The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[just maybe]

Well that WAS what we were talking about

Not in the way you put it...you put it as a wider comment about me in general. You didn't specify that it was only about that single sentence.

When we are discussing attacks on a western country than I will only use examples of western attacks... DUH!

You didn't specify that. You said 'In anyone's books'. You did not specify Western only.

See, two can play at the same game. Make sure your statement is specific. It wasn't specific. It was wrong, therefore you are a liar.

 

[skipper kelly]

OK.

You explain what the statement means.

"the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century"

 

[just maybe]

OK.

You explain what the statement means.

"the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century"

It was a reference to the fact that it was the first large-scale foreign attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century.

I should have made it more specific about the nature of the attack, but I didn't. Fortunately, people are perceptive enough to know what I'm talking about and didn't need to nitpick.

Which brings me back, again: The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

 

[skipper kelly]

It was a reference to the fact that it was the first large-scale foreign attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century.

I should have made it more specific about the nature of the attack, but I didn't. Fortunately, people are perceptive enough to know what I'm talking about and didn't need to nitpick.

Which brings me back, again: The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

You see what the problem is dont you.

You stated that all of your 21 points are facts not opinion.

I read the 1st of the points and it says "the first attack.........". I think to myself gee thats a bad legacy for a president to have, the 1st attack since the 19th century. I then think about this and discover that its not the 1st attack. I then question you on it and you first off tell me to assume from your factual statement that it meant foreign attack. I then asked you to define foreign attack and you said internal, external, US citizens, non US citizens etc etc etc. You where unclear of the definition yourself and made it up on the run to suit your argument. Fair enough, I accepted your stubborness.

All the while the emphasis of your statement is the word "first".

So then I am told to assume that your statement actually means "the first foreign attack............" I think fair enough, but then I think about it and discover that WTC 1993 had foreign involvement. I make you aware of this but you ignore it.

All the while the emphasis of your statement is the word "first".

I then think well you must mean something different, so I ask for a definition of attack and does this attack have to be of a certain size or body count. You stated this is irrelevant. So then I asked again about WTC 1993, but you say is was a botched attempt. I was unsure what you meant by botched attempt, but I also let that slide.

All the while the emphasis of your statement is the word "first".

I then think well what do you mean. I am confused because you state the first foreign attack and the size is irrelevant. I think to myself gee I am sure 1993 was before 2001. Then I think about the 6 people that were killed and wonder if there relatives and friends think it was a botched attempt.

Then I am told that my words are an attack on you. This makes me think even further. WTC 1993 in not an attack, but my words on an internet forum are classified as an attack.

All the while the emphasis of your statement is the word "first".

You then say that your statement could have been worded better, something I had told you over 100 posts prior, but once again you ignore this.

And now you tell me that the size is now relevant and I am to assume from this factual statement "the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century" that the words "large scale foreign attack" are in there and everyone bar me knows this. But I am not allowed to assume that your statement meant terrorist attack. Shyt in this current political climate how could anyone assume you meant terrorist attack. It is quite obvious that you meant "large scale foreign attack" not "terrorist attack".

So something that was irrelevant is now magically relevant.

Do you not see where the problem is with your continued lying and making things up on the run to suit your stubborness?

The biggest joke of all is on you. 1 point equals less than 5% of your argument. You are too stupid to change the statement so it reads truthful and then move on to the other 95+% of your supposed facts.

My original statement that your legacy of being a knob is now fact. Well done KJ.

 

[moistie]

Are you familiar with "the little ice age" between 1300-1850?

Yep, as Didga stated, the oceanic currents running from the equator to the poles was disrupted by a massive influx of cold, fresh water. This water is believed to have came from the brooching of a massive glacer on either northern Russia or Canada/Alaska that released huge amounts of water into the ocean. Because of this the oceanic currents broke down and stopped transporting hot water from the equator to the poles. This caused a chilling of the northern climate that caused the ice age.

I don't see anything similar to that is causing the current climate change? So whats your explanation for the current change?

Added to this is the removal of massive amounts of vegetation from the earths surface, responsible for reflecting heat from the sun back into space. With the massive addition of CO2, which even as you attempt to discredit it as being a factor admit it has an effect in trapping heat. So even if CO2 does have a reduced effect in trapping heat, we've still increased the levels of it in the atmosphere by a third in the last 150 years. Essentially, we have caused the conditions that allow the increase in global temperature we are currently seeing.

And again, do you know what the effect a small change in the global temperature will have upon the environment?

Refusing to act because "climate change has happened before", "there is not enough solid evidence" and "not all scientists agree on global warming" is playing a dangerous game. It lulls those who are ill informed into a false sense of security, salving their conscience that it's okay that we continue our fossil fuel dependence and allows our government to refuse to act decisively in the issue.

For the sake of our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and beyond I would rather us act on the greenhouse effect and be proven wrong than for us to wait or continue as we are indefinately and have it get completely beyond our control. As New Orleans learnt, the rage of the human race is nothing in comparison to what mother nature is capable of.

 

[Monkster]

You didn't specify that. You said 'In anyone's books'. You did not specify Western only.

See, two can play at the same game. Make sure your statement is specific. It wasn't specific. It was wrong, therefore you are a liar.

Prove it wrong, go and ask people if they think an attack that kills 186 people is major, include people in Eastern and Middle Eastern countries, come back to me when your done and tell me what they said.

Once you've offered some proof that I am wrong than you may call me a liar

BTW can you find where I flat out said that you were a liar?

 

[just maybe]

*rant*

Aw diddums, so desperate to make me out to be a liar.

Just ain't winning. You're the knob mate, you made such a huge deal out of nothing. You admit it is bugger-all of my total statement, yet it was you who wouldn't let it go.

No matter how often you say 'All the while the emphasis of your statement is the word "first".' it doesn't make you any more right. I defined 'foreign attack' for you quite clearly, accusing me of jumping around doesn't make you suddenly correct.

You are the one who created this 100+ posts of garbage. If you'd just said 'fine, you could have written it better, but anyway...' instead of this garbage of trying to 'show me up' as a 'liar', maybe you could have got actively involved in the thread.

Instead you carried on your pathetic, immature vendetta against me as usual, demanding, in effect, a complete retraction and apology over the wording, so you could feel you'd somehow 'won'.

But that's not surprising is it? You had no purpose to 'correct' my wording. If it was anyone else, you would have ignored it. It was simply because you have some disturbing obsession with trying to bring me down. No one else had any problem with it except Monkster, and that was really only to back up your little tirade, and he just got caught out spinning the hopeless 'Bush basher' line and has slunk away.

Grow up, skipper. If you'd tried being mature about the thing and just suggesting I change it, rather than continuing your immature vendetta, you could have contributed and I would have had no problem changing it. But contributing was never your intention, because when it comes to me your only intention is to snipe. As always.

Pathetic.

 

[just maybe]

Prove it wrong, go and ask people if they think an attack that kills 186 people is major, include people in Eastern and Middle Eastern countries, come back to me when your done and tell me what they said.

Once you've offered some proof that I am wrong than you may call me a liar

Incorrect. When you make a statement you claim is fact, you must be able to produce evidence on demand.

I will produce evidence for any statement made in my first post on demand.

Once again, you didn't specify anything, just a hypocrite and a pedant.

BTW can you find where I flat out said that you were a liar?

Why?

 

[just maybe]

Alright, Monkster and skipper kelly.

I have edited the original statement to your preference. If you'd politely informed me of the need for greater specificity earlier, and not tried to grandstand, then this would have been a lot easier.

If you wish to actually contribute to the thread, please do so.

If you choose to continue to grandstand, I will report you to the mods and ask you to be removed as it is clear you are not posting in the thread to contribute.

 

[Monkster]

Incorrect. When you make a statement you claim is fact, you must be able to produce evidence on demand.

I will produce evidence for any statement made in my first post on demand.

Once again, you didn't specify anything, just a hypocrite and a pedant.

IT WAS NOT THE FIRST ATTACK
As soon as you admit that we can go on to your other "facts", but while you're producing evidence, produce the evidence that everyone else knew what you meant and produce the evidence that first foreign attack is what you meant.

Why?

No particular reason it just seemed as if you were trying to turn things i said about you back onto me so I figured I must have called you a liar somewhere.


BTW I'm not backing up skipper kelly I'm backing up George W Bush and I'm backing up history, and I also havent slunk away anywhere as you can see by the fact that I'm still here showing you up for the moron that you are.

 

[Monkster]

Alright, Monkster and skipper kelly.

I have edited the original statement to your preference. If you'd politely informed me of the need for greater specificity earlier, and not tried to grandstand, then this would have been a lot easier.

If you wish to actually contribute to the thread, please do so.

If you choose to continue to grandstand, I will report you to the mods and ask you to be removed as it is clear you are not posting in the thread to contribute.

Could you again edit it to say "successful attack" so that the facts of history are not distorted?

 

[just maybe]

IT WAS NOT THE FIRST ATTACK
As soon as you admit that we can go on to your other "facts", but while you're producing evidence, produce the evidence that everyone else knew what you meant and produce the evidence that first foreign attack is what you meant.





No particular reason it just seemed as if you were trying to turn things i said about you back onto me so I figured I must have called you a liar somewhere.


BTW I'm not backing up skipper kelly I'm backing up George W Bush and I'm backing up history, and I also havent slunk away anywhere as you can see by the fact that I'm still here showing you up for the moron that you are.

Read my last post.

Get with the program or LEAVE.

 

[Monkster]

Read my last post.

Get with the program or LEAVE.

I'm sorry I was busy posting at the same time you were if you'd like to check the post times, don't get your knickers in a knot.

 

[just maybe]

Could you again edit it to say "successful attack" so that the facts of history are not distorted?

Just quit it. Completely unnecessary.

 

[Monkster]

Just quit it. Completely unnecessary.

I asked you in a polite manner, you claim that it was edited to my preference, it clearly isn't, if you wish to say it's edited to my preference PLEASE add that it was the first successful foreign attack.

 

[just maybe]

I asked you in a polite manner, you claim that it was edited to my preference, it clearly isn't, if you wish to say it's edited to my preference PLEASE add that it was the first successful foreign attack.

If it wasn't successful, it isn't large-scale. No need whatsoever for your addition.

 

[skipper kelly]

If you choose to continue to grandstand, I will report you to the mods and ask you to be removed as it is clear you are not posting in the thread to contribute.

please do. No need for threats. Just do it.

 

[Monkster]

If it wasn't successful, it isn't large-scale. No need whatsoever for your addition.

A large scale attempt doesn't need to be successful in order to be large scale.

 

[skipper kelly]

Large scale?? Can you define this please? Does this "large scale" depend on a body count?

 

[just maybe]

A large scale attempt doesn't need to be successful in order to be large scale.

Yes. Attempt. Key word.

 

[skipper kelly]

Now that you have changed the statement to large scale it becomes an opinion.

It is your opinion that it was the first large scale attack. Not fact. Please deal with facts otherwise just state that this garbage is opinion.

 

[skipper kelly]

Can you please clarify why yesterday the size of the attack was irrelevant but today it is relevant?

 

[just maybe]

You're getting bloody close to ignore, sniper kelly.

 

[skipper kelly]

1. Why cant you answer the questions?

2. Why cant you amend your opiniated statement to read as factual? ie Bush was president on 11th September, 2001, when terrorists attacked the US mainland killing 3000 people.

 

[just maybe]

Why do you care so much? Why can't you give up your childish vendetta against me?

Why don't you go attack GuruJane, or rick James, for example, both of whom are so consistently factually inaccurate and opinionated its not funny? Why the continual pathetic, immature vendetta against me?