Please run for President

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by thorough9

Still, no facts. A bunch of hot air.... impotent spell-checker......

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=100

"When you learn how to read, objectively, and realize that one-liners went out with radio-era comedy, then i might give a shit what you think. F'n dick-riding, moronic, bandwagon spectator.........." - thorough9

"You're neither witty, nor humorous. You're an idiot who see what he wants, and in this case, it's bullshit." - thorough9

CHECKMATE!

[thorough9]

I'm your role model. At least you're using quotes. LOL.
You are yet to produce anything beyond your "opinion" and assessment" and "analysis", jackass.


Still no facts..........

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by thorough9

I'm your role model. At least you're using quotes. LOL.
You are yet to produce anything beyond your "opinion" and assessment" and "analysis", jackass. REPEAT POINT


Still no facts.......... REPEAT POINT

So you're who they were talking about when they said that scientists have successfully implanted Artificial Stupidity (AS) into someone.

Your arrogance blinded you to a simple fact. What you saw wasn't me seeing you as a "role model." That's me hanging you with your own words. Common sense would also tell you that since you didn't post much, a quote would've been appropriate.

Your arrogance also continues to blind you to the facts that I presented on this thread. Your idea of a "fact" is something that sucks up to your ego. If it doesn't cater to your ego, it's just an "opinion."

Do continue to have your hands on your ears while you cry, "I can't hear you, I can't year you..."

[JD Barleycorn]

I have read several post on this thread and I keep seeing the same statement "Palin is an idiot, freak, dummy, etc" What I don't see is any supporting evidence. Before you jump on your keyboard read on. A simple misstatement is not an indication of a mental failing. If you have ever seen "The Candidate" with Robert Redford then you have seen the iconic scene where Redford is having trouble making racial statements in the back of the car. That happens when you are campaigning long hours. Any of you try it. Stay awake for 36 + hours while continually in motion and then try to make a coherent policy statement about anything without being giddy. Off color jokes, weird asides, strange laughter, and GETTING SIMPLE FACTS WRONG are all par for the course.
You will say that when Palin was in Boston she was not campaigning.......maybe she is campaiging. Anyway, her schedule is more like a campaign than a vacation. She got something a little wrong and some very influential historians have debated what she has said. Some agree with the gist of her statement but argue with the weight given to one part of her statement as to another part. We pretty much agree Revere and cohorts went forth to warn the colonials but they got captured. Now we also know that Revere told the British what he was up to and therefore warned them that they were facing armed opposition. So depending what you remember from the story either statement could be right depending what you are trying to say. I can see that Palin was trying to warn Obama that the American people have been warned now and will resist. That is the message that Palin is trying to impart.
You can continue to argue but would have to conclude that Obama, Gore, Kerry, and so many others in politics are embiciles. So you have to be consistent or you can't trust your own opinion. I pay more attention to the Freudian slips rather than misstatements. Like Obama talking Stephanopoulous and saying, "...according to my MUSLIM faith...". A slip of the tongue is usually associated with something else that the person is thinking about while talking whereas a Freudian slip is something deeper inside the mind.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

So you're who they were talking about when they said that scientists have successfully implanted Artificial Stupidity (AS) into someone.

Your arrogance blinded you to a simple fact. What you saw wasn't me seeing you as a "role model." That's me hanging you with your own words. Common sense would also tell you that since you didn't post much, a quote would've been appropriate.

Your arrogance also continues to blind you to the facts that I presented on this thread. Your idea of a "fact" is something that sucks up to your ego. If it doesn't cater to your ego, it's just an "opinion."

Do continue to have your hands on your ears while you cry, "I can't hear you, I can't year you..."

For a wannabe academic with an "above-average" understanding of, well, everything, you're pretty fucking dense. I presented info from an accepted historical site, the "plagiarisms", LOL, you've presented your opinion. I've presented PR's Memoirs, you've shown up with nothing but your "assessments". Where the fuck are your facts? Instead of riding my dick and reposting my every word, with your bullshit "twists", LMAO, try posting some "facts" to support your self-glorified "opinion". Until then STFU.....

[herfacechair]

thorough9: For a wannabe academic

I've got an MBA, you fucknut.

thorough9: with an "above-average" understanding of,

This is the only thing that you've said in your recent post that has come close to being accurate.

thorough9: well, everything,

Never claimed to know everything. However, I'm going to point something simple out.

In order for me to debate someone, or a group of people, I have to know more about the topic that we're arguing than they do. For instance, go to the other forums, and tell me, which threads do you see me currently debating on?

Answer, just this one. Why? Compared to those that I've argued with on this thread, I know more about the American Revolution. It's that simple, that fact reflects on this thread.

I never get engaged in a debate where the opposition knows more than me. That's stupid. I pick and choose which topics I debate in. I always pick a topic where I know more than the opposition.

thorough9: you're pretty fucking dense.

First, I've always came out of a debate with the exact same assessment and position I had before getting into the debate. I've never changed my mind based on what the opposition has said. Why? See previous part of my response, about knowing more about the topic than the opposition. On the other side of the coin, it's never my intention to change the opposition's mind.

Second, don't mistake my refusal to accept your flawed argument as my being "dense." That's exactly like the sun worshipers calling those, who don't believe that the sun is a "god," as being dense.

thorough9: I presented info from an accepted historical site,

You presented what I've consistently told you were the surface information. Whether that information happened or not isn't the question. What's being debated is whether Sarah Palin was wrong or not. You, insisting on just the surface information, argue from an erroneous position. My argument not only factors the surface information, which you keep gorilla chest fist thumping over, but other information that I've researched.

Bottom line, she came closer to the truth than her critics. It's that simple.

thorough9: the "plagiarisms", LOL,

I've argued with your kind over the years. The most desperate posters resorted to plagiarism when I continued shoving my foot up their asses, when I've persisted on replying to them, when they've ran out of argument… hoping that I'd get exhausted and simply walk away… leaving their bullshit unchallenged.

It didn't work for them, and it's not going to work with you.

thorough9: you've presented your opinion. REPEAT POINT

I've presented the facts. Don't dismiss facts, and my reasoned argument based on facts, my assessments, etc., as nothing but "opinion." Quotations used strongly here.

thorough9: I've presented PR's Memoirs, you've shown up with nothing but your "assessments".

First, you've argued with an artificial handicap.

You maintain a death grip on the watered down version of our history, refusing to entertain the rest of the variables that surrounded the events leading to our revolution. The facts that you refuse to consider, the facts that prove you wrong, the very facts that you dismiss as "opinion," quotations used strongly here, tell a more complete picture of the topic that's being debated.

Insisting on a limited version of what happened, while ignoring the rest, then persisting that you brought the "facts" into the fight, while pulling shit out of your ass about me giving you nothing but "opinion," makes you reek of academic dishonesty.

Second, I've presented the facts, applying the facts that I've obtained from years of personal research. You bring nothing to the table other than your control freak attitude, your opinions, and your ability to quickly run behind plagiarized statements.

thorough9: Where the fuck are your facts? REPEAT POINT

Pull your head out of your ass and you'll see them.

Until you answer my questions, you don't have a leg to stand on when demanding that I give you something. You don't even have a leg to stand on when it comes to asking me questions. So, here are some questions that you've ignored:

What I said:

"For this thread, given the topic, WARNING, is the appropriate primary word to use," - herfacechair

What you said in response:

"See here, dumbass. Warned - not alarmed. So, now you want to backtrack and change the wording to fit your argument. Too late, dumbass. Palin said 'warning'." - thorough9

Now, simple questions for you:

Did I say alarm/alarming in the quote, mine, that I just highlighted? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Does the above statement, both in the part of my post that you quoted, and that I highlighted here, represent my "backtracking" and "changing wording" to fit my argument? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy those quotes, the yes/no questions to include the yes/no options, and paste them to your response. Place an "X" in the boxes representing your answer, and spare me your sewage leakage.

thorough9: Instead of riding my dick and reposting my every word,

I'm going to tell you what I've told others like you that essentially said the same thing. I don't accommodate the people that I debate with.

If you're going to be stupid enough to keep fighting a losing fight, I'm going to continue to take you apart, point by point. If this means breaking your opinion down into their individual sentences, or part sentences, then that's precisely what I'm going to do.

As long as you give me a reply, I'm going to dismantle it point by point in my counter reply. It's that simple. If you want it to stop, you need to do something on your end. Until then, I have absolutely no intentions of stopping.

thorough9: with your bullshit "twists",

Don't dismiss facts, and a logical argument, as "bullshit" twists. That's just your stress shields trying to prevent the facts, and logic, from ass raping your one brain celled operation.

thorough9: LMAO, try posting some "facts" to support your self-glorified "opinion". REPEAT POINT

I HAVE presented the facts in my argument.

The bulk of my argument is fact. The reason to why you're not seeing that is that you have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need a glass belly button to see. Try removing your head from your ass, try removing those horse-blinders from your eyes, and try deactivating the anti-fact stress shields that you're using to protect your ego and one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.

Do that, and the facts will become glaringly obvious to you.

thorough9: Until then STFU.....

And you don't see how your posts guarantee that I provide counter posts?

Since you're too stupid to see the relationship here, I'll spell it out. Every time you post your rubbish, I post a counter rebuttal. Notice that? If you want this to stop, then common sense dictates that you "STFU." Otherwise, I'm having too much fun doing this to stop. I'm not going to "STFU," simply because a control freak wants this thread to turn out a certain way.

How dedicated am I to replying to you no matter what?

Expect me to reply to you, no matter how many times you scream for me to "STFU." If I don't get back with you tonight, I'll get back with you tomorrow. If not tomorrow, the next day. If not the next day, the next week, month, year, decade, score, or even lifetime… but I will get back with you.

It's like I said earlier, my replying to you is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

So can it with your control freak "STFU" demands. That's almost like telling an alcoholic to stay away from the alcohol. Not happening with regards to this thread.

I take sadistic pleasure in dismantling drivel like yours, and watching the blood vessel popping reaction.

[catnipdipper]

HFC;

On the street you likely would not last a day. You need the MBA credentials to try to offset your personality failings. You only debate from superior knowledge you claim because you are a bulling type with no true life forum.

You drone on and on past the time of the topic's relevance. Rome burns around you while you still fiddle.

If you cannot feel or see how irrelevant Sarah Palin has become then you just keep hitting that donation button on her site.

You are just obnoxiously boring.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

HFC;

On the street you likely would not last a day. You need the MBA credentials to try to offset your personality failings. You only debate from superior knowledge you claim because you are a bulling type with no true life forum.

You drone on and on past the time of the topic's relevance. Rome burns around you while you still fiddle.

If you cannot feel or see how irrelevant Sarah Palin has become then you just keep hitting that donation button on her site.

You are just obnoxiously boring.

I could not agree more. Anyone who would support her is way to far to the right for me to even listen too. Its not just this comment, it is the accumilation of misspeaks and stupid comments that enables most people to lable her stupid. Bachman, has many of the same views but comes across far more crediable.

By the way I score this bout 10-8 T-9. In annalysis, HFC did a lot of ring dancing but T-9 scored the more solid blows.

[herfacechair]

catnipdipper: On the street you likely would not last a day.

And you based that opinion on what? Observing me on a day to day basis? I doubt that, as I don't remember seeing you.

Now, which street are you talking about?

Are you talking about the streets in Iraq? The fact that I'm still here proves you wrong.

Or, were you talking about the streets of a foreign country? The fact that I'm still here, after being on the streets of countries on four different continents, outside of the United States, speaks volumes to the fact that you're dead wrong about how I'd do on the streets.

I had to mention the above, as foreign streets are a hell a lot more deadly than American Streets. Los Angeles and New York don't have shit on them. Speaking of which, I've been on the streets of New York City, as well as some of the surrounding Bureaus.

I'm still here.

Are you talking about the streets of Chicago? Washington DC? Walked those too… I'm still here.

Need I give you more examples?

You see, you've never factored those facts in, because you chose to pull shit out of your ass about who I am… about what my characteristics are… about what I've done… simply because you're judging me with anti-conservative bias.

Next time, do your research before you open your mouth.

catnipdipper: You need the MBA credentials to try to offset your personality failings.

So, not only do you pull shit out of your ass, but you have a reading comprehension problem. Your battle buddy tried to diminish the academic side of me, so I had to respond with my MBA credentials… proving him wrong.

The people that know me, face to face, would highly disagree with your, "personality failings" comment. You'd get dismissed as the "touchy feely feel good guy" type.

What you're complaining about here is my persistence, and refusal to give up. That's not a personality failing.

That's precisely the trait that you want a service member to have…

People like you should be on your knees every night thanking God that you have people like me that are willing to overcome the opposition… both here and abroad.

catnipdipper: You only debate from superior knowledge you claim because you are a bulling type with no true life forum.

Like I said on another thread, I conduct these debates the way I conduct a combat operation. Violence of force, violence of action, putting overwhelming firepower on the enemy, plus making sure that you outnumber the enemy, are all examples of infantry tactics.

Bullying? No. Making sure that one prevails? YES.

catnipdipper: You drone on and on past the time of the topic's relevance.

First, the mere fact that you don't complain about the opposition's staying in the fight speak volumes of the real reason you've farted your comment. I highly doubt that you would've jumped in here had I refused to pursue this fight.

Your bias blinds you to the fact that I'll continue the fight as long as the opposition continues the fight.

Second, my concept of time and time length isn't the same as yours, or anybody else on this message board. I don't care how long I have to debate a topic… as long as someone continues to debate me, that topic is relevant, in my eyes, until the opposition gives up.

catnipdipper: Rome burns around you while you still fiddle.

Wrong analogy.

First, there's an argument that Nero played his fiddle while watching parts of Rome burn, as he had construction projects in mind for the areas that were burning. That has nothing to do with what I'm doing here.

Second, I'll keep firing at the enemy until they stop firing back. I'll keep firing until the enemy is neutralized.

catnipdipper: If you cannot feel or see how irrelevant Sarah Palin has become then you just keep hitting that donation button on her site.

The debate on this thread has little to do with Sarah Palin's relevance, and everything to do with whether she was wrong or not. Knowing the variables and factors at play during that time period would indicate that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critics were. That's what this debate is about. Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point.

I'm not peddling for Sarah Palin, but for historic facts.


catnipdipper: You are just obnoxiously boring.

What you're really complaining about is my refusal to give up the fight against your side of the argument. This has nothing to do with whether I'm "boring" or not. Reality check. If I were "boring," you wouldn't have bothered replying to this thread to address me either directly, or indirectly.

[herfacechair]

dirty dog: I could not agree more.

A third liberal supporting a second liberal that happened to jump in against a conservative arguing against the first liberal.

dirty dog: Anyone who would support her is way to far to the right for me to even listen too.

You're another disgruntled leftie that isn't able to argue against the conservative's post… so you jump in and take a swipe at the conservative instead. Someone that's truly in the middle on this one would've read this entire thread. Anybody reading this exchange, with any reading comprehension abilities, would know that I'm here to correct a history related misconception.

Nowhere in my post did I argue support for her causes.

dirty dog: Its not just this comment, it is the accumilation of misspeaks and stupid comments that enables most people to lable her stupid. Bachman, has many of the same views but comes across far more crediable.

Correction, that allows the criminally left biased media to fool a group of people, who refuse to do additional research beyond what's being spoon fed to them, into a thinking that conservatives are "stupid." These are the same "luminaries," that'll stumble over each other to explain liberal miss speaks away.

For instance, Barrack "I see dead people" Obama, who visited 57 US states, didn't get the same lacerating from the media that Palin et al did.

dirty dog: By the way I score this bout 10-8 T-9. In annalysis, HFC did a lot of ring dancing but T-9 scored the more solid blows.

That statement holds as much validity as the following Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (aka, Baghdad Bob) comments made during the Invasion of Iraq in 2003:

"We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein's soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly." - Baghdad Bob

"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport." - Baghdad Bob

"We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those who are staying in Washington and London have thrown these mercenaries in a crematorium." - Baghdad Bob

Considering that you're on the same side of the argument as thorough9 is, your opinion of who won and who lost is invalid.

Thank you for playing Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf to thorough9's Saddam.

[catnipdipper]

I think I have seen the hand and face of God and it's name is HFC. I am truly humbled in it's presence and grateful that it would appear with me on a site about escorts and their clients. God truly is everywhere as they say.

I think that this it should perhaps have it's own superhero series.

Wow what was I thinking?

[dirty dog]

Wow your guilty of doing just what you accuse Catnipper of doing, first I am not a liberal, I am an Independent moderate and anyone who has been on this board for more than a minute would be aware of this. Just because I dont agree with you nor follow the drum beat of the kooky ultra right does not make me a liberal. I guess now is when I should start chest beating and telling everyone where I have been and what streets I have walked, but I tend to keep my life a little more private.

Before you go on about me jumping on conservatives because of all the knowledge of me you have garnered from you 200 posts, you might want to check out my post history I think you might find I jump on to stupid in either party.

"Correction, that allows the criminally left biased media to fool a group of people, who refuse to do additional research beyond what's being spoon fed to them, into a thinking that conservatives are "stupid."

Really, wow thanks for pointing media bias out to me, by the way I dont think conservatives are stupid, I think people like yourself are.

"That statement holds as much validity as the following Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (aka, Baghdad Bob) comments made during the Invasion of Iraq in 2003:"


An opinion does not have to hold validity because it is an O..P..I..N..O..N.

Just for clarification, you state your not defending her, but you have spent 8 pages trying to convince everyone that she was right....... do you really think anyone gives a shit, no one gives a shit, and that one incident is not why anyone would not support her, its her history of coming off looking like a retard which a lot of us can determine without the aid of the ultra biased left wing media, a turd is a turd HFC even if you sprinkle powered sugar on it, and Palin is a turd. Have a chipper day spanky.

[thorough9]

And still no facts.......

[herfacechair]

"Anyone who would support her is way to far to the right for me to even listen too." - dirty dog

This was in a post where you agreed with catnipdipper, who attacked me. The implication of this statement was that I was "too far to the right" on the account of my "support" for Sarah Palin.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have "read" my post and replied to me. But, since you did, either I'm not too far on the right, or you don't know what you're talking about.

dirty dog: Wow your guilty of doing just what you accuse Catnipper of doing,

Wrong. The only thing I'm doing is making an observation of a trend that I've noticed in almost 8 years of perpetual, online debating. I see that trend repeating itself here.

Originally ranted by dirty dog

first I am not a liberal, I am an Independent moderate and anyone who has been on this board for more than a minute would be aware of this. Just because I dont agree with you nor follow the drum beat of the kooky ultra right does not make me a liberal.

Before you go on about me jumping on conservatives because of all the knowledge of me you have garnered from you 200 posts, you might want to check out my post history I think you might find I jump on to stupid in either party.

WRONG again.

The concept behind this message board isn't that much different from the others that I've posted on since the end of the 20th Century. I may not have that many posts on here, compared to others here, but I'm capable of lurking, and tracking what other people do in this website. Even though I haven't posted on the majority of the threads here, I've read your posts.

The idea that you're an "independent moderate" is laughable at best, intellectually dishonest at best.

I called you a liberal on the account of your posts on this and on other threads. I look at your trend, and on what you say. I don't see any trend, in your comments, that marks you as an "independent, moderate."

Here's a list of statements that you've made, which put you consistent with others, that I've debated with, that have identified themselves as liberal:

"...should poor people jump at those minimum wage jobs that dont pay enough to support a family." - dirty dog

"he hates poor people and minorities because he feels that they are robbing the country of assets that he should be receiving because he is such a hard worker and white, he made it out of the middle class on his own and does not feel that anyone is entitled to a hand, because if he did it then they could also because 'no one helped me'. But the reality is he was helped from the day he was born white and male." - dirty dog

"You are a social class bigot like most of the republican party. Worst of all your not even educated on the issues your a sound byte debater. You wait until, Beck, Hannity, or Fox news reports it and then you simply repeat it without the benefit of understanding." - dirty dog

"Poor by choice huh, dude your a fuckin idiot and the kind of bigot that makes me want to puke, someday I pray that you know what being poor is all about." - dirty dog

Crap like that doesn't come out of independents/moderate's mouths. The ones I've talked to would take issue with those statements.

Both, online and face to face, I've found plenty of common ground and agreement with those in the middle, and with the blue dog liberals… I've found a lot in common with those who identify themselves as independent.

It's those on the far left that I find myself debating, it's those on the far left that chose to debate with me, and who insinuate that I'm on the far right.

I could go on, find more examples. But my statement still stands. I lurk a forum, get a feel of the people participating in that forum, before I jump in and debate. That's another combat related tactic.

Your actions, as well as those of other posters here, are actions liberals normally take. It's as they say, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck."

Spare me your attempts to deny that you're on the left… the far left based on the dirty dog quotes I've selected. Do continue to prove to me that you're a liberal, take it away dirty dog!

"a turd is a turd HFC even if you sprinkle powered sugar on it" - dirty dog

Yup, this "I'm an independent/moderate" claim of yours is nothing but an attempt to dump powered sugar on a turd.

dirty dog: I guess now is when I should start chest beating and telling everyone where I have been and what streets I have walked, but I tend to keep my life a little more private.

First, you're still beating on your chest, gorilla style, when you brag about keeping your life a little more private.

Second, you conveniently ignore another liberal's statement, one that called into question how long I'd last on the streets. My reply, talking about where I've been, and what streets I've walked on, was very appropriate.

dirty dog: Really, wow thanks for pointing media bias out to me,

You don't care about media bias if you're going to froth at the mouth over Palin's misstatements.

dirty dog: by the way I dont think conservatives are stupid, I think people like yourself are.

Your idea of "stupid" is someone that refuses to join you in drinking the Kool Aid.

dirty dog: An opinion does not have to hold validity because it is an O..P..I..N..O..N.

So you're defending your pulling shit out of your ass then, got you.

dirty dog: Just for clarification, you state your not defending her, but you have spent 8 pages trying to convince everyone that she was right.......

What I said:

"The debate on this thread has little to do with Sarah Palin's relevance, and everything to do with whether she was wrong or not. Knowing the variables and factors at play during that time period would indicate that Sarah Palin was closer to the truth than her critics were. That's what this debate is about. Whether Sarah Palin is relevant or not is beside the point." - herfacechair

What part of that didn't you understand? That's the crux of my actions on this thread.

And you fart out your comments about me being "stupid."

dirty dog: do you really think anyone gives a shit, no one gives a shit, and that one incident is not why anyone would not support her, its her history of coming off looking like a retard which a lot of us can determine without the aid of the ultra biased left wing media, a turd is a turd HFC even if you sprinkle powered sugar on it, and Palin is a turd. Have a chipper day spanky.

If nobody gives a shit, they'd stop arguing this topic with me on this thread. But, we still have thorough9, you, etc., here, so, obviously, you guys give a shit.

If I see your side of the argument lacerating individual liberal's who've done what you accuse Palin of doing, then I'd take you seriously, that this has nothing to do with people falling for media manipulation hook, line, and sinker. But you guys go on overdrive with Sarah Palin, ignoring mentions of Democrat misstatements.

This thread opened with Sarah's comments about Paul Revere. A bunch of people jumped in and voiced their misconceptions, I jumped in and talked about things that her critics weren't aware off.

My argument isn't about ignoring her misspoken statements, which the media likes to air… while going overdrive hiding misspoken statements from liberals. This is about me correcting a common history misconception.

You claim that you're an independent/moderate.

The independents/moderates that I do know, both online and face to face, don't speak with vitriol against Sarah Palin the way you do here, and they're willing to balance conservative misstatements with liberal misstatements… and recognize that people tend to do that. There's too much anti-conservative venom, not balanced against liberals, in your comments to see you as an independent/moderate…

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by thorough9

And still no facts.......

And you still have your head up your ass...