30,000 Dead Iraqis

[ric]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Uh, this is a complete accident, however I edited ric's post rather than replying to it.  If someone has a copy of his original post I'll gladly restore it.  I apologize for that, it was not intentional.

Be careful cuz that "accidental finger twitching" of yours could easily evolve into something like...nose twitching, arm jerking, head jerking, jaw snapping, the grabbing of genitals and other obscene gestures....watch yourself

[Intuit]

Originally posted by: Reflex

link2661 - You know, I should have realized that was what was going on myself.  It makes sense since Texmaster either cherry picks individual comments or re-phrases whatever argument he is attempting to refute before he actually makes his argument.  Its an effect way of making others forget the entire point made by another.

Mannn.... tell me about it.  I've had this tactic used against me so many times it would take 30 days to catalogue them all.  Not that I dislike him or anything, but I consider Fall Apart the proverbial MASTER at using this tactic (present quote not included).  If I didn't post in the hardware and software forums all the time, there would be at least three instances of this for every five posts.

Originally posted by: fall-apart
IIRC, the US wanted to go into Darfur, but the UN said it was an internal matter and didn't warrant outside intervention...

Since when do we care what the UN says ?  It certainly didn't stop us in Iraq.  WAR ON TERROR!....  ummm... i mean.... BROKE CEASE FIRE!!.... i mean uhhhh.... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!... i mean... ummm... FREE THE PEOPLE !!!!  YEAH!!!  THAT'S IT.... FREE THE PEOPLE and BRUTAL DICTATOR!!!!!

[Intuit]

Originally posted by: ric

Originally posted by: Reflex
Uh, this is a complete accident, however I edited ric's post rather than replying to it.  If someone has a copy of his original post I'll gladly restore it.  I apologize for that, it was not intentional.

Be careful cuz that "accidental finger twitching" of yours could easily evolve into something like...nose twitching, arm jerking, head jerking, jaw snapping, the grabbing of genitals and other obscene gestures....watch yourself

A clear case of involuntary post slaughter on the premise of temporary sanity.

Kidding of course... keep posting Ric.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: link2661

ROFLOLRLOLROFLRL Do you really want me to quote every reply where someone has to say "no that's not what I said?"

I'll take just ONE.  Back up your BS if you can.

You have three people agreeing that you use the strawman.  I dont see many people coming to your defense on it.

HAHAHAHHA  three people I regularly debate.  Actually two, you just show up to troll.

But if you like, I can point out the Howard Dean thread and the California Congressman thread, where on numberous occasions I called you out on doing it and you could never prove me wrong.

SPECIFIC QUOTES.    If you are going to make these BS charges, get SPECIFIC.
Or is your arguement so weak it can stand up to scrunity?

"As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous."

Fantastic.   You can cut and paste a definition.   Want a cookie?

You frequently do this, you see.  This is EXACTLY what you do.  I'm making the assertion, YOU find quotes and prove me wrong.

LOL!!!!  I'm not the one who made the accusation.  YOU did.   Stop running like a frightened child and back up your accusations with specific quotes.

Oh wait, you'll quote me and STILL use the strawman.  You're ridiculous, seriously.  It's sad to see you in denial.  The wikpedia entry might as well say Texmaster instead of straw-man.

Who can prove that I'm wrong here? I'm not saying it's your only technique, but you certainly rely on it alot.

LOL!!!  Now you begin to back off.   You really are like clockwork.   You don't like me so you troll around threads I'm in attacking me personally without addressing the issues.   It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: ric

You have three people agreeing that you use the strawman. I dont see many people coming to your defense on it.

2) three people?? You mean 2 liberal mods that constantly abuse their powers when someone disagrees with them and 1 "wet behind ears" recruit...WOW thats impressive

LOL    Exactly.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Texmaster - You never addressed the issues I raised, you simply cherry picked my responses and threw in a bunch of exterraneous quotes hoping to obscure the main facts I pointed out.  You have yet to refute anything I have said about the Qur'an, you have simply said "Oh yeah, well see what it says over here!!!" as a response.  Until you actually address what I have stated and shown why what I stated is incorrect, you have not addressed the argument raised, merely tried to drown it out with your own argument.



This is why I have not been bothering to respond.  You don't debate.  You don't even know how to debate.  Or at least not that you've demonstrated so far.

Run away all you want from the specific examples I gave where you run away from any real debate.   The fact is you got slughtered in those Islam threads because you didn't do your homework and instead was arrogant enough to believe you were smarter.

You ran away from the vast number of quotations I gave you and you ran away from my challenge to you conscerning one of the most important passages anywhere in the Qur'an.   You don't know how to debate, you know how to run.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Uh, this is a complete accident, however I edited ric's post rather than replying to it.  If someone has a copy of his original post I'll gladly restore it.  I apologize for that, it was not intentional.



The sad thing is that I was going to ask for evidence of the 'liberal mods who are abusing their powers' except that I accidentially provided the evidence for half of the assertion.  Oops.



On the other hand, I will say that the 'liberal' assertion is rediculous.  Last I checked, the definition of 'liberal' was not "disagrees with Texmaster, Crobs and Ric on forums".  I am in most circles considered conservative, look up the definition of a Libertarian someday.  We make Republicans look like flaming lefty's on most issues.

Someone who ignores all data pertaining to Clinton and the missiles for campaign money amd defends Clinton without reservation on the point is a liberal Reflex.

And for the record, I disagree with vehimently with Intuit and Light Process but I respect them.   Their aruguements are passionaite and they do respect others for the most part.   They deserve respect because they give it.

They don't stick their noses in the air and assume their educational level is higher than others and they certainly don't run away when challenged.

[Rocky]

4 posts and you almost made a point, congrats. Thank god for hte weekends without you tex otherwise we'd never get decent threads here.

[Reflex]

Someone who ignores all data pertaining to Clinton and the missiles for campaign money amd defends Clinton without reservation on the point is a liberal Reflex.

You do not even know what my opinion on that issue is, only what it is not.  I have never in detail laid out that issue since it was never the topic of a thread where it came up.  You brought it up as some sort of an excuse for other behaviour(ie. Look at what the evil Clinton did, its so much worse than what we are talking about so lets talk about it instead) and as a result haven't a clue what I think on the topic, only that I feel its not relevant and is not how you present it.

I voted for Dole in 96.  I voted Libertarian in 2000 and 2004.  I have actually *never* voted for a Green, Democrat or Socialist party member.  I have *always* voted for a Libertarian or Republican for every single partisan office in every election I have participated in.  Every tax bill that comes up I vote against.  Every infringment on my rights through ballot measures I vote against.

How much more conservative can a person get?  You attempt to impugn me with the 'liberal' label as though its some sort of swear word yet you haven't a clue who or what I support, only that I do not personally agree with you, which in your mind makes me a liberal.  As though you somehow have the pulse of what makes a person a conservative and all who disagree are just stinking hippies.

What twisted logic.

[link2661]

here's what happened in the cunningham thread.  He asked me about Clinton.
I said

"Yeah I respect Clinton. I have some lost respect for him due to some of the things he's done, but I still very much respect him. "

and this was the response

"Then you broke your own rules. You claimed the Replublican Congressman deserved no respect ever for what he did but you strangly forigve Clinton even though he as well broke the rules.

You cannot be absolute about people which I pointed out when its someone you like, its not so easy to stick to an absolute judgement of a person's actions"

That's funny, your response totally twists what I said about Clinton.  Strawman.
The howard dean thread was even better.  

link2661 - "Hey tex, you're overstating the impact of dean's statement! I think it was a stupid and harmful statement, but you're blowing it out of proportion!"

texmaster - "So you think Dean's statement wasn't harmful at all, you think it was helpful! you dont care about the impact it has!"

you make that my position because it's easy to refute.

I might also mention you brought up clinton in this thread as well.  
I said
"Again if you want to talk about enabling, there is plenty in every one of Bush's speeches to go around. And if you want me to source that, you have seriously got to be kidding me Tex. Every time Bush makes a speech he "enables" terrorists. You'll have a hard time finding anyone who would argue against me here. "

to that you said

"Boy do you need to read some history. Every attack under Clinton was met with little to no response. Now, how did that effect the terrorirsts. Did they stop their attacks? No. Did they increase? Yes. Are you going to deny that Clinton did next to nothing in response and that actually worked out?

Did you even know 9/11 was planned and people in place BEFORE Bush took office? I do love how you give Clinton a pass for his inaction.

So, giving Clinton a pass and jumping on Bush for using harsh words descriving terrorists shows you prefer inaction and apathy to terrorist who attack the US. Hopefully you aren't running for any office. Your passive nature towards war with terorrist is exactly what the terrorist want in an enemy. "


In one post you brought up Clinton AND made a position for me on him before I even adressed him.

[Rocky]

It does make me wonder if Texmaster argues with himself in the mirror. Cause most of his posts on here are arguing against positions nobody has taken. He'll just make stuff up and then respond to it.  You'd think after everyone on the forum has told Tex he misinterpreted what they said he may start reading closeer. Or at least asking questions about how people feel before assuming a position of someone. Most people here like to talk and would be happy to share their opinions, theres no reason to make one up for them.

[Rocky]

Why the number matters, a good read.

[Intuit]

Originally quoted by: Washington Post:
.......... "The Pentagon swears it doesn't do non-U.S. body counts, yet it often produces them to describe battlefield successes." .............

...and our Administration will very quickly produce those estimates on civilian casualties when speaking of those alledgedly committed under the orders of those in-charge as long as three decades ago... under non-US leadership.

Do I detect a measure of hypocrisy here ?