Search results

You're having a little read disability here, aren't you? I'll repeat my setences here in a clearer manner and see if you can understand it this time: Z is being flamed because he disagrees with you. If Z did anything not in line with the rules of this board, he can be banned again...

I'm not going to argue that he didn't do those things. If he did, he can be banned again. Just because he crossed the line doesn't give you guys the right to also cross the line. You should be ashamed of the "He did it first" excuse because I'm sure your age is way past that stage.

I never argue against suspicions of conspiracy. How can I? I mostly agreed with you, just pointing out a minor difference. Never mind.:)

Since the wmd's were (phantom) menace, how any criticism, in whatever manner, could possibly harm such stated goals? I see that you're shifting from treason to lunatic. So now you disagree with the right that Dean, Murtha, and most of the Democratic Party should be tried for treason?

And the author's points were that Air America's hosts were moonbats because of their views on those issues. If you forgot, let me remind you that the author did not say anything about his own views on any of those issues. So there were no points to be debated except the point of being called...

No, you're wrong. I'm not defending Z. I'm objecting to the negative, divisive tones of discussion on this board symbolized by this poll. You guys attack anyone who disagrees with you. You can call Z a liar or a hypocrit all you want, and I don't know him enough to defend him. But to put out...

First, I don't know whether the person you refered to who was banned was in fact Z or someone else. Second, assuming that Z was banned before, it certainly would have been some kind of abuse. Yet, according to your post, his worst offense seems to be lying. I'd say that's par for this forum...

Are you going to turn around and attack me now because I don't agree with you? [Perhaps you should ask yourself why your friend was banned.] Sounds like a warning shot. If I don't relent you're going to attack for real?

You need to go no further than the questions in this poll to see that it is absolutely, categorically true.

Mao never did. It was Deng after 1979.

I didn't know Mao was still alive. He must be 120 years old now. Damn the Chinese. They don't even die. FYI, Mao died in 1976, and US-China had the formal diplomatic relation in 1979. Nixon's visit aside, we never had a real relationship with China until after Mao died and China opened up its...

"The points of a basic article?" You're too funny. Calling people "moonbats" has a "point?" There are 10 times more points in the pictures I posted than your hate-filled "article." Give me an example of how one should debate the moonbat "point," and I'll call you "Professor." And by the way...

Hmm, wonder why would jokes about Bush gets on your nerves? Are you related to him?

Remind me what "our stated goals in Iraq" are? And when were these goals stated?

Because according to the right dissent=treason. For example: "Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" "The question we should be asking ourselves is why is the government allowing this traitor to enjoy freedom? Murtha should be...

Lieberman rips W's war plan http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/440252p-370892c.html

Why do you hate America? You should listen to God:

Other than insults and personal attacks, do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

Do you ever learn? In this one post, you make one incorrect statement, and two false claims of data. First of all, it is a scientific fact that a warmer globe means larger temperature fluctuations. Remember the analogy a few posts back I made using water in a stream connected to a pond? If...

1. You don't have any clue what scientific method is. 2. It was you who showed absolutely no respect for scientific method nor any respect for logic repeatedly in your posts. Your overriding guidance had been the political aim of opposing the "global warmongers." 3. If you think those...