I will bookmark this...now you have no excuses
No need. I will never deny the fact when asked.
Did You Serve ?
- Thread starter The Man
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
No need. I will never deny the fact when asked.
-
598Replies
-
6KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
I actually had fun watching TM bury himself with his own words. And then I had even more fun watching his denial of the fact.
I have long suspected that he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand simple concepts, that makes his comment about scoring too high on his admittance test into the military all that more ironic.
And there you lie.
You just stated you read the entire thread before you posted.
I stated my position many times..while stone kept dancing around it
You need to beware you and stone are now "buds"
Fact is you only share a common enemy...no more no less
When you get thrown under the bus you will get crushed.......Twice ...As I will also be there to crush you
If you have gained nothing from this thread...This is one post you need to remember
There were times in other threads where I felt he was correct on an issue but was getting a lot of abuse.
But this thread turned out to be BS revenge from the opening post , against John.
John made an association not used at the forum I came from and the more he used it, the more it looked like it fit from my knowing TM elsewhere.
I like debate.....and it should have been up to TM to counter by responding immediately and arguing his position.
But the longer the denial to respond, the greater the association for me to past comments elsewhere.
TM's claims here weren't matching up to the intense dialog I put up with at a different debate forum. I don't believe a person can have that much of a change of heart in such a short time.
And his real position did get some exposure in this thread....but I assure you, it was a lot more intense at that other web site.
That's hypocrisy.....arguing out of convenience to win debate.
If I'm going to call hypocrisy on others, I can't in good faith give TM a pass because we had a private truce going on.....it would be an even greater hypocrisy.
Pretty obvious why we needed the truce to start with
This was common month after month till we were almost banned over the confrontations.
There were times in other threads where I felt he was correct on an issue but was getting a lot of abuse.
But this thread turned out to be BS revenge from the opening post , against John.
John made an association not used at the forum I came from and the more he used it, the more it looked like it fit from my knowing TM elsewhere.
I like debate.....and it should have been up to TM to counter by responding immediately and arguing his position.
But the longer the denial to respond, the greater the association for me to past comments elsewhere.
TM's claims here weren't matching up to the intense dialog I put up with at a different debate forum. I don't believe a person can have that much of a change of heart in such a short time.
And his real position did get some exposure in this thread....but I assure you, it was a lot more intense at that other web site.
That's hypocrisy.....arguing out of convenience to win debate.
If I'm going to call hypocrisy on others, I can't in good faith give TM a pass because we had a private truce going on.....it would be an even greater hypocrisy.
Pretty obvious why we needed the truce to start with
This was common month after month till we were almost banned over the confrontations.
I don't think you needed to bring up that other site. He has made it perfectly clear at this site that he fully supports the use of our military across the world to smack down the "radicals". He has also been pretty clear on his approval of the use of water boarding and torture. One wouldn't need to go to this other site to realize this, it's all right here on this site.
Why he chose to turn it into a debate on the legality of water boarding under Bush is beyond me. That means nothing. The fact that he supports torture is the issue at hand, not whether it was legal or not at the time.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
And this is the reason I just give up on most of my debates with TM. I just don't have the time or the patience to go point to point with him and untwist the logic he fallaciously puts out.
A classic example is this thread. It went from him condoning torture to whether it was legal or not at the time.
Ethically, probably not....but I've not been here as long as he has and I don't have the time to read all the political threads let alone the ones in the past. So I'm not knowledgeable on all that he's posted here.
My apologies, but to be up front, I doubt I could have leveraged him into admitting those claims if I hadn't mentioned that other site and with out knowing more of his posts here, would probably go the same route again.
I'm not here for the rep....I just like to debate.
I responded to your post earlier.......just read it in Tim's post again.....
This is why I haven't been responding to many of TM's recent comments with rebuttals.
My point was already made and I wasn't going to respond and let sophistry erode it....thus the silly images.
Cough cough
Hate to spoil the honeymoon stone and tim.
Where have I advocated legalized torture in this thread.
I see why you two are made for each other.
This is what I said
From the other thread which is what prompted the discussion.
Now do one of you two cumm drunk love birds one to explain how
"While it legally may have not been torture at the time....it needs to be illegal now" by me
equates to
"you do and have advocated legalized torture, in this thread."
No where have I advocated legalized torture.
I havent mentioned this several times...but you have refused to show the posts.
Perhaps between you and your new mrs one of you can find this mystery post of mine...you know after you two are done swapping fluid
The reason why you havent been responding is because you cant back your lies
- Status
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members