Shut the fuck up George!

[Equipoise]

@Starving_Artist

Yeah, he made a few half-hearted stabs at it,

Gosh, that’s more than Bush ever did. However, I do thank you for at least acknowledging the fact that Clinton tried to do SOMETHING about bin Laden.

@Starving_Artist

… mostly during crucial moments of Lewinski grand jury testimony when he wanted to boost his approval rating so as to avoid impeachment. (For example, didn’t he bomb the aspirin factory just hours after finally announcing an ‘improper’ relationship with Lewinski?)

From Post #54:

"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan, there was a movie out called ‘Wag the Dog,’ " [Former Defense Secretary William] Cohen testified Tuesday. In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy. "There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention from his personal difficulties.

“I would like to say for the record under no circumstances did President Clinton ever call upon the military and use that military in order to serve a political purpose.”

Cohen served as a Republican U.S. senator from Maine before Clinton appointed him to the defense post.

@Starving_Artist

Still, this thread is rife with credible reports that he intentionally pursued a hands-off policy regarding bin Laden.

You’re talking about your own cite, this:

*"One credible source is Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran who used to head the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer, who is referred to as “Mike” in the 9/11 Commission Report, wrote a July 5 op-ed column in The Washington Times. In it, he referred to former “terrorism czar” Richard Clarke and Clarke’s assertion in his book “Against All Enemies” that the CIA failed to put operatives in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden, relying instead on Afghan locals. Scheuer writes, “In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that ‘it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.’ I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.” *

Damn Clinton, being hesitant to use the CIA to infiltrate another country and assassinate someone. He shoulda been more like Reagan!

[elucidator]

@Starving_Artist

…Nope, nothing yet. But you can be sure that once (if?) I find it, you’ll be the first to know as I take it out of my ass and stick it up yours. Let’s hope for a satisfactory conclusion all around, eh?..

If you could have, you would have. You didn’t, therefore you can’t. Getting kinda late, isn’t it time for you to do your impression of Cher’s Farewell (No, Really, This Time I Mean It!) Tour?

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Starving Artist

I originally brought up Clinton’s lies as an illustration of the dishonesty that so thoroughly permeates his character. The quickest and easiest way to do that while allowing the least room for inevitable partisan denials was to mention lies that everyone knows he told and can’t refute. The purpose was to point out to mhendo that just because the Clinton administration denies to the 9/11 Commission that the Sudanese offered bin Laden, it in no way means that it is telling the truth. He lied under oath re the Lewinski affair; he lied to everyone about Genifer Flowers (and he’s on tape telling her to lie about their affair as well), and he shook his finger in our face and lied to us about how he didn’t have 'sexyul relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.

In other words, my focus, whether you want to believe it or not, was on Clinton’s dishonesty and lack of credibility before the 9/11 Commission and the Lewinski affair was the easiest and most foolproof way to illustrate it.**

Ok, so, your argument, as stated above, apparently for the third time, is that because Clinton is known to have lied sometimes, about his involvements with certain women, now it is to be assumed that he is lying about everything - or at least everything where it’s convenient for you to assume he’s lying. In other words, if anyone shows up and makes a claim like, “I helped attempt to broker a deal where the Sudanese would give bin Laden to the US and Clinton turned it down!”, and Clinton denies it, it shall be presumed true!

This may work for you, but not everyone hates Clinton in their gut the way you seem to. You’re making a rather extraordinary claim against a former US president - that he betrayed the security of the United States for political gain. If you want people to take you seriously, and in all honesty I’m not sure you do, you have to prove two things: that the deal really was on the table and Clinton turned it down, and also that it actually was a good deal for the United States. As I understand, even in the claim, Sudan wanted to be decertified as a terrorist supporting nation. Who knows what else was in that “deal”! In other words, in the context of this matter, you haven’t, and no one else has either, demonstrated that Clinton lied, and you haven’t demonstrated that even if he has, that he did the wrong thing for the US.

And true to form, you fell for it. Largely because you wanted to.

What did I fall for? You sure you have the right poster in mind?

I’m not gonna waste time arguing over this. Instead I’ll just ask for a cite of where I ever addressed the 9/11 Commision at all.

@Starving Artist

So, you take mhendo’s 9/11 commission report as gospel, a report in which the commission accepted the Clinton administrations lies

You know (or you would if you thought about it)and I know that my comments were limited solely to the credibility of the Clinton administration’s denials to it.

Well, no, your comments clearly addressed the credibility, or perhaps gullibility is a better word, of the commission itself. After all, they “accepted the Clinton adminstrations [sic] lies” (lies that are unproven.) So either you think the commission’s report is some sort of partisan hack-job, a belief I hoped to dispel by pointing out what the origin of the commission was, or you believe that they were incompetent at ferreting out the truth. But if the latter, why? Why should they believe the uncorroborated testimony of some guy? Why doesn’t someone in the Clinton administration agree that this happened? It’s not like it’s an administration known for being leak-proof.

Perhaps you are also aware that his claim is unrefuted?

I thought Clinton, lying weasel that he is, lyingly refuted it? If not, why is his character even an issue?

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Starving_Artist

Secondly, there is the matter of Michael Scheuer’s claims (the first link in my original post). As a 22-year CIA man and former head of the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden unit, his comments hardly rate as a"second-hand news report". This from Cal Thomas’ site (I know, I know, he’s a rightie…still, contrary to popular opinion around here, that doesn’t equate to ‘automatically wrong’:

No, not automatically, but it might help if you took cites from right-wing websites a little more critically.

"One credible source is Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran who used to head the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer, who is referred to as “Mike” in the 9/11 Commission Report, wrote a July 5 op-ed column in The Washington Times. In it, he referred to former “terrorism czar” Richard Clarke and Clarke’s assertion in his book “Against All Enemies” that the CIA failed to put operatives in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden, relying instead on Afghan locals. Scheuer writes, “In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that ‘it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.’ I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.”

Now, I’ve been focusing on the unproven Sudanese connection because I thought it was what you were focusing on, but to be fair, you did bring up this claim in your first post, so let’s talk about it too.

Michael Scheuer was a high-level analyst responsible for tracking bin Laden. That was his entire focus: get bin Laden. Clinton, as president, had a lot more things to worry about, like the relationship between the US and the sovereign nations whose soil we’d be killing people on and violating the airspace of. Not to mention the effects of civilian casualties. It’s natural that he withheld permission to assassinate bin Laden without higher-level approval - this is one of those shoot-on-my-command situations. We know that there were times in the 90s when we had the possibility of killing bin Laden - Scheuer likes to talk about ten of them, but they were only possibilities. They could have failed, like the time we did fire cruise missiles into Afghanistan. And furthermore, every time such a possibility arose, there were other considerations of collateral damage. Considerations that a president absolutely must take into consideration, but that a CIA analyst does not. And given that bin Laden was, at the time, not the national security threat that he is today, it was almost certainly the right call.

The history books are full of Clintonian skullduggery that couldn’t be proven but which anybody with half a brain knows happened. Whitewater, dissapearing documents in the aftermath of Vince Foster’s death which suddenly appeared in the White House living quarters, Clinton’s behavior toward various women he regarded as bimbos (and which would have people screaming for prison time had he been a Republican), etc., etc. If it weren’t for the blue dress, he’d be wagging his finger and denying Lewinski to this day.

Any cop will tell you there are countless times when they know full well who commited some crime but they scrounge up the evidence necessary to take it to court. The Clinton’s are merely slippery enough, and protected by the gravitas of the office itself in which overwhelming and undeniable evidence would be necessary to result in a commission like the 9/11 Commission bring in a finding of Clinton’s culpabilty, to have avoided being brought to task for their many misdeeds. And it in no way means or proves that those misdeeds never took place.

I get it - you don’t like Clinton, you think he’s a liar, and therefore you believe any accusation made against him. Just don’t expect other people to reach the same conclusion on flimsy evidence as you.

[E-Sabbath]

@Starving_Artist

Thank you, darling. Yes, I’m one of the few holdouts from the era in which most people in this country behaved civilly. Of course, that was before liberal permissiveness, and its concomitant sense of entitlement to behave any way one wants to, overtook the country. But of course we had racism then and the only way to fix that was to create a society in which everyone acted like assholes. :rolleyes:

We’ve had this discussion, didn’t we? I don’t think you came off too well. Also, you blamed a group of mop-topped Liverpudlians for the entire phenomena.
Might I inquire as to what civil manner most people behaved in during this period that is not behaved in today? And the time period of this era? Thank you.

[Biggirl]

@Starving_Artist

Thank you, darling. Yes, I’m one of the few holdouts from the era in which most people in this country behaved civilly. Of course, that was before liberal permissiveness, and its concomitant sense of entitlement to behave any way one wants to, overtook the country. But of course we had racism then and the only way to fix that was to create a society in which everyone acted like assholes. :rolleyes:

Ah yes. I remember those halcyon days when the coloreds knew their place, women sported pearls and petticoats while they vacuumed and wearing onions on your belt was the style. We all tipped our Tricorns as we passed each other in our horseless carriages. Back in nineteen dickity two, before the Kaiser stole all of our zeros.

[Fear_Itself]

@Starving_Artist

When all one reads around here is “Bush/Republicans/conservatives are teh suxxor!” and it goes unchallenged, it can appear that this viewpoint is correct because so many people are trumpeting it and no one is contesting it.

So the only rebuttal you can muster is “Clinton/Democrats/liberals were teh suxxor first!” That apparently passes for intelligent debate in your mind.

[Biggirl]

Oh wait, I forgot to add an important piece of information to my last post:

President Bush is a fucking idiot who is now trying to cast blame on everyone but himself for invading the wrong country after 9/11. Oh sure, he started out invading the correct country but, true to his idiot self, went right ahead and started a pre-emptive second war with faulty, cherry-picked intelligence. Which, according to The Idiot In Chief, is the real culprit here.

Yeup, not Bush’s fault AT ALL. It was all those reports of African yellow cake and imaginary mustard gas depot that were east, west, north and south of Baghdad-- just ask the Vice President!

And yet, in his next breath, the stupid dummy claims that his greatest accomplishment as the president was to save us from Saddam, who was gonna take away all of our freedoms with his non-existant WMDs!

Why doesn’t he shut the fuck up for the next two months? WHY???

[FarmerChick]

@Equipoise

FarmerChick, I respect your post and points about Colin Powell, but I’ve been scornful of him ever since I heard about his part in trying to cover up Mi Lai, so that also colors my opinion of him. Could he have refused to go in front of the UN with those cheezy drawings and fuzzy photos if he had qualms? I don’t know. He would have been branded a traitor just like the rest of us who expressed doubts. Should he? In my opinion, of course. He’s redeemed himself a bit in my eyes for what he’s done since leaving the Bush administration, and I thank him profusely for endorsing Barack Obama, which surely made the difference in a lot of people’s votes, but I do have a hard time letting go of his part of responsibility, considering all the people who have been killed, maimed and terrorized in Iraq…

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think he was in a lose/lose situation regarding the UN speech.

I don’t know anything about Powell and Mi Lai, but that is something I will definitely look at. Mi Lai was atrocious, if Powell played a part in covering it up, I too will have lost a ton of respect for the man.

[elucidator]

“In the heat of a political lifetime, Ronald Reagan innocently squirrels away tidbits of misinformation and then, sometimes years later, casually drops them into his public discourse, like gum balls in a quiche."

This quote from writer Lucy Howard is equally applicable to you, Starving Arsonist. Your opinions are bolstered by clear and obvious truths, passed to you from people who’s opinion you respect, the facts click into place to fit perfectly with your biases and preconceptions. And you don’t examine them, which is why you are so frequently caught out on a “cite!” call. Since you know that they are obvious truths, it doesn’t occur to you to check and see if they have any actual substantiation. Around here, that’s like smearing yourself with bacon grease and hamburger before wading in the piranha pool.

Everybody knows that Clinton had dozens of chances to take out OBL, and everybody knows that he did the weenie. And, to paraphrase The Master (the real Master, not that upstart Cecil…), there’s nothing wrong with that except it just ain’t so.

And, for the record, I didn’t “accuse” you of being a conservative gadfly who punctures the hypocrisy of the left. I accused you of imagining that you were. True, you are very nearly as funny as Mallard Fillmore, but you lack the depth and insight. You think its the sharp edge of your intellect that annoys the dirty fucking hippies, but its really the dull and adamant obstinacy of your opinions.

You cannot argue a man out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

[Cervaise]

@Starving_Artist

Still, this thread is rife with credible reports that he intentionally pursued a hands-off policy regarding bin Laden.

That burning sensation? Is your argument getting forcibly buttfucked.

[sailor]

@Wakinyan

I seriously doubt that “the world leaders” cluelessly looked at Bush like a bunch of kids, and then went to war with the “leader of the free world”, whom they trusted.

Rather like a bunch of guys in school going: “Damn, now that bully has a gun!”
And then made strategic decisions, like:
Denmark: “We must do as the deranged man with the gun tells us to do! Otherwise we are with the terrorists!”
England: “Anyhow, we want a piece of that cake!”
France: “This is a crime against international law and we will not join this madness.”

It bothers me SO much when Bush apologists say “but everyone at that time thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction!”.

Because then I have to go into a tirade

NO! Not everyone thought that, you idiot. You are taking me for an idiot. Because I remember perfectly well that I argued with you at that time saying the evidence was insuficcient to the point of being non existant. And the entire world at the UN found the evidence unconvincing. So don’t give me this shit that the whole world believed it. NO, only a few idiots believed it and you were among them.

It is just amazing how some people re-write history in their own minds.

Spanish idiot major Ánsar is one such idiot and will just not come off it and recently repeated the “everybody believed it” mantra. The guy is a disgrace to humanity but at least the Spanish people had the good sense of kicking his sorry ass out on the street. I have never been prouder. Fuck him. It is with great joy that I see the decomposition of his party which can’t get themselves elected dogcatchers, I hope it lasts until all those who participated in the Iraq war are out and forgotten. They are criminals who ought to be tried and hung by the balls.

[crowmanyclouds]

@FarmerChick

… I don’t know anything about Powell and Mi Lai, but that is something I will definitely look at. Mi Lai was atrocious, if Powell played a part in covering it up, I too will have lost a ton of respect for the man.

It’s not that Powell actively participated in a cover-up of My Lai, it’s that he was in a position to investigate the massacre, and expose it, and didn’t. His involvement with Brig. Gen. John W. Donaldson, accused by the Army of murdering unarmed civilians while flying over Quang Ngai province, is much more questionable.

Just to start you off,

… He was charged with investigating a detailed letter by Tom Glen (a soldier from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade), which backed up rumored allegations of the My Lai Massacre. Powell wrote: “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.” Later, Powell’s assessment would be described as whitewashing the news of the massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. In May 2004 Powell said to Larry King, “I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored.” …[RIGHT]CITE[/RIGHT]

The decades after “Hey, it’s war, shit happens” rationalization is trumped by the “Some of my best friends are Vietnamese, therefor the My Lai Massacre didn’t happen” in it’s sliminess.
More detailed accounts in David Corn’s article for The Nation, and here, Behind Colin Powell’s Legend by Robert Parry & Norman Solomon. Something really stomach turning here (a short version of the Parry & Solomon piece),

MAM Hunts
Powell did include, however, a troubling recollection that belied his 1968 official denial of Glen’s allegation that American soldiers “without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.” After mentioning the My Lai massacre in My American Journey, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal’s brutality. In a chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese.

“I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male,” Powell wrote. “If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen (West Germany), Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong.”

While it’s certainly true that combat is brutal, mowing down unarmed civilians is not combat. It is, in fact, a war crime. Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. Disturbingly, that was precisely the rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense. …

Why does that ring a bell?
Oh yeah,

Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
Door Gunner: ‘Cuz I’m so fuckin’ good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo too! Them’s all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don’t lead 'em so much! Ain’t war hell?

CMC +fnord!
Now what I really came in to post.
Thanks SA, this cite was wonderful! Now I really don’t think Mansoor Ijaz is credible, but it’s nice to be able to point out to those that do, the preconditions that Sudan put on “handing Osama bin Laden over on a (silver) platter”.

Specifically a side order of shit sandwich, “… terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted …” (noooo that wouldn’t have been jumped on by the Clinton haters. They never would have pointed to that as proof that Clinton was soft on teh terrrrorizm) and ah yes a tasty beverage, hemlock flavor, “… required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s extradition …” (let’s see; state sponsor of terrorism, country that Ofuckingsama binfuckingLaden felt perfectly comfortable staying in, with the gods only know how many other Al Qaeda et.al. operatives in it. Nope, don’t see any reason the SS would object to state visit. Can you?)

Funny how nobody mentions the preconditions, isn’t?

[Fish]

@Biggirl

Yeup, not Bush’s fault AT ALL. It was all those reports of African yellow cake and imaginary mustard gas depot that were east, west, north and south of Baghdad-- just ask the Vice President!

Here’s the brain-buster for the Bushies:

If the “yellow cake uranium” reports were the reason we accidentally went to war with Iraq, why didn’t we thank Valerie Plame and her husband instead of doing a political hatchet job? We should have been bowing down in obesiance saying, “Jeez, thanks for pointing that out, we might’ve made a huge mistake!”

[Merijeek]

@Fish

Here’s the brain-buster for the Bushies:

If the “yellow cake uranium” reports were the reason we accidentally went to war with Iraq, why didn’t we thank Valerie Plame and her husband instead of doing a political hatchet job? We should have been bowing down in obesiance saying, “Jeez, thanks for pointing that out, we might’ve made a huge mistake!”

Because she’s a LIBERAL WHOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!

Dontcha know anything?

-Joe

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

“In the heat of a political lifetime, Ronald Reagan innocently squirrels away tidbits of misinformation and then, sometimes years later, casually drops them into his public discourse, like gum balls in a quiche."

This quote from writer Lucy Howard is equally applicable to you, Starving Arsonist.

Actually, if you want to bumblefuck my name, I thought Starkers was funnier and more imaginative.

Now, having said that I have noticed a discernable and uncharacteristic testiness to your posts to this thread, and while I’ve always kind of liked you I knew the feeling was far from reciprocated. Still, you seem more puffed than usual here, and so I can only conclude I must be scoring points.

@elucidator

Your opinions are bolstered by clear and obvious truths, passed to you from people who’s opinion you respect, the facts click into place to fit perfectly with your biases and preconceptions. And you don’t examine them, which is why you are so frequently caught out on a “cite!” call.

You would be wrong about that, actually, I’m very rarely ‘caught out’ on a cite call. 99.9% of the cite calls I get around here are deliberately obfuscatory, pertain to subjective subjects with no concrete, provable answer, and are almost invariably intended to derail points that my opponents seem unable or unwilling to derail honestly.

Now if, in this case, you are alluding to my comment about Clinton/bin Laden/Hillarycare, I stated up front that I had no cite and I voluntarily withdrew them pending my retrieval of it later. I was surprised to see you trying to egg me on despite that withdrawal, but like I said, you’ve been somewhat testy in this thread and so I just chalked it up to that. The fact of the matter is, though, that I’ve been quite busy the last couple of days out here in the real world and I haven’t yet made the slightest effort to find the necessary cite. And like I also said, when/if I find it I’ll be sure to let you know. If I don’t, the retraction will stand. Capiche?

@elucidator

]Since you know that they are obvious truths, it doesn’t occur to you to check and see if they have any actual substantiation.

Oh, please. :rolleyes: There is not a human being on this planet that goes around substantiating everything they hear and agree with. You don’t do it, I don’t do it, NO ONE does it. If for no other reason that there aren’t enough hours in the day.

So get off your high-horse, mmkay?

@elucidator

Around here, that’s like smearing yourself with bacon grease and hamburger before wading in the piranha pool.

Oh, “around here” my ass! If I were to play the same game as your ilk and challenge every wrong and stupid and ignorant thing said about Bush/Republicans/conservatives/Christians around here, I’d have time for nothing else myself.

@elucidator

Everybody knows that Clinton had dozens of chances to take out OBL, and everybody knows that he did the weenie.

Correct.

@elucidator

And, to paraphrase The Master (the real Master, not that upstart Cecil…), there’s nothing wrong with that except it just ain’t so.

Yeah, just like it ain’t so that Clinton used Arkansas troopers to procure ‘bimbos’; drop his drawers in front of Paula Jones; advise Genifer Flowers to lie about their affair; etc., etc., ad infinitum right up to the time a few months ago when he claimed his wife exhaustedly misspoke, once, at 11:30 at night, about her trip to Bosnia, when anyone who’d been paying attention knew she’d been spouting that shit numerous times all over the country as part of her ‘vote for me; I’ve taken fire’ campaign.

If Clinton was reined in so strongly by diplomatic and legal concerns that he was unable to nail bin Laden with a surgical strike of some sort, than what was all that tough talk after the embassy bombings about how no terrorist can find a safe haven?

And even more to the point, if he was that powerfully constrained, why was Bush not also?

The OP and others around here seem to think Bush should have taken Clarke’s information and just gone right out and nailed bin Laden, thus possibly preventing 9/11. My question is why didn’t Clinton do it if the information was so credible, and if he was constrained by legal and diplomatic concerns why was Bush suddenly expected to be unrestrained by them?

@elucidator

And, for the record, I didn’t “accuse” you of being a conservative gadfly who punctures the hypocrisy of the left. I accused you of imagining that you were.

The comment was tongue in cheek. As I said, I’ve been aware that the liking I have for you despite your politics is not mutual.

@elucidator

You think its the sharp edge of your intellect that annoys the dirty fucking hippies…

I give absolutely no thought to my ‘intellect’, sharp or otherwise. This is simply a dodge to set up your next comment. The truth is that intellect, sharp or otherwise, has precious little to do with anything that goes on around here, where mindless leftie political bias based on emotion rules the day. (This is not to say that there aren’t thoughtful lefties on the board, however. It’s just that they are not the ones who set the tone.)

@elucidator

…but its really the dull and adamant obstinacy of your opinions.

Ah, yes…that old liberal elitism raising its superior head once again. ‘Why, you must be a thickheaded dolt because no matter how I try to enlighten you, you simply refuse to see things my way!’

Arrogant much?

Oh, wait…

@elucidator

You cannot argue a man out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

Gee, that was wonderful. Can I quote you on that? :rolleyes:

Oh, and perhaps you could elucidate some of the ‘reasoning’ you used to adopt the ultra-far-left anarchic philosophy you have so grandly bragged about around here from time to time? Oh, yeah, and the reasoning that led you to drug use despite the fact that it’s illegal and that even marijuana can lead to expense, jail time and a record? Yep, I’m sure there’s lots of intellecual reasoning at work there, too, so please regale us with examples of your superior reasoning ability in this regard too.

Putz! :rolleyes:

[sailor]

I just thought that I’d mention that the Spanish term for gadfly is “mosca cojonera”, lit. “testicle fly”, and is used to describe people who are very persistently irritant and just won’t go away, like the flies you see on horses’ testicles.

[Jolly_Roger]

@elucidator

True, you are very nearly as funny as Mallard Fillmore, but you lack the depth and insight. You think its the sharp edge of your intellect that annoys the dirty fucking hippies, but its really the dull and adamant obstinacy of your opinions.

Mallard Fillmore is funny? When did that happen? Its one of the worst comic strips made, and appeals only to fucktards that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh has anything worth saying.

[Bosstone]

@Jolly_Roger

Mallard Fillmore is funny? When did that happen? Its one of the worst comic strips made, and appeals only to fucktards that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh has anything worth saying.

Exactly.

[Lemur866]

To be fair to Starving Artist, you guys should know that Bill Clinton frequently used irrelevant tu qoque arguments when he was president.