coalition of powerful Republican business interests—including the Texas Association of Business—realized that the anti-immigrant hysteria threatened to purge Texas of the workers that pluck chickens, build houses, and make some people very rich…two of the state’s biggest employers and campaign contributors depend on immigrant workers. Bob Perry and Bo Pilgrim gave almost $13 million to state candidates and political action committees in the last two election cycles, with Perry contributing the lion’s share. Most of that money went to Republicans. Pilgrim needs immigrants for his Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. chicken factories. Perry depends on immigrants to build houses for Perry Homes.

As you can see, Perry wasn’t supporting amnesty out of the goodness of his heart, but as a representative member of the Slave Power—he needed immigrants to build homes cheaply.





and that you confessed to not paying attention to whether or not your subs utilize illegals on your job sites (or off for that matter), because as you declared it wasn't not your responsibility to determine if they are or not,
Yes that is correct. It is not my responsibility to check their legal status, just as it is not my responsibility to check the legal status of contractors working on say the Keystone pipeline. You benefit from illegals working at eateries in and about Houston, is it your responsibility to check their visa status. You benefit from cheap labor to produce your clothes....do you check their working conditions? You are a hypocrite if not. So please STFU and quit embarrassing yourself.


and thereby benefit by the lower labor costs customarily associated with hiring illegals in the construction business. As a consequence you are contributing to the enticement of illegals to come to this country and sneak into the U.S. .... either directly with their children or by sending their children first so they can piggy back on the later. You like to call people "hypocrites" ... I thought you might like to look in the mirror for a change and repeat ... the world about yourself .Let me Repeat. Yes that is correct. It is not my responsibility to check their legal status, just as it is not my responsibility to check the legal status of contractors working on say the Keystone pipeline. You benefit from illegals working at eateries in and about Houston, is it your responsibility to check their visa status. You benefit from cheap labor to produce your clothes....do you check their working conditions? You are a hypocrite if not. So please STFU and quit embarrassing yourself.

You enjoy yourself for the rest of the evening, you hear?

How's that "geo politics" working for you in the Middle East?

Or would you rather spend your time chasing your own tail over "Bush"?

I'm not chasing tail nor fretting about the ME tonite but thank you for the warm wishes.

[herfacechair]

Assup Ridden: I did NOT quote your entire voluminous post in my post,

Wrong. You quoted my post in entirety. When you select the quote option, you quote my post in contradiction to what you communicated. Whether the imbedded quotes in my posts show up in what you quote in your post is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you indicated that you weren't going to waste any more bandwidth on my statements.

In contradiction to your own statements, you turned around and did the opposite of what you claimed, and what you intended.

Assup Ridden: So the answer to your childish question would be NO [x] .

First, you failed to answer my questions per the parameters I set. You were supposed to copy and paste my question, the options, as well as put an "X" in the option that represented your reply. You failed to do that.

Second, you'd have to be smoking some serious shit if you honest to God think that anybody on my side of the argument is going to buy your nonsense. You knew what you did. The question isn't childish, but legitimate. You DIDN'T answer my question.

The correct answer is YES, you quoted my post in entirety by clicking the quote option.

Assup Ridden: I assume you mean "were" and not "where," but we'll let that slide.

You assumed wrong. I actually meant WHERE, not were. That was deliberate.

I meant what I said earlier. I deliberately use wrong words, misspelled words, double words, double "same class" word usage, and other errors as a way to measure two things... the opposition's desperation, and whether the opposition is doing what they claim or insinuate they're doing... not reading my posts.

The fact that you'd zero in on my written booby traps, rather than the actual arguments, speaks volumes of your desperation.

I know for a fact that you're seeing my questions, and I know for a fact that you're avoiding my questions. I also know for a fact that you're consistently desperate in this argument.

If you erroneously assume that I'm "back peddling," quotations used strongly, know that I know what my thought processes are, you don't, despite what your arrogance would say.

Assup Ridden: Your questions are answered.

No, you didn't answer my questions per the parameters that I set, which is the only way they could be answered for the purposes of this argument. I don't consider your lies, fueled by your arrogance, as "answers" to my questions. Again, my questions aren't answered until you answer them per the parameters that I set. You'll see them again at the bottom of this post.

Assup Ridden: Your assault is complete.

No it's not. My assault is complete when the opposition is neutralized. In this case, you're still in the fight, so I'm still sending lead in your direction... the assault on your argument, and the remainder of your credibility, continues.

Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob: I still stand.

In the same sense that there were "no" American "infidels" in Baghdad after US forces had already taken parts of Baghdad. That's your arrogance speaking. Sending a bunch of bullshit and lies in my direction, while failing to answer my questions or to address my actual arguments, doesn't constitute you "still standing."

Comical Ali? Is that you?

Assup Ridden: You continue to squeal like a spoiled brat.

This coming from the dumbass that bitches, whines, moans, and groans about my post lengths, my questions, my methods, etc, while insisting that I do things "his way" with regards to whether I ask questions or not.

I won't be surprised if you got your way when you were younger, or if you bullied people in school. You need to quit acting like a spoiled brat, with your demands that I "back off," before you accuse someone of having that spoiled brat trait of yours.

Assup Ridden: I'm done with you.

This is the third time you said this, and this is the third time you took action that contradicted what you said that you'll do. If you had any honor, integrity, or any other similar characteristic, you would've actually ceded this fight a long time ago. Your arrogance drives you on despite the battles and the war that you're losing.

Assup Ridden: Next player.

Actually, it goes the other way around. You're going to do what most every other person, in the opposition has done in the past 10 years. I say "most," because some posters on other forums weren't restrained by the same rules that your side of the argument are restrained by on this specific forum. Most of latter was meant for people like you.

Once you do what the others have done, I'll move on to the next "player" and do the same to them that I did to you.

I've been doing this for a decade. You're not in the position to say, "next player" because you're arguing from a losing position.

Whatever it is you're thinking, with regards to this argument, those that I've argued with in the past have also thought. Your ploys won't work with me.

Assup Ridden: More threats of continued harrassment.

This is an example of someone squealing like a spoiled brat. That's not "harassment," but me punishing you for being arrogant, stupid, stubborn, ignorant, etc. You want to have it both ways. You want to keep arguing, despite having lost, yet you don't want the opposition to drive your weakness home... consistently.

Assup Ridden: Make this the last time I have to tell you to Back the fuck off.

Here, let me put it to you in simple terms.

Let "X" by your reply to me.
Let "Y" by my reply to you.
The pattern between us is this: If "X," then "Y."

You're demanding that I take an element out of "Y." Guess what? The only way you could do that is to take "X" out of the relationship to prevent the "Y" from the relationship.

Meaning...

The ONLY way you're going to get me to stop asking you those questions is if you quit replying to me (directly/indirectly), or to my arguments (directly/indirectly). As long as you insist on arguing with me, I'm going to keep asking you those questions while destroying any further argument that you advance. Not sooner.

You can't have it both ways. I know precisely what you're gunning for.

So my advice to you is to take the "beating," then stand the fuck down before you demand that I "back the fuck off."

Assup Ridden: Take the "perimeters you set" and stick them up your ignorant ass.

Pull your head out of your ass, remove your horse-blinders, and get a clue first. Then take your "back the fuck off" demands, and shove them up your ass. I have absolutely no intentions of "backing the fuck off."

Assup Ridden: You don't get to make the rules,

First, you need to quit demanding that I "back off" from asking you questions I intend to ask you before you tell me that I "don't" make the rules. I'm simply telling you what I'm going to do if you don't take a specific honorable course of action.

Second, I'm telling it like it is with regards to your expectations of this argument, and of my actions. You fucked up, pulled shit out of your ass, and presented an extremely weak argument that even you can't defend. My questions remind you of that fact, and you'd rather I quit asking those questions so that the holes in your argument could be buried. Sorry, that's not happening.

Third, I'm going to continue to hold your feet to the fire and I'm going to continue to prevent you from getting away from the holes in your argument.

Assup Ridden: you insignificant little worm.

If I were "insignificant," quotation marks used strongly, you wouldn't have argued with me this long. For someone that's getting crushed in debate, you're making statements while wearing shoes that are extra-large for your feet.

Assup Ridden: However, you probably ought to use a dictionary

No, I don't need a dictionary if I'm deliberately using misspelled words, wrong words, and other types of errors to measure the desperation of the opposition... and, also in this case, prove that you're actually reading the questions, but are refusing to answer them per the parameters that I've set.

You need to get an education, to research, to watch the news, get out to see the real world, etc., before you demand that someone else use the dictionary.

Assup Ridden: as the pearls of wisdom come flowing

What's really tragic is that you're being sarcastic about the very thing that could cure your ignorance.

Assup Ridden: from that festering gob you call a mouth.

First, you need to quit farting from that asshole that you call a mouth before you dismiss something that's providing you with the facts, and with logic.

Second, you need to quit shitting on this, and other threads, with that mouth.

Assup Ridden: I can only assume that your verbal diarrhea is the product of a serious inferiority complex most likely born of a substandard education.

First, don't dismiss fact, reason, and logic as "verbal diarrhea," unless you're a juvenile trying to dismiss someone's giving you a clue.

Second, my argument is a product of research, firsthand experience, and other fact based factors that gives me a legitimate standing in this argument where you have none.

Third, don't dismiss my drive to deny you what you intend with this argument as my having an "inferiority complex," quotation marks used strongly.

Fourth, your posts makes it painfully obvious that you're extremely uneducated and ignorant. You come across as being so stupid that you function mainly as an oxygen to CO2 converter and nothing else... the human counterpart to a plant. You're basically taking up valuable space and wasting oxygen.

Fifth, do know that you're projecting your own traits onto me.

Assup Ridden: The chip on your shoulder is NOT my fucking problem? it's yours.

Again, doing this is fun, why would this be a "chip on the shoulder" on my part? Why would this even be a "problem" for me? Both of us know that you're the one with the low self-esteem, inferiority complex, anger management, stress management, control issue, etc. problems. Not me. Also, both of us know that you're the one with the chip on the shoulder. Your posts, and your spoiled brat ranting here, indicate such.

Assup Ridden: You have admitted to 180-plus pages of replies to this thread.

And you just admitted, indirectly, that you still don't have a clue about the significance of that for you... and those on your side of the argument. That's chump change compared to what I've done elsewhere.

You're "little league" compared to the others that I've hammered before.

Assup Ridden: Most of it, meta-discussion, not germane to the topic of discussion, no matter how much you mewl to the contrary.

Wrong on multiple accounts.

First, from the beginning of my participation on this thread, I've directly addressed the argument. When you dummies argued with me, I replied to you guys point by point. This means that even as you people were pulling back from the main argument... when you guys saw that you didn't have an argument, thus attempted to pull red herrings, strawmen, etc... I was addressing the points that you brought up.

Second, these threads become a "meta discussion" when the losing side, in this case the opposition, runs out of ploys to delay the inevitable. This happens on almost every argument I've been on. I destroy you people in argument... you people advance one strawman after another until the method of argument I use becomes the strawman.

Throughout this thread, I've advanced relevant points to counter as many of your points as I deem necessary to generate my replies.

Assup Ridden: Jerk off elsewhere, asshole.

You know PRECISELY what to do, on your end, to make me stop hammering you. Continuing what you've previously done on this thread, and expecting different results, is simply insane.

Now that you've fallen for one of my booby traps, set within one of my questions, I know for fact that you see and read my questions. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of the holes in your arguments.

So, without further delay...

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 these questions.

Since you failed to answer the following question, I'm going to ask it again:

Where, in this thread, did I threaten you?

I'm sorry, but quoting where I say that I'm going to keep asking you a question if you don't answer it isn't a threat unless you know for a fact that you're wrong.

[JD Barleycorn]

Hidden booby traps don't work on this idiot. I have purposely altered some numbers from time to time (not too much) and no one ever takes the bait. If I say that 75,000 children are expected this next YEAR rather than this next MONTH (which was reported) no one disagreed with me. They indicated that they don't have much knowledge of the topic.

Later I have to come back (like this) and quietly correct the numbers.

You're new here, FuckZup (what I call YR) is like the idiot cousin that comes to every family reunion. He tries to feel up his cousins, drinks too much, and tells lies that everyone (except the most innocent) knows are lies.

Oh, I've had FuckZup on ignore now for over a year. The only time I get to see what he spews is when someone reflects it in a quote. Hasn't gotten any better.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Since you can't produce a direct quote from Bush in which he admitted LYING about the WMDs (which you will never be able to produce unless it is a forgery), you decide to start the grade school name calling and imply that anyone who disagrees with your "assessment" that Bush lied is "ignorant"!

"?

You are ignorant on the topic of Bush either lying about there being WMD's in Iraq or lying later and saying he was wrong about there being WMD's in Iraq. One is a lie. Tell me which one you think is a lie. They both can not be the truth.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hidden booby traps don't work on this idiot. I have purposely altered some numbers from time to time (not too much) and no one ever takes the bait. If I say that 75,000 children are expected this next YEAR rather than this next MONTH (which was reported) no one disagreed with me. They indicated that they don't have much knowledge of the topic.

Later I have to come back (like this) and quietly correct the numbers.

You're new here, FuckZup (what I call YR) is like the idiot cousin that comes to every family reunion. He tries to feel up his cousins, drinks too much, and tells lies that everyone (except the most innocent) knows are lies.

Oh, I've had FuckZup on ignore now for over a year. The only time I get to see what he spews is when someone reflects it in a quote. Hasn't gotten any better.

Well, JDIdiot, I've got your new asshole buddy on ignore now, so you'll have have to save your "booby traps" for those of us who are intellectually inferior to you ...

Ooops. I guess you'll be preaching to a choir of one.

But at least you now admit you deliberately LIE on this board ("to see who takes the bait")

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hidden booby traps don't work on this idiot. I have purposely altered some numbers from time to time (not too much) and no one ever takes the bait. If I say that 75,000 children are expected this next YEAR rather than this next MONTH (which was reported) no one disagreed with me. They indicated that they don't have much knowledge of the topic.

Later I have to come back (like this) and quietly correct the numbers.

You're new here, FuckZup (what I call YR) is like the idiot cousin that comes to every family reunion. He tries to feel up his cousins, drinks too much, and tells lies that everyone (except the most innocent) knows are lies.

Oh, I've had FuckZup on ignore now for over a year. The only time I get to see what he spews is when someone reflects it in a quote. Hasn't gotten any better.

You fuck up so much how would anyone know a hidden booby trap from jut another one of your fuck ups?

[JD Barleycorn]

You see what I mean...

[i'va biggen]

What? Did you fuck up again?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What? Did you fuck up again?

Again or still?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are ignorant on the topic of Bush either lying about there being WMD's in Iraq or lying later and saying he was wrong about there being WMD's in Iraq. One is a lie. Tell me which one you think is a lie. They both can not be the truth.

Those statements are not necessarily lies, either. He could have just been wrong, genius. He got the same intelligence reports Hillary got!!

Statement 1: WMD's in Iraq - apparently wrong, not proven to be a lie.
Statement 2: He sez he was wrong about WMD's in Iraq - apparently right, not proven to be a lie.

[Yssup Rider]

You think he honestly took America to war over bad information. It took months to whip the country into a froth. You HONESTLY think he didn't try to confirm it in that time?

I don't think you're naive, JLHomo. I think you're a dipshit.

Bush took us to war. And I believe he and Cheney and Rumsfeld knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

Thousands died unnecessarily. Bush was convicted of war crimes and is wanted by an international tribunal.

Our economy tanked, as did economies around the world.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Those statements are not necessarily lies, either. He could have just been wrong, genius. He got the same intelligence reports Hillary got!!

Statement 1: WMD's in Iraq - apparently wrong, not proven to be a lie.
Statement 2: He sez he was wrong about WMD's in Iraq - apparently right, not proven to be a lie.

Statement 1: If I said you were a dick sucking queer that had just gobbled some cummie goo and was about to regurgitate it back on JD .


We split open your stomach and found no semen.


Statement 2: I was wrong about JewishLawyer swallowing semen.

Was my first statement a lie if I honestly thought you were a dick sucker?

Would you say I was a liar or just had bad intelligence?

Is a lie not a lie if you believe it?

Is that you and LexusLover's standard?

Ignorance of the law is now a defensible defense?

Is that wtf you two are getting at?

Do you not understand why we went to war? Because GWB made out that Iraq was an imminent threat to our safety. That was a lie....whether he believed it or not. Whether you believed it or not. Had that lie not been told....we would not have went to war.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are ignorant on the topic of Bush either lying about there being WMD's in Iraq or lying later and saying he was wrong about there being WMD's in Iraq. One is a lie. Tell me which one you think is a lie. They both can not be the truth.

Does that work on the bimbos you try to impress?

You are the one calling him a liar and stated he admitted it.

All I asked for was a link to a quote in which he said "I lied about there being WMDs."

You can't, because he didn't. All you can do is claim he was mistaken, but he wasn't!!!

WMDs have been found and materials are being found and produced as you post.

Enjoy!