BF2S Forums Ann Coulter at it again

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

I answered your   questions with straight forward yes and yes answers...I am sorry if you do not like it.

What you are trying to do is lead me with this line of questioning......The bottom line is (back to the original "war" question) It is biased and I gave you my answer several times as to why I think it is....

2b...no it is not, the fact is, just because there is nothing going on with the conflict that is "news worthy" and therefore not on the publics radar now does not negate the fact that it is a cease fire only and the conflict has not been resolved. A fact that will be widely known the second the shooting starts again.

Will who starts the shooting have any bearing on who is perceived to have started the shooting?

Huh???

If I you are asking what I think you are asking.....Yes of course

If North Korea breaks the cease fire and over runs the 38th parallel then your polls will indicate approval for the "war".
If the US does it, then the polls will show disapproval

In the case of Iraq..........Iraq was the one who "over ran the 38th parallel" by breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire. But the question was asked in a way that would lead the pol-lee to assume the US was the instigator of the war, when in fact, it wasn't.

For the fourth time, is the Iraq war a UN joint?  Where are all the UN allies?  If China decides the US isn't abiding by its own constitution, can they invade California and expect people to draw the conclusion that the US instigated the invasion?

I don't doubt that some people in China could be made to see it that way but I think I'm starting to understand how you can see Ann Coulter as a paragon of logic and reason...

the_heart_attack wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is my bed time now

lol how old are you?

Olderthan your ass I am sure.

lowing wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

LoL. Do you not understand the fact that my analogy is quite directly representative of the type of the description I gave before (required for such circumstancial procession --> of war)? You gave that one, extremely shortsighted facet of my analogy is evidence against it. Come now bubs, take some of that logipear from that tree. It's tastey!

Just in case your assumptions have misled you yet again, I'd like to let you know that, were I talking with you in person (provided you were mature enough to not initiate a physical bout over the truths I dish), the same exact things would be said.

lowing wrote:

I gotta tell ya, I am more than amused at your enthusiastic self proclaimed attempts to score "cyber kills" in a debate. It says allot as to how pathetic real life must be for you.

Anywho, I'd like to know where I've proclaimed I've made attempts to score "cyber-kills". If you're inferring that I'm consistently making you look like a fool, then I guess you would be right.

Well if I am right, and you admit that you have a pathetic real life, then I am sorry for you. It is my bed time now, if you want I will be back on tomorrow so you can practice some more at trying to be an intellectual cyber tough guy of sorts. Until then, go call a chat line ( am sure you got all the numbers on speed dial )or something and try and find some fulfillment in your life

Lowing...sad...sorrow...expressed...for you. Seriously, if you think rebutting a stance made on a shakey platform is "trying to be an intellectual cyber tough guy", it seems--with some apparency--that you merely have an issue conceding a defeat. Honestly, do you think you have such situational knowledge as to judge the physical, real position another has? With every post you make, you somehow manage to evidence your idiocy.

*Everyone should know that [u]baseless[/b] attacks are often a sign of immature replies to fool-making. Never prove someone wrong and be a meanie, they will just turn around and be a stupid meanie! Buuuuut...I would like to state that [SOOPURUNDORLIGHN]usually[/SOOPURUNDORLIGHN], I won't be an ass unless someone has brought up the immature out of nowhere.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 20:27:10)

Well that's upsetting. How can anyone like the stupid if they're unwilling to change?

*If you are stupid, immature, and unwilling to make change for the better, I will hate you (unless you make an about-face).

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 20:32:11)

LoL. This truly must be one of those Bible-reading literalists. Like I'm actually referring to "cyber-kills" when I allude to your getting your ass kicked in an argument for the five-thousandth time. Clearly, you are one of the moronic that I have described before (you know, those that are content with their situation and feel they are "without need for change"). Sadly, you think my last post needs proof-reading. Pohr Pohr weetle Logic Leaping Lowing. Sad...sorrow...given...

Teh Peehyess: RXT. Even after this far, you are still hinging on your baseless allegation of my seeking to impress. If by impress, your definition has somehow warped itsellf into "teach the miscomprehending", then you would be in the right.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 20:41:45)

This mama needs to get laid. She needs to chill. Really. Someone do her, like for charity or something, lololol

ann coulter is the most deserving cow i know of a ba-knuckle sandwich.  she speaks out of her ass 90% of the time and get's owned in half of her tv spots because she's a misinformed twat.  send her to iraq. with a loud speaker, and a target.

Wait a second.......did I manage to shut Horseman up?  Or has he yet to return?

I'd hit it.

lowing wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

No, Bush did win the popular vote.  Are you thinking of Gore?

Oh yeah thats right. Im talking about Gore, silly me. But still Kerry was far more qualified for the position than Bush according to lowing's explanation as to why Coulter is more credible than Al Franken.

And how can you say that a man who has NEVER BEEN president be far more qualified to be one, over a man who HAS BEEN PRESIDENT for 4 years??

Oh by the way....your smart ass comments would be much more entertaining if you learn what you are talking about before you try and educate someone else.LMAO

And a great job he did for the first four, right? Ooh we got saddam Ooh we got Zarqawi, big fuckin deal. We got those bad guys but what were we doing while we let Iran go nuclear.

rawls2 wrote:

lowing wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

well its kinda strange for someone older than 27 to have a bed time.

Not really, see most conservatives have jobs and as such, need to get some sleep so they have enough energy to go and have a productive work day. A liberal can wake up at their leasure to check the mailbox for their govt. check. I understand why you would be confused.

As a liberal I wake each morning and read the Wall Street to see how my money is doing, then at around  10 in the morn I drive 15 min to my place of work which I happen to own. Chill for about an hour collect yesterdays receipts and im off to the bank laughing the whole way. Lowing wakes up and goes to work for the "man" who he helps to support by thinking like a conservative. Poor sucker.

I too am fairly liberal, and have worked since I was 16 years old.  While I may not own my own business, I do get up early enough to have a cup of coffee and read the paper before I arrive at work, between 7:15-7:30 in morning...and I have never received a single government check of any kind.  I pay my taxes, and buy goods and services within our economy.

People like lowing think that because there are a few people that abuse the tax funded services of this country, that all liberals are the same way, completely ignoring the fact that we have every bit as much corporate welfare that is continually abused as well.

YERDED-

Change your sig, your weirding me out.

Ann Coulter needs her own radio show.  She doesn't appologize for being conservative and isn't just a parrot for the republican party like Rush.  I would definately listen to her and G. Gorden Liddy all day.  Those are two people that can debate and it is because they are smart and ONLY say what they believe is right, not some party line.