# "Do your own homework"



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Since this is a common expression on the Interchange, I was amazed at this little tidbit I found buried halfway down in an article.

"Both Edwards and Clinton agreed that they voted for the war resolution in 2002 without reading an intelligence report on Iraq that was available to them. Both said they sought other information and believed they were thoroughly briefed."

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHL9KO0.html


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

14 more KIA today. Solving this debacle by voting for Edwards or Clinton is endorsing the hubris of mediocricy of all involved.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

If they just had Francis on their staff......


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So which is worse:

A) I voted for the war before I read the intelligence?

B) I voted for the war before I voted against funding the war?

C) I voted for the war before I voted against it?


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

ksinc said:


> So which is worse:
> 
> A) I voted for the war before I read the intelligence?
> 
> ...


Answer: D) None of the above. The worst was the geometry lesson which drew the straight line from the ruins of the World Trade Center to Baghdad, and the acquiescence of all those civil servants who handed W a blank check in the form of the authorization to use his judgment in leading the coalition of the willing to impose his worldview on all of us.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Brooksfan said:


> Answer: D) None of the above. The worst was the geometry lesson which drew the straight line from the ruins of the World Trade Center to Baghdad, and the acquiescence of all those civil servants who handed W a blank check in the form of the authorization to use his judgment in leading the coalition of the willing to impose his worldview on all of us.


Just amazing that you can't answer a simple question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> Answer: D) None of the above. The worst was the geometry lesson which drew the straight line from the ruins of the World Trade Center to Baghdad, and the acquiescence of all those civil servants who handed W a blank check in the form of the authorization to use his judgment in leading the coalition of the willing to impose his worldview on all of us.


Actually, given the second half of your post, it would seem D) should read "All of the above".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, given the second half of your post, it would seem D) should read "All of the above".


LOL! Touche'


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Just amazing that you can't answer a simple question.


gfy2x


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> I'd engage you in a battle of wits but don't have time to wait for you to arm yourself. Have a nice day.


Nice to see you avoid the rush and start the insulting early. Buh bi, please drive through.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Brooksfan said:


> I'd engage you in a battle of wits but don't have time to wait for you to arm yourself. Have a nice day.


Wits? yeah right. You can't even distinguish worse from worst.

Sure, I'll have the fries with that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Wits? yeah right. You can't even distinguish worse from worst.


Or is that wurst? Or better yet, wort.

Mmm, sausage and beer.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Or is that wurst? Or better yet, wort.
> 
> Mmm, sausage and beer.


His association diminishes a great brand. If I was them, I'd sue for cease and desist! LOL!


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Wits? yeah right. You can't even distinguish worse from worst.
> 
> Sure, I'll have the fries with that.


If you had a point with this comment it's lost on me. Should seem fairly simple to grasp that you offered the choice between three seemingly bad explanations concerning the Iraq fiasco and rather than parse subtle degrees of inanity I chose to move the discussion to its root cause if you will. See if you can get someone to explain all the words with more than three letters to you and write back when you can.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Since this is a common expression on the Interchange, I was amazed at this little tidbit I found buried halfway down in an article.
> 
> "Both Edwards and Clinton agreed that they voted for the war resolution in 2002 without reading an intelligence report on Iraq that was available to them. Both said they sought other information and believed they were thoroughly briefed."
> 
> https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHL9KO0.html


McCain also admitted the same thing. Besides, who is to say the full intelligence report was not just more of the distorted package being publicly spewed by certain parties who wanted to go to war in Iraq for still unknown and unfathomable reasons.

(I still can not figure out why we went to wart there no matter how many time Bush make direct and veiled allusions to a non-existent link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda.)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Brooksfan said:


> If you had a point with this comment it's lost on me. Should seem fairly simple to grasp that you offered the choice between three seemingly bad explanations concerning the Iraq fiasco and rather than parse subtle degrees of inanity I chose to move the discussion to its root cause if you will. See if you can get someone to explain all the words with more than three letters to you and write back when you can.


No, I did not offer a choice between three bad explanations concerning the Iraq fiasco. I asked which of the three statements about the vote for war was worse. You're acting like an idiot. Your response was not only off topic, it was an absolute lie, and when I pointed out that it was sad you couldn't play nice, and you were insulting to me personally.

You seem to think you are smarter than me and can insult me with impunity and I have to put up with it. Well, you might be, but you probably aren't based on the evidence in this thread. And; you can't and I don't. There's *your* explanation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Brooksfan said:


> gfy2x


You're obviously looking for the Gay eHarmony thread, Sunshine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> McCain also admitted the same thing. Besides, *who is to say the full intelligence report was not just more of the distorted package being publicly spewed by certain parties *who wanted to go to war in Iraq for still unknown and unfathomable reasons.
> 
> (I still can not figure out why we went to war there no matter how many time Bush make direct and veiled allusions to a non-existent link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda.)


George Tenet and others at CIA.

They are making statements now becaue they are true. Al Q is in Iraq, now.

Al Q was not the reason we went to war with Iraq. It was intelligence on WMD which was wrong. It's really not that hard to figure out.

9/11 & Al Q changed the Bush policy on dealing with threats. Re-evaluating the threat of Sadaam and WMD, Bush decided to act. That is a not a geometric straight line from Al Q to Iraq. It's actually a quite controversial change in policy with which many disagreed *at the time*, but they were mostly conservatives a la Buchanan, Scowcroft, etc..

The Dems in question (Edwards, Clinton, Kerry) were all gung ho and convinced themselves by the intelligence they did read which Bush had nothing to do with. If you look at their statements at the time you will see this is true. Mrs. Clinton actually references Bill and how they knew all about S's WMD for many years.

What W did that is so wrong is he gave up the moral highground of a conservative foreign policy and joined the interventionist, policing the world group think of liberal foreign policy. Unfortunately, he made a lot of the American imperialist criticisms of the past true.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> If you had a point with this comment it's lost on me. Should seem fairly simple to grasp that you offered the choice between three seemingly bad explanations concerning the Iraq fiasco and rather than parse subtle degrees of inanity I chose to move the discussion to its root cause if you will. See if you can get someone to explain all the words with more than three letters to you and write back when you can.


No, you decided to ignore that Dubya is not Master of the Universe and that other people, people it seems you wish to protect, had some culpability in the War and now wish to renounce all responsibility for political expediency (and by the way, political expediency was why they voted for it to begin with). You have allowed your Bush Hate to so cloud your thinking, all you see is Dubya and fail to realize, that like it or not, all the members of Congress that voted for the War did just that. Kerry found out the hard way that enough people will not give someone a pass on voting against the War...after they voted for the War. Someone that makes a wrong decision and honestly admits they made a mistake is still an honest person. Someone that makes a wrong decision and tries to fob it off as someone else's fault should *not* be in a national leadership position.

Leaders lead, they do not blame other people for their actions.

Edit: And now I see you have edited out your initial unprovoked insult of ksinc and inserted a new one: go f*ck yourself twice? Wow, so obviously your proper choice is to vote against the War after you vote for the War, as you cannot make up your mind.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Edit: And now I see you have edited out your initial unprovoked insult of ksinc and inserted a new one: go f*ck yourself twice? Wow, so obviously your proper choice is to vote against the War after you vote for the War, as you cannot make up your mind.


Strange that such a smart guy obviously didn't figure out that I quoted his original post.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> gfy2x


If that is the best debate material you have, I predict a rather short tenure here. :icon_viking:

And we were not even trying to upset you at that point :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> George Tenet and others at CIA.
> 
> They are making statements now becaue they are true. Al Q is in Iraq, now.


Define "al Qaeda". The group's founder, major financier and planner have not been found, and I've not heard anyone claim they're currently in Iraq.



ksinc said:


> Al Q was not the reason we went to war with Iraq. It was intelligence on WMD which was wrong. It's really not that hard to figure out.


WMDs were a ruse, as Bush's own CIA has admitted.



ksinc said:


> 9/11 & Al Q changed the Bush policy on dealing with threats. Re-evaluating the threat of Sadaam and WMD, Bush decided to act.


Also incorrect. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq within months of his first inauguration -- somewhere between January and March 2001 -- at least six months before 9/11. Have you not read Paul O'Neill's book?

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. 
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. 
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. 
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. 
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. 
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Define "al Qaeda". The group's founder, major financier and planner have not been found, and I've not heard anyone claim they're currently in Iraq.


DYOH 

See Al-Zarqawi - Post U.S. Invasion of Iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

On December 27, 2004, Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of *al Qaeda in Iraq*" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> WMDs were a ruse, as Bush's own CIA has admitted.


Yes, thank you. I think I said it was wrong. The fact remains everyone bought the ruse and it was the WMD-ruse not Al Q that was reason for invading Iraq.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Also incorrect. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq within months of his first inauguration -- somewhere between January and March 2001 -- at least six months before 9/11. Have you not read Paul O'Neill's book?
> 
> "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
> "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
> ...


Planning for and having a policy of regime change and planning to invade are separate things. Surely, you can see that objectively.

Was not the policy of Clinton for Iraq also regime change?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Surely, you can see that objectively.


LOLOL, objectively? Surely that was rhetorical :icon_smile_big:



ksinc said:


> Was not the policy of Clinton for Iraq also regime change?


He tried his hardest. Worked at it harder than anything else he ever worked at in his life. He feels so bad he did not accomplish that. Really.

Man, that was a great speech he used to give. Too bad he used it on so many topics. Except bombing Chinese embassies. He could blow hell outta those pretty good.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Planning for and having a policy of regime change and planning to invade are separate things. Surely, you can see that objectively.
> 
> Was not the policy of Clinton for Iraq also regime change?


Of course. Pentagon advisors are appointed and promoted, not elected. The difference is, in Iraq, Clinton didn't fall for the their "preventive invasion" insanity. This exact same doctrine has been preached by the Pentagon to every U.S. president since the end of WWII, to "deal" with one fabricated imminent threat to our national security after another. Gotta keep those trillions coming in for the defense budget every presidential term, you know. Last time around, $2 trillion bought us a really cool Bush "mission accomplished, you're going home" photo op, complete with flight jacket and an aircraft carrier that was intentionally turned around so we wouldn't be able to see San Diego in the background.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Of course. Pentagon advisors are appointed and promoted, not elected. The difference is, in Iraq, Clinton didn't fall for the their "preventive invasion" insanity. This exact same doctrine has been preached by the Pentagon to every U.S. president since the end of WWII, to "deal" with one fabricated imminent threat to our national security after another. Gotta keep those trillions coming in for the defense budget every presidential term, you know. Last time around, $2 trillion bought us a really cool Bush "mission accomplished, you're going home" photo op, complete with flight jacket and an aircraft carrier that was intentionally turned around so we wouldn't be able to see San Diego in the background.


So, you really had no objection to my post you just wanted to take the opportunity to bash Bush a little more?

First you said I was incorrect, but in fact I was correct.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, you really had no objection to my post you just wanted to take the opportunity to bash Bush a little more?
> 
> First you said I was incorrect, but in fact I was correct.


No actually I agreed with you. Completely. Good grief, a month after he left office Clinton appeared on Letterman's show and claimed we'd be in and out of Iraq in TWO WEEKS. My point is, when it comes to foreign policy, whichever political party occupies the White House doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. We can't blame Bush for what amounts to a shadow government when it comes to our foreign policy, nor can we blame Clinton for it. The major difference is, "The country swims on a sea of oil." means far more to Bush and Cheney than it did to Clinton and Gore.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> No actually I agreed with you. Completely. Good grief, a month after he left office Clinton appeared on Letterman's show and claimed we'd be in and out of Iraq in TWO WEEKS. My point is, when it comes to foreign policy, whichever political party occupies the White House doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. We can't blame Bush for what amounts to a shadow government when it comes to our foreign policy, nor can we blame Clinton for it. The major difference is, "The country swims on a sea of oil." means far more to Bush and Cheney than it did to Clinton and Gore.


Actually, no you didn't. You will see below you said I was incorrect. Now you have backpeddled and have had to agree with me.

Originally Posted by ksinc 
9/11 & Al Q changed the Bush policy on dealing with threats. Re-evaluating the threat of Sadaam and WMD, Bush decided to act.

Originally Posted by FrankDC
Also incorrect. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq within months of his first inauguration -- somewhere between January and March 2001 -- at least six months before 9/11. Have you not read Paul O'Neill's book?

Originally Posted by ksinc 
Planning for and having a policy of regime change and planning to invade are separate things. Surely, you can see that objectively.
Was not the policy of Clinton for Iraq also regime change?

Originally Posted by FrankDC
Of course.

Originally Posted by ksinc 
So, you really had no objection to my post you just wanted to take the opportunity to bash Bush a little more? First you said I was incorrect, but in fact I was correct.

Originally Posted by FrankDC
No actually I agreed with you. Completely.

Good grief, indeed.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Actually, no you didn't. You will see below you said I was incorrect. Now you have backpeddled and have had to agree with me.
> 
> Originally Posted by ksinc
> 9/11 & Al Q changed the Bush policy on dealing with threats. Re-evaluating the threat of Sadaam and WMD, Bush decided to act.
> ...


Please read this thread from the beginning. I agreed on your major point, but disagree that 9/11 was responsible for Bush's change in policy in Iraq. It wasn't.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Please read this thread from the beginning. I agreed on your major point, but disagree that 9/11 was responsible for Bush's change in policy in Iraq. It wasn't.


uh huh 

O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[16] https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/



> People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
> 
> "Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."


BTW Did you read O'Neil's book or just some talking points from someone who claimed to read O'Neil's book? Just wondering. You brought it up. This is why you should always, DYOH!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> uh huh
> 
> O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[16] https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/
> 
> ...


Ask yourself where this notion came from. It took several "summits" between Karl Rove and media, eight-month 24/7 propaganda campaigns (e.g. "Countdown to Iraq" on MSNBC), and almost two years to fool 70% of America into believing Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Read any Bush or Cheney speech from their first term.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ask yourself where this notion came from. It took several "summits" between Karl Rove and media, eight-month 24/7 propaganda campaigns (e.g. "Countdown to Iraq" on MSNBC), and almost two years to fool 70% of America into believing Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Read any Bush or Cheney speech from their first term.


Nice attempt at a dodge, but it isn't gonna work. Scroll up, Mr. Zawa-Rosie. Scroll up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Nice attempt at a dodge, but it isn't gonna work. Scroll up, Mr. Zawa-Rosie. Scroll up.


ksinc, it should be clear. Francis voted for the war before he voted against it.....no wait, his intelligence reports were faulty and it was Dubya's fault...no wait, he's against the war but supports our troops....no wait...our troops allow Mormons...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> ksinc, it should be clear. Francis voted for the war before he voted against it.....no wait, his intelligence reports were faulty and it was Dubya's fault...no wait, he's against the war but supports our troops....no wait...our troops allow Mormons...


Sorry, no longer responding to obvious trolls, or possibly you period.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Sorry, no longer responding to obvious trolls...


Are you going to stop making them too? That would be real progress.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Are you going to stop making them too? That would be real progress.


Feel free to argue any of my points. Don't personally attack me on all of them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Feel free to argue any of my points. Don't personally attack me on all of them.


You mean like this point?



FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


Or this one?



FrankDC said:


> This issue runs deep with religious fundamentalists, while gay people have been dealing with institutionalized genocide and bashing for the last 3500+ years.


(Check the definition of genocide)

Or this one?



FrankDC said:


> Better disturbed than stoned to death, hanged, gassed, beaten to death and electrocuted.


Or this one?



FrankDC said:


> "Total withdrawal from Iraq in one year"? You missed the other 90% of that sentence, as well as the subsequent exchange about why "only" 25,000 troops are needed in Iraq.


 (Dean specifically said, in your video quote, "Not in Iraq" but you refuse to acknowledge that)

I think we get the idea...your points do not really exist in reality. To present you with a fact if futile, as you simply ignore them.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think we get the idea...your points do not really exist in reality. To present you with a fact if futile, as you simply ignore them.


To the contrary, you (and ksinc et al) are more than able to point out my mistakes, and I admit when my facts are wrong. Beyond that we're dealing with.... well, you know.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> To the contrary, you (and ksinc et al) are more than able to point out my mistakes, and I admit when my facts are wrong. Beyond that we're dealing with.... well, you know.


Could you just point out to me where you admitted (vs. actually arguing over) Dean saying specifically, "Not in Iraq"? Oh wait...you cannot as you did argue with me. No Frank, part of the problem is you do not admit. It is what makes people start to attack you as attacking your "facts" is futile. Just like your actions have demonstrated a distinct dislike for the LDS Church...and then you stated you do not target them. The problem is, you did, repeatedly, in multiple threads.

Sorry Frank, it is just a point that is worth repeating (yet) again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Could you just point out to me where you admitted (vs. actually arguing over) Dean saying specifically, "Not in Iraq"?


Reread the thread. I was quoting your initial misquote.



Wayfarer said:


> Oh wait...you cannot as you did argue with me.


Only to point out the above, and say it wasn't relevant in responding to the claim that "Dems have no ideas". How many troops go where in the ME wasn't relevant to that claim.



Wayfarer said:


> No Frank, part of the problem is you do not admit. It is what makes people start to attack you as attacking your "facts" is futile. Just like your actions have demonstrated a distinct dislike for the LDS Church...and then you stated you do not target them.


I never stated the latter. I said I target any organization that bashes gay people, and that this list currently includes most flavors of Christianity. If a user wants to take personal offense at my position it's not my problem.



Wayfarer said:


> The problem is, you did, repeatedly, in multiple threads.


Yes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I never stated the latter. I said I target any organization that bashes gay people, and that this list currently includes most flavors of Christianity. If a user wants to take personal offense at my position it's not my problem.


Does simply not supporting same-sex marriages constitute "bashes gay people" in your view?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Does simply not supporting same-sex marriages constitute "bashes gay people" in your view?


IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing, it promotes the other kind of bashing as well.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Reread the thread. I was quoting your initial misquote.


That's just the thing. It was not a misquote. End of story, m y point proved. No need to talk further. Buh bi on this one Francis.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing, it promotes the other kind of bashing as well.


Well, you obviously think that's rational. Do you think that is a mainstream view?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing, it promotes the other kind of bashing as well.


Frank, this is enough. *ENOUGH!* I for one am sick and tired of you accusing anyone that does not agree with you of being a bigot, gay basher, <insert hate crime here>.

*The only proven bigot here has been you! *

The proof was so clear, you were even called on it by a mod, something I have never seen before. You need to stop projecting and look in the mirror if you want to see a person that is truly capable of bigotry. I would say that you are incapable of civil disagreement, but the thing is, you do not know a "fact" when it bites you in the hiney, so the point is moot. So given that debate with you is impossible, I think you just need to take your bigotry elsewhere or STFU.

And just for shytes and giggles, wtf is "civil bashing"? Arguing against the Napoleanic Code? /boggle


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Why does anyone respond to Frank?

Don't pat the puppy; it's what he wants.

It may or may not be his opinion. Personally, I think he says these things for the attention.

But even if it was his opinion, do you think you would change his mind and he'd see it your way all of a sudden?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

fenway said:


> Why does anyone respond to Frank?
> 
> Don't pat the puppy; it's what he wants.
> 
> ...


Fenway:

You are correct, I should not add my morsel of food to the troll-chow. I will cease doing it as much as possible.

To your question: I do not expect to change his opinion to my own (which is not that far apart on some things, as I back civil unions) but I do expect him to stop telling anyone that disagrees with him that they are necessarily <insert accusation here>.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Sorry to break the news to all the coffee boys here, but half of America supports legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (to one degree or another, whether civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage etc). So trying to portray me as some kind of radical is not only untrue, it's my view that at some point in the future, it's y'all who're going to look mighty foolish, not me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Sorry to break the news to all the coffee boys here, but half of America supports legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (to one degree or another, whether civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage etc). So trying to portray me as some kind of radical is not only untrue, it's my view that at some point in the future, it's y'all who're going to look mighty foolish, not me.


While that may be true, I seriously doubt that they consider not support same-sex marriages the equivalent of gay bashing. I would say that is a radical view and not mainstream, but I didn't. I simply asked if you thought it was and you refuse to answer plainly. This lack of conscience and integrity with what you said previously is what makes you appear irrational and a troll. While you accuse other of making non-sequitors and straw men on a regular basis; you darn well know that what you said was that not supporting same-sex marriages equates to gay bashing and what you are defending is that supporting same-sex marriage does not make you a radical. At some point this incongruity crosses a line into sociopathic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Sorry to break the news to all the coffee boys here, but half of America supports legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (to one degree or another, whether civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage etc). So trying to portray me as some kind of radical is not only untrue, it's my view that at some point in the future, it's y'all who're going to look mighty foolish, not me.


Proof again, that facts really do not slow you down.

No one yet has tried to portray me as a radical and everyone knows I am for civil unions. The key difference is I do not accuse everyone that disagrees with me of bigotry, I do not present movie scenes as things that might really happen (and forget to mention they are just movie scenes until called on the carpet), and I can deal with an objective fact when it is smacking me in the face.

Do you not find it odd Frank, that all these people can disagree with me yet respect me and that is not the case for you?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> While that may be true, I seriously doubt that they consider not support same-sex marriages the equivalent of gay bashing. I would say that is a radical view and not mainstream, but I didn't. I simply asked if you thought it was and you refuse to answer plainly.


I answered your question plainly, specifically and accurately according to my opinion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I answered your question plainly, specifically and accurately according to my opinion.


No you didn't. Once again I must say: Scroll up, Mr. Zawa-Rosie. Scroll Up. Post #46.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No you didn't. Once again I must say: Scroll up, Mr. Zawa-Rosie. Scroll Up. Post #46.


_> > Does simply not supporting same-sex marriages constitute "bashes_
_> > gay people" in your view?_

> IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing, 
> it promotes the other kind of bashing as well.

If you'd like an even more direct answer: yes it constitutes gay bashing, in my view.

As with the last 3500 years of human history, it's still politically correct bashing, but it's bashing nonetheless. Gay people are being denied the right to marriage because of who they are, not because of what they do. If you don't believe that, I don't know what else to say except that even our courts now consider it to be established scientific fact.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> _> > Does simply not supporting same-sex marriages constitute "bashes_
> _> > gay people" in your view?_
> 
> > IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing,
> ...


That's #44. Try as I said #46 - the follow-up question.



ksinc said:


> FrankDC said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, that position not only amounts to civil and emotional gay bashing, it promotes the other kind of bashing as well.
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*So Frank....*

Do you think if one is against "gay marriage" but is for civil unions, that one is a gay basher?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Gay people are being denied the right to marriage because of who they are, not because of what they do. If you don't believe that, I don't know what else to say except that even our courts now consider it to be established scientific fact.


Really? I thought Rock Hudson was married at least once? And Cole Porter?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's #44. Try as I said #46 - the follow-up question.


To Wayfarer: No, not necessarily. I understand the word marriage carries significance well beyond the civil institution (in fact the institution itself is spiritual, not civil), that most religions fear they'll be forced to recognize something they consider to be immoral, etc. If gay people can receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples I really don't care what label you wish to put on in. But other countries have found, in a civil respect, artificial, expensive and ridiculous to maintain two (or more) labels for the same set of rights.

To ksinc, I think the idea of legally recognizing same-sex partnerships is very much a mainstream idea now. But the word marriage for them still frightens most people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> To ksinc, I think the idea of legally recognizing same-sex partnerships is very much a mainstream idea now. But the word marriage for them still frightens most people.


LMAO! How pathetic. You know that isn't the question.

I've really tried to give you every benefit of the doubt here. Apparently, you just can't be honest. Isn't it ironic how just the other day you used the words, "I'd really love to hear an honest answer ..."?

The only question that remains is whether you have enough conscience and/or self-esteem left to be bothered by your blatant exposure(s) or if you will just continue with your fraudulent, self-righteous indignance towards the 'stand-up' members of the Interchange?

Game Over, FraudDC.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

As with Wayfarer, I'd much have preferred discussing the issue at hand, instead of reading yet another personal attack.

Again (actually for the last time, as I won't waste any more time engaging either of you in "discussion") I point out the near complete lack of enforcement of AAR#1 in this forum. I state my opinions, you and WF can manage nothing except personal attacks. People who suffer through reading this thread can decide for themselves who's making the better points.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This message is hidden because FrankDC is on your ignore list.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

750+ views and counting.

Apparently not on many people's ignore list. I'd be most grateful if you and WF added me to yours.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I state my opinions, you and WF can manage nothing except personal attacks.


Yet another lie. I manage much more. The problem lies in that you would not acknowledge a fact contrary to your opinion if it was gnawing your leg off. If you wish me to place you on ignore so badly, feel free just to ignore me, and problem solved for you. Nary a bothersome fact will head your way.


----------

