its because he loves to hate me.

i am the sower of dischord.

You're the sower of nonsense.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I already asked you what you wanted me to prove, MikeyG. If you're talking about some of my opinions, you can't prove those. Why don't you take the airplane glue bottle out of your nose for a few hours and let some fresh air in. I feel stupider just reading your posts.

One day Nate, you will be able to make it look like you read big-boy books and talk about them, I understand that this time you were too eager for your britches.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Hey, MaaK, why don't you get Satan's cock out of your toothless hick mouth for a few seconds, remove Rush Limbaugh's OxyContin-addled sewing-needle-sized pecker from your little asshole, stop the constant stream of piss from the Bush Administration that is spraying your acne-scarred little face, and listen for the last time. You believe there was a good reason for the war. There is obviously some data that you used to come to this opinion. Provide one example. It cannot get any simpler than that. Stalling gets you no credibility.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I addressed that issue over and over, go back and read what I wrote, and if you feel part of it need clarificaiton or corroborating information let me know which parts.

I think most of it is such common knowledge that you would have to be completely obtuse (i.e. you, boorite) to ask for more evidence though.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Makk, you know I'm not MikeyG and are flat-out lying. You've done this repeatedly. So I take back what I said earlier about your sincerity. You are simply a liar.

Now to recap the reasons for war argument, since you keep saying you've addressed it. I would like to explore how you addressed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "reason" was "Saddam was a threat."

I said he wasn't, so we quibbled for a while about how much of a threat he was. Much of the factual basis (such as it was) of your argument was false, and much of the rest showed a profound ignorance of the democratic institutions you "paradoxically" want to impose on the world. If you enjoy the pain of seeing your own bullshit statements rebutted in writing again and again, I'll be happy to oblige, but I think readers here can just as well hit the back button.

One of the few true things you said, which is this common knowledge you keep referring to, is that Iraq invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. Your notion that this constitutes a threat to his neighbors now, such that invasion was necessary, was quickly demolished, and you abandoned it. Just let me know if you'd like to raise it again.

Anyway, all that stuff about "threat" became pretty much beside the point when you departed from any sane legal definition of "threat" and presented an astonishing new concept of "evidence." You said:

So I said: "So we are permitted to invade any country that is hypothetically capable of carrying out a terrorist attack, as long as we imagine that they are willing to do so." And I think you pretty much said yes, that's about right. Let me know if you actually meant to disagree with that statement, and if so, how.

Anyway, this struck me as such a plain abuse of words like "reason" and "evidence" that I thought to myself, well this guy pretty much just declared himself a lunatic in public, and I dropped it.

Well it came up again in the other thread, where I pointed out the Orwellian contradiction in your concept of ignoring our own laws in order to govern ourselves, or subverting our democratic forms to service our democracy. You call it a paradox. I call it doublethink. That you continue so proudly to call it reason is the mark of a real nutjob. I mean, just about anyone can see that it's crazy.

You also refuse to answer questions such as, how is the UN Charter "undermining our own ability to govern ourselves?" You said something about "security" (although it is clear that this war has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks) against "threats" (which by your definition may be real or imagined). So what I want to know is, how is decreasing our security by responding to a threat that may be imaginary-- how can this possibly justify throwing out the supreme law of the land? Nutty.

And you said Bush was not authoritarian but refused to answer: "Then what do you call it when the officials of a country are not accountable to democratic forms and laws? Democracy?" What do you call it, Makk? I can't wait to hear another twisted abortion of "reason" spew forth.

And stop calling me MikeyG because you know it's a lie.

---
What others say about boorite!

See, my little friend, you can't base opinion on common knowledge for two reasons:

A) What knowledge is considered common is subjective.
B) Common knowledge isn't the issue. It is the UNCOMMON knowledge that you need to address.

That's the argument's crux, MaaK. Instead of trying to hide your lack of sources with bluster, why don't you just provide ONE and shut me up?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I put you in a list with MikeyG. "you (MikeyG), boorite" That indicates you are two seperate items. Is that enough or do I need to cite some sources that define the nature of a list? Here's another example of a list: apples; oranges; bananas. Note this does not say apples = oranges = bananas. A common rookie mistake! Moving on..

quote:

---

Now to recap the reasons for war argument, since you keep saying you've addressed it. I would like to explore how you addressed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "reason" was "Saddam was a threat."

---

Good to see you have returned to inanity now that your intellectual feint has failed.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

What ever I can do to aid your inneffectual attacks on me.

I saw this fight in a dream last night.

Mak_B goes, "oh yeaH? Oh Yeah?" And Nate sticks his tongue out. Then boo knocked their head together and I heard this hollow mellon thump. After that there was a lot of mumbled cursing and whimpering.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Does it go without saying you were masturbating with something in your anus the entire time...?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

oh yeaH? Oh Yeah?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

MaKK, I love how you switch your focus to boorite now that I've backed you into a corner. According to your logic, every country with a military is a potential threat to us. Are you advocating we conquer the world? Once again, reference some kind of article or news source or anything credible, or recuse yourself from this discussion.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

You're doing a good imitation of boorite, but it's really not funny anymore.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Hey, that's an awesome source! I'll be sure to check it out!

You aren't even interested in validating yourself, apparently. If I was pro-war I'd be embarrassed to call you a supporter.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

OK, Makk, in the immediately preceding message, you were replying to MikeyG. In the middle of a sentence addressed to him, you said, "i.e. you boorite." Do you know what "i.e." means? Also, you've said it and implied it in a number of other places. You know what you're doing.

quote:

---

And you think I said yes, that's about right? I don't think I said that. Why is it you can quote me exactly on one thing, but then you have to imagine a response that fits into your argument elsewhere?

---

Jesus, boorite, is the possibility of being me that unattractive? I don't think he's dishonest in calling you me and vice versa, I just think he does it to piss you off. He is merely dishonest when it comes to what he thinks. He is especially dishonest to himself.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

It would reflect badly on me if I logged in under a different name, praised myself, and hurled obscenities at my opponent, yes.

---
What others say about boorite!

....not meaning you praised yourself, but that you praised me or at least agreed with me. Using multiple nicks to agree with yourself is bad indeed.

---
What others say about boorite!

I know, I was joking. What's wrong with obscenities? I love them. They are my comforting teddy bears in times of stress. They can also be pretty funny sometimes.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

andydougan:

I guess your utilitarian corner of the thread has died, but it's really the more interesting argument, so let's see if we can get it going again.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying something along these lines: Removing Saddam Hussein is good; the war removed Saddam Hussein; therefore the war is good. The argument is valid regardless of things like motives, or actions elsewhere, or actions in the past-- none of those enter into it. He's out, and that's a plus! So the war must be a plus.

This argument reminds me of the accountant who could add but not subtract. The test of an action is not whether it confers some benefit; the test is whether or not the benefits outweigh the harm. Certainly Saddam Hussein's regime is harmful. But I think you'd agree that war is also harmful. When faced with choosing among a number of evils, a reasonable person tries to choose the least of them.

Was this war the least of all available evils? I don't think so, by a longshot.

Also, you give us something of a false dichotomy: Invade the country and overthrow the government, or let the despot have free reign. There are other options we might explore.

Also, the argument assumes that we will replace Saddam with something better. Before we invest any confidence in that assumption, we should examine the US's track record in this regard.

We should, most of all, be talking about the costs of this war, especially the human costs. We should be talking about the likelihood that our overturning of the world order will invite violent resistance, and will invite other lawless countries to go on their own adventures, using justifications like ours.

We can examine all that in detail, if you like. In short, I think what we have done with the world order is, we noticed that it had a toothache and so chopped off its head. Hooray, the bad tooth is gone.

---
What others say about boorite!

Agreed.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I put you in a list with MikeyG. "you (MikeyG), boorite" That indicates you are two seperate items. Is that enough or do I need to cite some sources that define the nature of a list? Here's another example of a list: apples; oranges; bananas. Note this does not say apples = oranges = bananas. A common rookie mistake!

---