Report: Obama lied about bin Laden raid
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Why don't you tell us why you never post anything of value and are a douchebag? You're defending the adult diaper wearing duh-commisewer? Figures, two douchbags in a pod.
As some here are apt to say, let us focus on the message rather than the messenger. Until, of course, the messenger discredits himself.
Last edited:
Ok, so "der_kommisar" accuses you of being a sock puppet (a new account of an older user) of one on the left, to which you respond that he's, well, a rather inappropriate visual, actually.
But if you're not willing to say, then he's probably correct. You are another user's new sock puppet (not that this is a bad thing, per se, but it would be nice to know who we're dealing with). That makes you the first one to draw "blood", actually.
You want us to not focus on the messenger until the messenger discredits himself - but how do we know you haven't already discredited yourself and just got a new username?
But if you're not willing to say, then he's probably correct. You are another user's new sock puppet (not that this is a bad thing, per se, but it would be nice to know who we're dealing with). That makes you the first one to draw "blood", actually.
You want us to not focus on the messenger until the messenger discredits himself - but how do we know you haven't already discredited yourself and just got a new username?
Last edited:
I never post anything of value in your threads, because your threads are worthless from the start. Why give worth to the worthless? If you want to focus on economics, gun control (though you've been taken to the woodshed on that topic so often I can understand you'd prefer to not go there again), or other topics that are interesting other than a tireless debate of whether or not man-made C02 is warming the earth, I'll be happy to chime in.
"...on President Obama's elaborate story about the Navy SEALs' May 2, 2011, assassination of Osama bin Laden. Cockburn wrote,
There was scarcely a sentence in the President's Sunday night address, or in the subsequent briefing by John Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism coordinator, that has not been subsequently retracted by CIA director Leon Panetta or the White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, or by various documentary records."
and there's more at:
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36292/Sheldon-Richman-The-Empire-Lies/#sthash.mRk7VCeJ.dpuf
There was scarcely a sentence in the President's Sunday night address, or in the subsequent briefing by John Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism coordinator, that has not been subsequently retracted by CIA director Leon Panetta or the White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, or by various documentary records."
and there's more at:
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36292/Sheldon-Richman-The-Empire-Lies/#sthash.mRk7VCeJ.dpuf
Sure you did...you bloviating windsock.
First you agree with me, even though you believe I was using a pseudonym. Then you disagree with me because you believe I was using a pseudonym.
Consistency appears to be a challenge for you.
Not at all. I agree with your original comment that your first post in this thread did not disparage anyone. That still stands.
But your second post certainly went after Kommisar, when all he did was point out that you are a sock puppet of a previous poster who has liberal tendencies. That looks to be true, so I'm not sure what you're so upset about (apart from being "discovered").
It was you who said focus on the message until the messenger discredits himself - which is sound policy. But you overlooked the possibility that the messenger could have discredited himself under an old username and decided to come back as "somebody" new. This is looking more and more likely to be the case in your scenario.
Consistency appears to be a challenge for you.
Logic appears to be a challenge for you.
That other poster did not merely make an observation, as I had in my initial post. He sought to insult as well. "Sock puppet" is hardly a term of endearment. Was it because my initial comment in this thread was that of a drone? I don't think so. It was a considered opinion in the face of the available evidence presented thus far. When he decided to discuss apparel, why then, so did I.
Justified or unjustified, you are taking leaps. Rather than considering and commenting on the content of my innocuous 3- or 4-sentence post, you immediately sought to determine its source. It was just a couple of sentences or so. Was it really that hard to consider the content at face?
It's okay to have your own opinion and take sides. That's what this forum is about. But please don't try to pass yourself off as an arbiter. However you may try to cloak it, what you invariably express is opinion and bias. And that's okay. Except for the cloaking part. Because a cloak is an item of apparel, and that brings us back to Square Two, my initial post being Square One.