This is someone who is flooding my email (through yahoo answers, not directly, which limits the space I can respond) with several threads at once, thinking it is a way he can ignore everything I tell him. He changes the subject every time I disprove something he says. I've tried to get him to email me directly, to keep it all in one thread, but he refuses. I will try to organize our conversation the best I can.
From: writersblock2006
Message: hahahahaha taking a page out of the Oreilly blame book -- blame others for what you are guilty of so you dont have to dispute the facts.
I read your fake quotes from democrats, and responded to each thanking you for proving my point in your own "facts" that only point ot how Kerry went onff all the tainted evidence by Bush -- and Ive given you links to videos and squashed every fact attempt you tried.
Its you who cant seem to rebut those and cal it opinion yet dont even botgher to watch them -- OR you have watched them and think the news was as doctored as the bush intel.
Bottom line -- since you wont discuss the facts is this.....for all your babble and ignoring of the facts, and repeating bsh propoganda, you are pathetic if you can talk so passionately for this administration and dare not sacrifice the very plan you speak so adamately about.
Ive served in the military -- Ive earned my freedom of speech .. have you?
Keep arguiing with opinions and avoid the facts...If you wetre man enough to stand by your words you would have enlisted by now
=======================
My reply:
You "read my fake liberal quotes"??? Could you give me one quote I sent you that you say is fake, and I will be happy to document exactly when and where it was said.
You gave me links to msnbc olbermann (the most liberal anchor in history) editorials, consider his opinions as a documented fact, and you made no comments about them. Give me a specific link, tell me what you think it proves, and I will absolutely respond. What you seem to do is flood me with editorials, and say they are evidence of something, but not of what.
It is very simple. Make your accusation about our President, and send me evidence to support it. Is it really that difficult to understand?
You are being the proverbial kettle, accusing me of not arguing facts. Back up what you say!
My past, present, and future occupations are none of your business. You brought up your military past, which I could care less about. I don't care if you were drafted, signed up during peace time to get money for school, or whatever. Bragging about it will get you nowhere.
Why are you still emailing me through yahoo answers? Why are you not emailing me directly, so we can keep this discussion organized? Are you afraid to keep a record of what you said? Are you afraid to look like a hypocrite?
=============================
as I said, he sends multiple emails, this one was in my box, before I sent out the above reply:
From: writersblock2006
Subject: Re: youre reaching now
Message: You need a friend -- buy a dog.
Why would I want to associate with a simple minded idiot like you, who
sounds like a high school student who watches the FOX news network.
Keep repeating the falicies this administration offers. It only shows
how weak minded you are if you cant distinguiish a lie from the truth
or a good leader from the worst president in the history of the office
-- AND 70% of America Agreeswith m---ever ask yourself why is that?
And if you still argue to support bush -- then its because you must
share his sneaky screw the world whats best for me mentaility.
Either way -- the fact that someone so outspoken as you seem to be
hasnt enlisted shows that you are as much a coward as our own president who
dares think himself patriotic but when action time came - he and you
cant seem to stomach your convictions.
Way to go repubs!!!
====================
I'm going to hold off on replying to this one, and see if he directly replies to my last response
=======
here is another I just received:
From: writersblock2006
Subject: Re: coward!
Message: you still have not responded to a single one of my facts!!!
SO just like bush accuses democrats of not passing a supplemtental bill, youre trying to get out of having to answer the 4 different areas I explored with you -- as you say.
You have said I went in 4 different areas -- yeet never responded to any one of them right?
So STFU idiot
================
My response:
This is why I wanted you to email me, instead of using yahoo answers, because I don't know when you wrote this, and what you are replying to.
REPEAT YOUR 4 FACTS FOR ME, AND I WILL GLADLY RESPOND.
I don't remember seeing "4 facts"
Simply number them, cite your evidence, and lay them out. I will respond.
For some reason, you can accuse me of "not responding to your facts" a thousand times, but you are unable to repeat your "facts" for me. Why is that?============
From: writersblock2006
Subject: Re: If you dont apologize, I understand....
Message: I guess you just saw it was Olbermann and reacted like O'Reilly did
with that idiot caller who he tried to say he would call FOX security on
for saying Olermanns name.
You saw the News Conference where Ari Fliescher was offered Bin Laden
didnt you?
Thats why you have transferred the arguement away from that fact and
have ttried to scramble the facts with stupid bickering.
Nice try moron!
=================
my response:
What are you babbling about, regarding O’Reilly and security?
I did not see a news conference where “Ari Fliescher was offered Bin Laden”. Send me the link for that, so I can respond. I have only heard about Bin Laden being offered to the Clinton administration, according to the L.A. Times: http://tinyurl.com/2g47lq
Of course, you will hypocritically say it isn’t true, because the 9-11 Commission found “no ‘reliable evidence’ to support the claim that Sudan made such an offer”. Somehow, you interpret that to mean, “There is evidence to prove it did not happen.”
You also accused me of sending you fake quotes, but you refuse to tell me which quote was fake, and you ignored that in your reply. Why is that?
And how can you accuse me of trying to "transfer the arguement away from that fact and
have ttried to scramble the facts with stupid bickering.", When I am the one who has asked you over and over, to email me using regular email, so we can keep track of each others responses? Do you not realize how hypocritical that is of you?
============
His eloquent responses (two emails, one immediately after the other):
Message: Im convinced you just need a friend.
Why would I email you moron, when Im doing just fine here as it is.
Youre the one whining about something so idiotic -- ooh email me tostop having to deal with the facts.
----------------
Message: because you cant dispute them.
good to see someones finally put a sock in that pie hole of yours.
-----------------------
===============
My response:
You are an absolute, idiot! You make accusations about our President, and avoid even attempting to back them up. And who do you think, "put a sock" in my "pie hole"? Do you think you did? Are you so blind as to think you have shown me evidence to support any of the blind anti-Bush rhetoric that foams out of your mouth?
Why do you talk a world series game, but put on a t-ball hat when you are challenged?
GIVE ME ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE INSULTS YOU USED AGAINST OUR PRESIDENT! YOU ARE UNABLE TO!!!!!
I have shown you are a hypocrite, over and over, and you continue to talk trash, avoiding sending me any of your "facts" which you claim prove your point.
-----
by the way, is this one of those quotes you claim is fake? I cite my sources every time I quote someone?
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record
Posted by nicolasraage
at 11:37 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 30 April 2007 8:03 AM EDT
From: My yahoo tool bar disappeared? Message: Greetings:
I am happy to debate any subject you want.
You won't find me wandering from the subject.
Here is a question I asked earlier.
"Why Would Condi Rice, Bush & Co Resist Congress Subpoenas?
If they've done nothing wrong why not clear the air by testifying and the government and America can move on?
Why continue the contentious situation of anger & gridlock?
When Clinton was President the GOP Congress served, and had honored, over 1,000 subpoenas."
So tell me why you think Bush has threatened to take this all the way to the Supreme Court and make an historical federal case out of it?
Of course I think, as the question implies, that they have a very lot of criminal, corrupt, unethical, dishonest and immoral conduct to hide; and they know it.
They can't admit it or risk adding perjury.
And that's why they resist the subpoenas.
What do you think?
=====================================
My reply:
Communications with the president is privileged information. The President has stated that by allowing a precedent of subpoenaing people regarding talks to him, would keep people from speaking their mind to him in the future. I think that is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Congress is trying to put people on trial, without accusing them of specific crimes. They are essentially digging in hopes of find something they can use politically. They are doing nothing more than grandstanding for political benifit.
As for "Bush making a federal case out of it", the democrats are the ones 'making a case' out of nothing. Why don't you tell them to quit wasting time
How would you feel if a judge called you in to talk under a subpeona. Do you have anything to hide? What if they ended up giving you traffic tickets after talking to you? That is not how the system works. You need to be accused of something specific, and have evidence to back up that accusation. You can't just drag people in for the sake of fishing for wrongdoing.
I've never heard of "1000 subpoena's to Bill Clinton", all I know is he fought whitewater ones, where his business partners were convicted, who he later pardoned.
=============================
From: My yahoo tool bar disappeared?
Subject: Re: So You're The 1 Out of Ten
Message: Now listen close..
Nobody has accused anyone of a crime. Name one Democart in Congress whos accused anyone of a crime?
But as I mentioned, which you didn't, one high level Bush staffer has taken the 5th Amendment.
One's been convicted of a crime.
Answer me this question: If Hillary had taken the 5th in the Whitewater investigation would you have said never mind?
It works like this.
People (police or congress) have suspicions because of things like no WMDs and no nuke program...
Then they do an investigation to try and find out what exactly happened and to GATHER EVIDENCE. If after interviewing the people in question you find no evidence of wrong-doing you drop it....(unlike the GOP & Clinton). If the evidence is there then you charge people with a crime. You don't charge them before the investigation. Who in hell does that?
BTW there's no such thing as executive privilege.
Nixon wasn't allowed to claim executive privilege
he was ordered to turn over the tapes and he resigned.
Bush could say we will answer the subpoenas in private session under oath and clear this whole thing up in a week.
They are acting like they've got a lot to hide.
================================
My reply:
First of all, conversations between the president and his staff ARE privileged. A physical audio tape containing such conversation is a different story. The democrats are trying to subpoena the memory of conversations out of people's minds, not review white house recordings.
As for the Bush staffer convicted of a crime, do you even know what he was convicted for? Perjury, for not remembering a conversation, with someone who also does not remember the conversation, about a case that was dropped. If that is your shining example of democrats conducting justified investigations, then you are truly sad. That will be overturned, eventually.
Hillary invoked 'spousel priveledge' several times during investigations, including those of peddling presidential pardons and clemency. Are you going to tell me she had something to hide, or are you going to be a hypocrite?
As for 'clearing it up in a week' by allowing under oath subpeona's, I already explained to you that the president has stated doing that will injure future communications between he and his staff. Do you not understand that?
You said, people have suspicions, and then investigate, and you mentioned no WMD and nuclear program.
What is it, specifically, they are investigating? And why are they limiting it to the administration, and ignoring congress for the same inquiry?
Are you suggesting that saddam did not have WMD, nor a weapons program? Are you suggesting the President "lied" for the war?
Posted by nicolasraage
at 1:00 PM EDT
Updated: Sunday, 29 April 2007 11:58 PM EDT
jorge_estrella, from yahoo answers
From: jorge_estrella
Subject: WMDs?
Message: I'm not sure why I am responding to this since you will just "prove" me wrong by claiming everything below is false...just like a certain president we know...Ignorance is bliss I guess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908426,00.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2741003.stm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1001-06.htm
================================
Reply from me:
What is the point you are trying to say? Are you trying to say Iraq did not have WMD? You have to be a bit more clear, or do you just flood someone with links hoping they don't read them? Well, I read them, and I don't know what you are trying to tell me with just links.
I only have 1000 more characters, so i will discuss only a few at a time, otherwise experience has shown me that we will have 5 threads going at once, and you (probably a typical lib) will start jumping all over the spectrum, avoiding everything I have shown you.
---------------
your first link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
Has to do with the Iran/ Iraq war. Do you need a history lesson, as to what went on back then? here is a short timeline regarding Iraq/ Iran. Read it, and tell me if you disagree with any of it:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnJkYLe2X_uzFYm5qsFGMaLty6IX?qid=20070401150239AAL9HSb
----------
Your second link is the same info as the first
---------
Your third link is the same info
----------
4th, same (are they all going to be the same?
--
5th, " "
What exactly are you trying to say? What is your accusation? That the U.S. and Great Britain did not want Iran to take over Iraq?
I'm not saying any of your links are 'lies', they are all saying the same thing, and I don't know what that has to do with today. Read my timeline, and get an understanding of the situation in the middle east back then.
no more space...
=====================
It has been quite a few days, and no response, so I emailed a followup regarding the last three links
=========================
Since you haven’t responded to my reply email about half of your links, I will assume you realize you were wrong.
I am now replying regarding the last three links you sent: http://tinyurl.com/2smmgz
http://tinyurl.com/35s7kd
http://tinyurl.com/2q8ej7
The first cites, “If the site had been used for producing or experimenting in chemical or biological weapons, there was no obvious sign that that is still the case.”
Is that your compelling evidence that WMD did not exist? Which is more compelling, that wmd were not there, or that Saddams Airforce General said he flew them to Syria before hand? http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
Do statements from reporters, such as, “But they (reporters) saw no obvious evidence of chemical weapons production” convince you that Saddam had not weapons program? Are you so naïve to think Saddam would invite reporters onto a military base to search for WMD, when he still had them there? Does that overpower over ten years of worldwide knowledge and evidence, including statements like this:
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
For your last two quotes, read my timeline, and tell me what you are trying to say:
http://tinyurl.com/2wx39u
Posted by nicolasraage
at 12:46 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 30 April 2007 8:30 AM EDT
