Fmr. Mayor Giuliani: 9/11 never happened.

[crackedthesky]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/gma-interview-with-giuliani-draws-criticism/


There is no way this can be twisted or rationalized or justified to make anything Rudy Giuliani said anything but a flat-out, bold-faced, bull shit lie.



Edit, since people are incredibly picky, here's a disclaimer:

Rudy Giuliani has never uttered the words "September 11th didn't happen."
He just said, "We never had a terrorist attack under George Bush."

[Praetor]

Shit like this has been said a lot lately. Revisionist history has never been so easy.

[Machu505]

So every sentence he has ever spoken should now be void. This is awesome.

[crackedthesky]

So every sentence he has ever spoken should now be void. This is awesome.


I don't believe anyone said that...

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

So every sentence he has ever spoken should now be void. This is awesome.

"Noun verb -------" ?

[caveBEAR]

Guys, guys, guys, let's not be reactionary here. Think back a bit, it's very possible that Mr. Giuliani simply forgot about 9/11, I mean, remember how he hardly ever brought it up on the campaign trail?

[SunnyInPhilly]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/gma-interview-with-giuliani-draws-criticism/


This is why people hate Republicans. There is no way this can be twisted or rationalized or justified to make anything Rudy Giuliani said anything but a flat-out, bold-faced, bull shit lie.

And your fucking idiotic generalization is why people hate Democrats. See how that works?

[crackedthesky]

And your fucking idiotic generalization is why people hate Democrats. See how that works?

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware it was a generalization to call a registered Republican who ran for president on the Republican ticket a Republican.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware it was a generalization to call a registered Republican who ran for president on the Republican ticket a Republican.

No, it's a generalization to use a statement by him as a reason why people hate all Republicans. You sound like an idiot. Just stop.

[crackedthesky]

No, it's a generalization to use a statement by him as a reason why people hate all Republicans. You sound like an idiot. Just stop.

Oh, I see what you're getting at.
Here, I'll amend my post to make it less offensive. For the record, I never said "all" people hate "all" Republicans, that would just be stupid.
But here, just in case you don't believe me:
Keith Olbermann is the reason people hate Democrats.

[caveBEAR]

No, it's a generalization to use a statement by him as a reason why people hate all Republicans. You sound like an idiot. Just stop.

I think you're assuming they mean every Republican-registered citizen in America. I'm almost certain they mean Republican Politicians. I don't think it was as broad a generalization as you think it was.

[crackedthesky]

I think you're assuming they mean every Republican-registered citizen in America. I'm almost certain they mean Republican Politicians. I don't think it was as broad a generalization as you think it was.

It wasn't. And it definitely doesn't make me sound like an idiot. But hey, anything to dodge the elephant in the room, right?

[SunnyInPhilly]

Oh, I see what you're getting at.
Here, I'll amend my post to make it less offensive. For the record, I never said "all" people hate "all" Republicans, that would just be stupid.
But here, just in case you don't believe me:
Keith Olbermann is the reason people hate Democrats.

Unless you name a specific subset of Republicans that you're talking about, it's implied that you're talking about all Republicans. If that's not what you meant, then your statement was just poorly worded.

[Machu505]

I don't believe anyone said that...
The point I'm trying to make is that he constantly talks about 9/11.

[crackedthesky]

Unless you name a specific subset of Republicans that you're talking about, it's implied that you're talking about all Republicans. If that's not what you meant, then your statement was just poorly worded.

Which is probably the reason I apologized for my statement being poorly worded. I thought it might be obvious that I wasn't implying that everyone hates all Republicans; if this was the case, there wouldn't be any. I was more talking about that being the reason why people who hate Republicans hate Republicans.

[crackedthesky]

The point I'm trying to make is that he constantly talks about 9/11.

My bad, it went over my head. I thought you were being sarcastic and trying to make it out like I said that, lol.

[Machu505]

Shit like this has been said a lot lately. Revisionist history has never been so easy.
You can say whatever you like when no one calls you out on it.

[crackedthesky]

You can say whatever you like when no one calls you out on it.

It's not that people don't call him out on it, it's that they have a (D) behind their name so they just don't get why double-standards are all right.

[SunnyInPhilly]

You can say whatever you like when no one calls you out on it.

Good point. Like if someone were to promise that all of the healthcare debate in the senate would be televised on C-SPAN...

[crackedthesky]

Good point. Like if someone were to promise that all of the healthcare debate in the senate would be televised on C-SPAN...

Totally. John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Rachel Maddow, Contessa Brewer, Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews, and Ed Shultz totally haven't been playing clips of Obama saying that and pointing out that it didn't happen for the last two weeks.

[caveBEAR]

It wasn't. And it definitely doesn't make me sound like an idiot. But hey, anything to dodge the elephant in the room, right?

...? I thought I was on your side...? Was that angrily directed towards me?

[Machu505]

It's not that people don't call him out on it, it's that they have a (D) behind their name so they just don't get why double-standards are all right.
Stephanopoulos should have called bullshit as soon as it was said.
Good point. Like if someone were to promise that all of the healthcare debate in the senate would be televised on C-SPAN...
Exactly.

[crackedthesky]

...? I thought I was on your side...? Was that angrily directed towards me?

Not at you, lol. I was referring to him going two pages without mentioning anything the thread was actually about, and just trying to use things I never said to disprove me, meanwhile, letting the blatant fact that Giuliana LIED lie neatly beneath a carpet.

Stephanopoulos should have called bullshit as soon as it was said.


That would've been nice. But hey, that would require him to have some sense of actual journalism, and there's just no room for that in our world.

[x togepi x]

Unless you name a specific subset of Republicans that you're talking about, it's implied that you're talking about all Republicans. If that's not what you meant, then your statement was just poorly worded.

I highly doubt you speak in such a precise manner all the time.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Not at you, lol. I was referring to him going two pages without mentioning anything the thread was actually about, and just trying to use things I never said to disprove me, meanwhile, letting the blatant fact that Giuliana LIED lie neatly beneath a carpet.

So I'm required to defend what he said for some reason? I never claimed there was any validity to what he said. Not sure what you're trying to prove.

[crackedthesky]

So I'm required to defend what he said for some reason? I never claimed there was any validity to what he said. Not sure what you're trying to prove.

You're not required to do anything. Just don't walk in here, make things up, put words in my mouth, then tell me I'm wrong based on a simple misunderstanding on both our parts, then try to further whatever point you apparently don't even have by bringing up things nobody said about topics nobody was talking about? If you want to talk about Obama lying about C-Span, go make a thread for that. This one's labelled as a discussion about Giuliani's bullshit, and some of us are actually trying to talk about that without being attacked for things that haven't happened.

[SunnyInPhilly]

You're not required to do anything. Just don't walk in here, make things up, put words in my mouth, then tell me I'm wrong based on a simple misunderstanding on both our parts, then try to further whatever point you apparently don't even have by bringing up things nobody said about topics nobody was talking about? If you want to talk about Obama lying about C-Span, go make a thread for that. This one's labelled as a discussion about Giuliani's bullshit, and some of us are actually trying to talk about that without being attacked for things that haven't happened.

I never told you that you were wrong. I clearly said that it was poorly worded if that's not how the statement was intended. The fact that you've since removed the statement from your OP tells me that you agreed it was questionable. And if I have a statement to make, I will. Not really worried about whether you think it strays too far from your intended point.

[crackedthesky]

I never told you that you were wrong. I clearly said that it was poorly worded if that's not how the statement was intended. The fact that you've since removed the statement from your OP tells me that you agreed it was questionable. And if I have a statement to make, I will. Not really worried about whether you think it strays too far from your intended point.

I've said repeatedly that I found it questionable and that that's why I changed it. If you're trying to "get me" you're doing a pretty terrible job.
But yeah, now that we're clear that you're going to be in here just babbling about whatever you want with no regard for whether or not it bears any relevance, it'll be a lot easier for me to ignore you, knowing you didn't actually wish to take part in any reasonable conversation. Have a nice day.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I've said repeatedly that I found it questionable and that that's why I changed it. If you're trying to "get me" you're doing a pretty terrible job.
But yeah, now that we're clear that you're going to be in here just babbling about whatever you want with no regard for whether or not it bears any relevance, it'll be a lot easier for me to ignore you, knowing you didn't actually wish to take part in any reasonable conversation. Have a nice day.

You agreed it was questionable, yet said I had no point. Something doesn't quite make sense there. You have a nice day as well.

[crackedthesky]

You agreed it was questionable, yet said I had no point. Something doesn't quite make sense there. You have a nice day as well.

I didn't say your questioning of my word choice had no point, I said everything you said afterward had no point. Something you confirmed when you said you didn't need to take part in the conversation everyone else was having.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I didn't say your questioning of my word choice had no point, I said everything you said afterward had no point. Something you confirmed when you said you didn't need to take part in the conversation everyone else was having.

You're topic was about a Republican lie, and I brought up a Democrat that lied to illustrate that it happens on both sides. The fact that it doesn't advance your side of the argument doesn't mean it isn't relevant. If I had named another Republican who lied, I'm sure it would have been a great addition in your opinion.

[Machu505]

In defense of both the Pennsylvanian and Giuliani, people don't hate Republicans because they lie a lot. People hate Republicans because the policies they support negatively affect them. There is a difference.

[crackedthesky]

You're topic was about a Republican lie, and I brought up a Democrat that lied to illustrate that it happens on both sides. The fact that it doesn't advance your side of the argument doesn't mean it isn't relevant. If I had named another Republican who lied, I'm sure it would have been a great addition in your opinion.

Except for the part where I and several other people arguing about Giuliani agreed with you...
I didn't say don't bring it up. I said it doesn't negate Giuliani's lie.
Besides, there's a wee bit of a difference in saying that you'll broadcast the health care debate on C-Span and then choosing not to broadcast (some) of it, and saying 9/11 didn't happen. Especially when asked what qualifies you to be president and having nothing to say besides "I was there when 9/11 happened."
People didn't die because Obama didn't film his health care discussion. But maybe you should ask the families of the 9/11 victims which offends them more: Obama turning cameras off, or Rudy Giuliani using their families' deaths as a propeganda machine, then turning around and denying they even died.

[crackedthesky]

In defense of both the Pennsylvanian and Giuliani, people don't hate Republicans because they lie a lot. People hate Republicans because the policies they support negatively affect them. There is a difference.

I've already retracted my poorly-worded statement, but thank you. On the flip side, I'm sure a lot of people hate it when Democratic policies negatively affect them, too.

This is why the two-party system is an epic failure, lol.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Except for the part where I and several other people arguing about Giuliani agreed with you...
I didn't say don't bring it up. I said it doesn't negate Giuliani's lie.
Besides, there's a wee bit of a difference in saying that you'll broadcast the health care debate on C-Span and then choosing not to broadcast (some) of it, and saying 9/11 didn't happen. Especially when asked what qualifies you to be president and having nothing to say besides "I was there when 9/11 happened."
People didn't die because Obama didn't film his health care discussion. But maybe you should ask the families of the 9/11 victims which offends them more: Obama turning cameras off, or Rudy Giuliani using their families' deaths as a propeganda machine, then turning around and denying they even died.

I never claimed it negated Giuliani's lie. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. It was that I had no legitimate point, then we established that people in the thread agreed with both of my points. Then it was that my healthcare point wasn't relevant, and your saying you had no problem with me bringing it up. What exactly is your issue at this point? You just seem to be arguing points I never made now.

[coma]

You guys should both shut the fuck up. You know, being that you're arguing about nothing.

[crackedthesky]

I never claimed it negated Giuliani's lie. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. It was that I had no legitimate point, then we established that people in the thread agreed with both of my points. Then it was that my healthcare point wasn't relevant, and your saying you had no problem with me bringing it up. What exactly is your issue at this point? You just seem to be arguing points I never made now.

My point is that you're talking about things nobody else has even said, twisting things to make them look like they're in your favor when they're really neutral, and telling me I don't have a point? In psychology, we call this projection.
And my argument remains the same: You're just babbling about nothing to try to win an argument nobody is even having against you.

[crackedthesky]

You guys should both shut the fuck up. You know, being that you're arguing about nothing.

Thanks. That would be my point, but this guy keeps quoting me to make things up that I didn't do, and I'm not quite level-headed enough to let something like that go.
But you're right. We're three pages in and not even talking about what I created the thread for. I'll try to ignore this guy from now on.

[loveisdead]

You guys should both shut the fuck up. You know, being that you're arguing about nothing.
Agreed.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Thanks. That would be my point, but this guy keeps quoting me to make things up that I didn't do, and I'm not quite level-headed enough to let something like that go.
But you're right. We're three pages in and not even talking about what I created the thread for. I'll try to ignore this guy from now on.

Guys is plural, dipshit. And they're right. This is pointless. I'm done.

[coma]

This doesn't really surprise me. The Republican party is pretty much fucked for the time being, but if they just had one honorable politician at this point, it'd do wonders. They've become nothing more than a bunch of complainers, unwilling to compromise on anything while complaining when shit doesn't go there way.

For lack of a better term, they're 7.

[crackedthesky]

Moving on, does anyone know if Rudy has made any statements on this? You know, besides saying everyone should know he was excluding 9/11.

[crackedthesky]

This doesn't really surprise me. The Republican party is pretty much fucked for the time being, but if they just had one honorable politician at this point, it'd do wonders. They've become nothing more than a bunch of complainers, unwilling to compromise on anything while complaining when shit doesn't go there way.

For lack of a better term, they're 7.

I just saw a poll, and their frontrunner for 2012 is Mitt Romney. That guy is like, the biggest sleazeball I've ever seen outside of John Edwards. And surely Rudy won't try again...

[SunnyInPhilly]

This doesn't really surprise me. The Republican party is pretty much fucked for the time being, but if they just had one honorable politician at this point, it'd do wonders. They've become nothing more than a bunch of complainers, unwilling to compromise on anything while complaining when shit doesn't go there way.

For lack of a better term, they're 7.

Pretty sure that's an oxymoron.

[coma]

Pretty sure that's an oxymoron.

There comes a point where the way these politicians have been acting that you're left with no choice but to use the word 'honorable' as loose as you can possibly stand without laughing. At this point, I'd take one that doesn't insult everything they don't agree with, and makes strides towards actually helping instead of just bitching.

[crackedthesky]

Claiming that there isn't a single good politician in the country is a cop-out. If anyone truly felt that way, they'd either run to try to change it, or leave the country knowing it was run by criminals.
Nobody is perfect. I don't understand why anyone would expect their representative to be. They do, after all, represent the person who lives next door to you and disagrees with everything you say just as much as they represent you.
It's when they start doing things like Sam Graves and spending $300,000 to study whether "gothism" is a contagious disease that they really should just be stripped of all power.

[coma]

Claiming that there isn't a single good politician in the country is a cop-out. If anyone truly felt that way, they'd either run to try to change it, or leave the country knowing it was run by criminals.
Nobody is perfect. I don't understand why anyone would expect their representative to be. They do, after all, represent the person who lives next door to you and disagrees with everything you say just as much as they represent you.
It's when they start doing things like Sam Graves and spending $300,000 to study whether "gothism" is a contagious disease that they really should just be stripped of all power.

I more or less agree with this. The reason I'm so bitter, and I know this post wasn't directed towards me particularly, is because with the crossroads that this country is at, and what seem to be trying times both now and ahead, the only news we get is this constant back and forth. It's a bunch of high school drama at the grandest stage and I'm so tired of it. The GOP will do whatever it takes to drag Obama's name, agenda, cabinet, and party through the mud at every chance. I just want them to buck up and get to work on fixing the problems. The problems most people attribute to George W. Bush. Not Obama.

[crackedthesky]

I more or less agree with this. The reason I'm so bitter, and I know this post wasn't directed towards me particularly, is because with the crossroads that this country is at, and what seem to be trying times both now and ahead, the only news we get is this constant back and forth. It's a bunch of high school drama at the grandest stage and I'm so tired of it. The GOP will do whatever it takes to drag Obama's name, agenda, cabinet, and party through the mud at every chance. I just want them to buck up and get to work on fixing the problems. The problems most people attribute to George W. Bush. Not Obama.

Stephen Colbert put it perfectly:

"With the Democrats doing things behind closed doors, Republicans can't promote any of their suggestions, such as 'no.'"

[Mitch]

Moving on, does anyone know if Rudy has made any statements on this? You know, besides saying everyone should know he was excluding 9/11.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/giuliani-i-do-remember-sept-11.php?ref=fpb

[crackedthesky]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/giuliani-i-do-remember-sept-11.php?ref=fpb

Well, while I appreciate the apology and the clarification, he's still lying. We had several acts of terrorism perpetrated under Geroge Bush, especially after 9/11.

[Machu505]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/giuliani-i-do-remember-sept-11.php?ref=fpb
Oh Rudy I get it. I like how you're acting like something that killed thirteen people is worse than something that killed three thousand.

[crackedthesky]

Oh Rudy I get it. I like how you're acting like something that killed thirteen people is worse than something that killed three thousand.

What I like is how when someone shoots people at Fort Hood while Obama is President, it's a terrorist attack, but when someone shoots people at Fort Hood while Bush is President, it didn't happen.

[SunnyInPhilly]

There comes a point where the way these politicians have been acting that you're left with no choice but to use the word 'honorable' as loose as you can possibly stand without laughing. At this point, I'd take one that doesn't insult everything they don't agree with, and makes strides towards actually helping instead of just bitching.

I honestly think alot of politicians intend on doing good when they enter the field, but with the way Washington is, it's almost as if you have to stoop to their level and fight back or they'll continue to attack and degrade you until people start to believe them. It's a vicious cycle really.

[crackedthesky]

I honestly think alot of politicians intend on doing good when they enter the field, but with the way Washington is, it's almost as if you have to stoop to their level and fight back or they'll continue to attack and degrade you until people start to believe them. It's a viscous cycle really.

I agree completely.

[loveisdead]

I honestly think alot of politicians intend on doing good when they enter the field, but with the way Washington is, it's almost as if you have to stoop to their level and fight back or they'll continue to attack and degrade you until people start to believe them. It's a viscous cycle really.
Those are my thoughts on Obama.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Those are my thoughts on Obama.

I agree to a certain extent. I'm sure there are promises he intended on keeping that can't for certain reasons. Some things deserve an explanation as to why they can't be done though. Like the C-SPAN coverage I brought up. He may have addressed it and I missed it, but it only seems right to give the people an explanation as to why such a massive and important piece of legislation was promised to be broadcast and wasn't.

[crackedthesky]

Apparently, it's not terrorism unless Islam is involved:

"BLITZER: There — there was at least one terror attack on U.S. soil that happened after 9/11. I'm referring to the anthrax attacks in New York and in elsewhere.
What that a terror attack, do you believe?
GIULIANI: Well, as far as I know, the FBI has never been able to figure out who did it and has never designated it as a terror attack. I mean, I lived through that. I — there was...
BLITZER: But whoever was trying to do it was trying to terrorize a lot of people.
GIULIANI: Yes, but that was not done in the name — as far as we know, that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism any more than, you know, serial killers who..."

After which Giuliani goes on to say that he meant there were no ISLAMIC terror attacks under George Bush after 9/11. When asked about Richard Reid in a different interview, Giuliani said that happened before 9/11.

It didn't.


So, what Rudy MEANT to say was that no Islamic terror attempts after 9/11 happened under Bush, besides the Islamic terror attempt that happened after 9/11 under Bush, but we had one under Obama, and thus, we're less safe.
And the kicker?
Giuliani is referring to the Fort Hood shooting, which wasn't even a terrorist attack.

[Machu505]

Why doesn't anyone call him out on this retarded timeline he's using? Why can't we use 9/11 when referring to Bush's failures? He had more control in avoiding it than Obama did with Fort Hood, anyway.

[crackedthesky]

I agree to a certain extent. I'm sure there are promises he intended on keeping that can't be for certain reasons. Some things deserve an explanation as to why they can't be done though. Like the C-SPAN coverage brought up. He may have addressed it and I missed it, but it only seems right to give the people an explanation as to why such a massive and important piece of legislation was promised to be broadcast and wasn't.

I think this is something that always happens. There are things that Bush did which I thought were handled terribly, but I can give the benefit of the doubt on because the President is privy to information people behind their computer monitors are not. But there are some things I do think shoulld be explained. I'm not that worried about the C-Span thing; msot of the debate has taken place on C-Span. I can turn to C-Span and see them talking about it pretty much every day. I do wonder what they feel they can't say out in the open, but at this point, I doubt it's anything Obama can be faulted for. Pretty much everything wrong with this bill is the fault of Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman.
What I would like to know is why Timothy Geithner still has a job...

[xshady121]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/gma-interview-with-giuliani-draws-criticism/


There is no way this can be twisted or rationalized or justified to make anything Rudy Giuliani said anything but a flat-out, bold-faced, bull shit lie.
You have a way with twisting words to create something completely unrelated to what the actual quote was.


Perhaps you should lend your talents to The Huffington Post or Fox News? They always seem to post sensationalist claims that hardly resemble the content they're supposed to be headlining.

[crackedthesky]

You have a way with twisting words to create something completely unrelated to what the actual quote was.


Perhaps you should lend your talents to The Huffington Post or Fox News? They always seem to post sensationalist claims that hardly resemble the content they're supposed to be headlining.


I misquoted with the title because it's attention grabbing. That said, when someone says "we didn't have any terrorist attacks under Bush" and we did, in fact, have a terrorist attack under Bush, it's safe to assume that said person is either suggesting that a. said attack didn't happen or b. they are lying. If you'll read my posts, you'll clearly see that I did not argue the former, but the latter.

Unless you're going to try to suggest a third option in that he just happened to temporarily forget it happened...

[xshady121]

I misquoted with the title because it's attention grabbing. That said, when someone says "we didn't have any terrorist attacks under Bush" and we did, in fact, have a terrorist attack under Bush, it's safe to assume that said person is either suggesting that a. said attack didn't happen or b. they are lying. If you'll read my posts, you'll clearly see that I did not argue the former, but the latter.

Unless you're going to try to suggest a third option in that he just happened to temporarily forget it happened...

Oh I get it.

It's cool to put words in people's mouths as long as the ends justify the means.

I see.

[xshady121]

Here, let me try one.

OBAMA: THERE ARE 57+ STATES IN THE UNION. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws)

Am I doing it right?

[crackedthesky]

Oh I get it.

It's cool to put words in people's mouths as long as the ends justify the means.

I see.

My point was that he was lying. Intentionally flat-out lying. Just look at how he explained hismelf on Wolf Blitzer; he said he meant there were no "Islamic" terrorist attacks under Bush "after 9/11." And he was still wrong.

Here, let me try one.

OBAMA: THERE ARE 57+ STATES IN THE UNION. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws)

Am I doing it right?

Lol. Okay, you've made your point. Still, you're arguing against my title, and are you really going to try to say you've never once exagerrated to illustrate a point? Like I could see you being upset if I was actually trying to say that Giuliani said 9/11 never happened, but I'm not. I've let Rudy do the talking, everything I've posted so far outside of my title was a direct quote from the horse's mouth.
And the difference in these scenarios is this:
Obama admitted he said the wrong number, everyone moved on.
People pointed out to Giuliani that 9/11 happened, and he said there weren't any after that. People pointed out that there were several after that, and he said they didn't count because they weren't done in the name of Islam. People pointed out that some were done in the name of Islam, and he said he didn't consider them terrorist attacks anyway.

When given the opprtunity to clarify, one fessed up. The other made up reason after reason of why he's still right. Even though he isn't.

And, using my example from earlier, which is more outrageous? Nobody died when Obama said there were 57 states. But a lot of people died on Spetember 11th. Rudy Giuliani built his campaign on that. And for him to get on TV and suggest that it didn't happen - which he did, whether he used the exact words or not - is incredibly offensive.

[xshady121]

My point was that he was lying. Intentionally flat-out lying. Just look at how he explained hismelf on Wolf Blitzer; he said he meant there were no "Islamic" terrorist attacks under Bush "after 9/11." And he was still wrong.



Lol. Okay, you've made your point. Still, you're arguing against my title, and are you really going to try to say you've never once exagerrated to illustrate a point? Like I could see you being upset if I was actually trying to say that Giuliani said 9/11 never happened, but I'm not. I've let Rudy do the talking, everything I've posted so far outside of my title was a direct quote from the horse's mouth.
And the difference in these scenarios is this:
Obama admitted he said the wrong number, everyone moved on.
People pointed out to Giuliani that 9/11 happened, and he said there weren't any after that. People pointed out that there were several after that, and he said they didn't count because they weren't done in the name of Islam. People pointed out that some were done in the name of Islam, and he said he didn't consider them terrorist attacks anyway.

When given the opprtunity to clarify, one fessed up. The other made up reason after reason of why he's still right. Even though he isn't.

And, using my example from earlier, which is more outrageous? Nobody died when Obama said there were 57 states. But a lot of people died on Spetember 11th. Rudy Giuliani built his campaign on that. And for him to get on TV and suggest that it didn't happen - which he did, whether he used the exact words or not - is incredibly offensive.


You are too funny. Perhaps the personal life forum is more your speed. That isn't how logic works. Not even close.

[crackedthesky]

You are too funny. Perhaps the personal life forum is more your speed. That isn't how logic works. Not even close.

Neither is ignoring everything I said and pointing out one thing you dislike.

But anyway, I've amended my first post, and would change the thread title if I could, but I can't. And I've made clear several times what has or has not happened, so any further confusion will hopefully be avoided.

[xshady121]

Neither is ignoring everything I said and pointing out one thing you dislike.

But anyway, I've amended my first post, and would change the thread title if I could, but I can't. And I've made clear several times what has or has not happened, so any further confusion will hopefully be avoided.

PM A staff member, or Tristan. They'll fix the title for you.

[crackedthesky]

PM A staff member, or Tristan. They'll fix the title for you.

I don't know who Tristan is. But when I see one, I guess I'll drop them a line.

[xshady121]

Since you were offended I didn't dissect your retort point by point, I'll take a break from the Islanders game and do it, just for you big guy.

My point was that he was lying. Intentionally flat-out lying.
Or had a mental lapse. You know, like Obama with his states or McCain saying "I never saw anything like it". (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/franken-cuts-lieberman-off-wont-let-him-finish-floor-speech.php)
Just look at how he explained hismelf on Wolf Blitzer; he said he meant there were no "Islamic" terrorist attacks under Bush "after 9/11." And he was still wrong.
What was he wrong about?



Lol. Okay, you've made your point. Still, you're arguing against my title, and are you really going to try to say you've never once exagerrated to illustrate a point?
No. I don't put words in others mouths.
Like I could see you being upset if I was actually trying to say that Giuliani said 9/11 never happened, but I'm not.
Really? When I see "Guiliani: 9.11 NEVER HAPPENED", I read it as a quote. Since you typed it, you're saying he said it.
I've let Rudy do the talking, everything I've posted so far outside of my title was a direct quote from the horse's mouth.
Oh I see. So you're backtracking now.

And the difference in these scenarios is this:
Obama admitted he said the wrong number, everyone moved on.
People pointed out to Giuliani that 9/11 happened, and he said there weren't any after that. People pointed out that there were several after that, and he said they didn't count because they weren't done in the name of Islam. People pointed out that some were done in the name of Islam, and he said he didn't consider them terrorist attacks anyway.
Which were in the name of islam?


When given the opprtunity to clarify, one fessed up. The other made up reason after reason of why he's still right.
Debatable.
Even though he isn't.
Are you sure?


And, using my example from earlier, which is more outrageous? Nobody died when Obama said there were 57 states. But a lot of people died on Spetember 11th. Rudy Giuliani built his campaign on that. And for him to get on TV and suggest that it didn't happen - which he did, whether he used the exact words or not - is incredibly offensive.

You can't have it both ways. To say "which is more outrageous" is negligent. We're either for facts or we're not.

[crackedthesky]

Since you were offended I didn't dissect your retort point by point, I'll take a break from the Islanders game and do it, just for you big guy.


Or had a mental lapse. You know, like Obama with his states or McCain saying "I never saw anything like it". (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/franken-cuts-lieberman-off-wont-let-him-finish-floor-speech.php)



That's a pretty big mental lapse. And that isn't even my issue, it's that he was given at least three chances to correct his statement, and every time, he tried to give an excuse for why he wasn't incorrect. This is because he's trying to use a scare tactic to say America is in danger under Obama.




What was he wrong about?



Richard Reid was an Islamic terrorist who tried to blow up a plane in December of 2001.



No. I don't put words in others mouths.



I didn't put words in his mouth. He said no attacks happened. An attack happened. Therefore, he said that attack didn't happen. He didn't "forget" anything; he holds the record for bringing up 9/11 more than any other candidate since it happened.



Really? When I see "Guiliani: 9.11 NEVER HAPPENED", I read it as a quote. Since you typed it, you're saying he said it.



This I will give you. Again, I did it because I believe titles should attract attention, and I figured stating otherwise in my posts themselves would be enough for people to understand Giuliani didn't say it verbatim. Obviously, I was incorrect.



Oh I see. So you're backtracking now.



Backtracking what? Go back and read my posts. Everything I've attributed to Giuliani outside of my title, even in my very first post, has been a direct quote.



Which were in the name of islam?



Again, Richard Reid, December 2001. Giuliani basically said it doesn't count as a terrorist attack because... I'm not really sure why. He said something along the lines of the court didn't refer to it as one, but I'm pretty sure they did, and in any case, Reid himself has said that what he did was an act of terrorism on behalf of Al-Queda.



Debatable.



Not really; and in either case, one was a mistake, the other a mistake made during an attempt tos care people into voting one way over another. Giuliani himself has made it very clear that his point was that we "aren't safe under Obama." That's why he won't come out and say he was wrong, he keeps on making things up about why he was right.



Are you sure?



Again, Richard Reid. There's also the fact that the Fort Hood shooting, which Giuliani is referring to in the first place, wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an isolated incident.



You can't have it both ways. To say "which is more outrageous" is negligent. We're either for facts or we're not.

Let me clarify: it's more outrageous because he's using it to try to scare people. He is lying to people because he wants to influence their vote. When Obama made his 57 states slip, it didn't have anything to do with people voting. Giuliani is trying to suggest to people that they should vote Republican because we had a terrorist attack under Obama and not under Bush. In his own words, "it's zero to one." Which makes the whole "he forgot" scenario a lot less likely; he made this remark in his second interview, explaining the first. How do you "forget" to include September 11, then when apologizing for it, "forget" it again? That's not a mental lapse. It's a lie.

[xshady121]

That's a pretty big mental lapse. And that isn't even my issue, it's that he was given at least three chances to correct his statement, and every time, he tried to give an excuse for why he wasn't incorrect. This is because he's trying to use a scare tactic to say America is in danger under Obama.



Richard Reid was an Islamic terrorist who tried to blow up a plane in December of 2001.



I didn't put words in his mouth. He said no attacks happened. An attack happened. Therefore, he said that attack didn't happen. He didn't "forget" anything; he holds the record for bringing up 9/11 more than any other candidate since it happened.



This I will give you. Again, I did it because I believe titles should attract attention, and I figured stating otherwise in my posts themselves would be enough for people to understand Giuliani didn't say it verbatim. Obviously, I was incorrect.



Backtracking what? Go back and read my posts. Everything I've attributed to Giuliani outside of my title, even in my very first post, has been a direct quote.



Again, Richard Reid, December 2001. Giuliani basically said it doesn't count as a terrorist attack because... I'm not really sure why. He said something along the lines of the court didn't refer to it as one, but I'm pretty sure they did, and in any case, Reid himself has said that what he did was an act of terrorism on behalf of Al-Queda.



Not really; and in either case, one was a mistake, the other a mistake made during an attempt tos care people into voting one way over another. Giuliani himself has made it very clear that his point was that we "aren't safe under Obama." That's why he won't come out and say he was wrong, he keeps on making things up about why he was right.



Again, Richard Reid. There's also the fact that the Fort Hood shooting, which Giuliani is referring to in the first place, wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an isolated incident.



Let me clarify: it's more outrageous because he's using it to try to scare people. He is lying to people because he wants to influence their vote. When Obama made his 57 states slip, it didn't have anything to do with people voting. Giuliani is trying to suggest to people that they should vote Republican because we had a terrorist attack under Obama and not under Bush. In his own words, "it's zero to one." Which makes the whole "he forgot" scenario a lot less likely; he made this remark in his second interview, explaining the first. How do you "forget" to include September 11, then when apologizing for it, "forget" it again? That's not a mental lapse. It's a lie.

Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest of definition.

it could also be argued (although not by me) that Richard Reid was inflating his own ego. He also claimed at one time he was going to be the 5th bomber on 9/11, a claim believed to be bogus by every government agency.

Your final point is so devoid of any logic that to try to rebuke it would be impossible.

[crackedthesky]

Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest of definition.

it could also be argued (although not by me) that Richard Reid was inflating his own ego. He also claimed at one time he was going to be the 5th bomber on 9/11, a claim believed to be bogus by every government agency.

Your final point is so devoid of any logic that to try to rebuke it would be impossible.


You basically just told me that Fort hood was a terrorist attack but Richard Reid wasn't even though the only difference between the two is that Reid claimed to be a terrorist and Hasan... didn't. That makes no sense.

And I'm glad you feel that way. Looks like the feeling is mutual, but sitting here saing everything you say makes so little sense I can't possible explain why it makes no sense won't get us anywhere, will it?

[xshady121]

You basically just told me that Fort hood was a terrorist attack but Richard Reid wasn't even though the only difference between the two is that Reid claimed to be a terrorist and Hasan... didn't. That makes no sense.
No I didn't. That's not at ALL what I said. Not even close.

[crackedthesky]

No I didn't. That's not at ALL what I said. Not even close.

Fine.
You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.

It could also be argued that the moon is made of cheese and Rudy Giuliani is a transvestite.
Complete and total ambiguity doesn't make you correct.

[xshady121]

Fine.
You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.

Nope. Once again. NOT what I said.

[rawesome]

I don't see why anyone is even commenting on this situation. I realize it took Obama a few days to come out with a public speech, but I highly doubt he wasn't working on the situation behind closed doors.

[crackedthesky]

I don't see why anyone is even commenting on this situation. I realize it took Obama a few days to come out with a public speech, but I highly doubt he wasn't working on the situation behind closed doors.

I don't think you understand what the situation we're talking about is...

Giuliani didn't complain that Obama took three days to comment on the situation.
Giuliani said we never had a terrorist attack under George Bush. That's what we're talking about.

[crackedthesky]

Nope. Once again. NOT what I said.

Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest of definition.

it could also be argued (although not by me) that Richard Reid was inflating his own ego. He also claimed at one time he was going to be the 5th bomber on 9/11, a claim believed to be bogus by every government agency.





Really?

[rawesome]

I don't think you understand what the situation we're talking about is...

Giuliani didn't complain that Obama took three days to comment on the situation.
Giuliani said we never had a terrorist attack under George Bush. That's what we're talking about.
He said that while commenting on the situation, though. I thought this thread was about the revisionist history some famous conservatives have been trying to employ by pretending that nothing happened under Bush, which is brought up because of how this situation is being handled under Obama.

[xshady121]

Really?

Under the absolute, most literal definition of terrorism it could be. However, that doesn't mean it should be (or that I) consider it a terrorist attack.

[crackedthesky]

He said that while commenting on the situation, though. I thought this thread was about the revisionist history some famous conservatives have been trying to employ by pretending that nothing happened under Bush, which is brought up because of how this situation is being handled under Obama.

For the most part, yeah. We're talking about the revisionist history going on. I'm arguing that the fact that Giuliani, intead of correct his error, keeps making things up about why he isn't wrong, is apalling.

[xshady121]

Really?

And yes, inflating his own ego by claiming him to be more important than he actually was. See: the second thing I posted-- him saying he was an integral part of 9/11 when in reality he wasn't.

That doesn't mean I don't consider it to be a terrorist attack. You really need to improve your reading comprehension.

Here's a good site that will help you do so. It's intended for children but I'm sure it will work for you too.

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

[crackedthesky]

Under the absolute, most literal definition of terrorism it could be. However, that doesn't mean it should be (or that I) consider it a terrorist attack.

Yeah. But if one was going to make that argument (which I realize you aren't,) they'd have to do as I said earlier, and accept that Hasan is a terrorist and Reid is not, which is what Giuliani is apparently trying to do.
Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; I assumed you were implying it when you said it, when it seems more like you're implying that's what Giuliani is implying.

[J.C.]

If you've ever seen Rudy do national media, you'll know he relies overwhelmingly on talking points and platitudes to get him through interviews. Most politicians do. It's easier/safer to repeat the same stuff over and over again because you already know how it plays. It's when you start coming up with original thoughts on the fly that you're more prone to sticking your foot in your mouth. In this case, Rudy got caught saying something he hadn't actually thought through and the logic behind it was probably triggered by the fact he's spent so much time trying to convince himself and everyone else that George Bush kept us safe during his time in office.

[crackedthesky]

And yes, inflating his own ego by claiming him to be more important than he actually was. See: the second thing I posted-- him saying he was an integral part of 9/11 when in reality he wasn't.

That doesn't mean I don't consider it to be a terrorist attack. You really need to improve your reading comprehension.

Here's a good site that will help you do so. It's intended for children but I'm sure it will work for you too.

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm


Well, I just apologized and corrected myself, but thanks for being a complete asshole.
For the record, when you write something down, most people will assume you mean to imply something by it, not just to write down a bunch of random words then complain that people are "putting words in your mouth" when they take them to mean exactly what you intended them to take it as. You don't have an argument; you have the most elaborate straw man I've ever seen. You might as well be Glenn Beck, you're going around saying "I'm not saying this, and I don't think this, but isn't it possible this is true?" and then flying off the handle when it's brought to your attention that it's an absurdity.

[xshady121]

Fine.
You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.

It could also be argued that the moon is made of cheese and Rudy Giuliani is a transvestite.
Complete and total ambiguity doesn't make you correct.

Yeah. But if one was going to make that argument (which I realize you aren't,) they'd have to do as I said earlier, and accept that Hasan is a terrorist and Reid is not, which is what Giuliani is apparently trying to do.
Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; I assumed you were implying it when you said it, when it seems more like you're implying that's what Giuliani is implying.

Really? You seemed to do a damn good job.

see:

Fine.
You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.



And to be 100% honest, I don't see how if you apply the most literal, most loose definition of terrorism possible, that both of these wouldn't be considered terrorst attacks (Reid and Hassan). You saying only Hassan's would be is flat out wrong.

[J.C.]

I don't think you understand what the situation we're talking about is...

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/the-situation_293x416.jpg

?

[crackedthesky]

If you've ever seen Rudy do national media, you'll know he relies overwhelmingly on talking points and platitudes to get him through interviews. Most politicians do. It's easier/safer to repeat the same stuff over and over again because you already know how it plays. It's when you start coming up with original thoughts on the fly that you're more prone to sticking your foot in your mouth. In this case, Rudy got caught saying something he hadn't actually thought through and the logic behind it was probably triggered by the fact he's spent so much time trying to convince himself and everyone else that George Bush kept us safe during his time in office.


This is true.
However, when you're given three chances to correct yourself, with the correct answer literally handed to you on a silver plate, a rational person would, say, take this chance, rather than continue to make more things up.

[xshady121]

Well, I just apologized and corrected myself, but thanks for being a complete asshole.
For the record, when you write something down, most people will assume you mean to imply something by it, not just to write down a bunch of random words then complain that people are "putting words in your mouth" when they take them to mean exactly what you intended them to take it as. You don't have an argument; you have the most elaborate straw man I've ever seen. You might as well be Glenn Beck, you're going around saying "I'm not saying this, and I don't think this, but isn't it possible this is true?" and then flying off the handle when it's brought to your attention that it's an absurdity.


I never came remotely close to claiming anything you tried attributing to me.

You're talking about this post.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107221#post60107 221

In it I say two things.

1) the fort hood attacks are terrorist by the loosest definition possible. Does that mean I consider it one? No. Not even fucking close.

2) that reid had a big ego, and tried taking credit for shit he had nothing to do with. Does that mean I don't consider what he did an act of terrorism? I don't have any idea how you can come close to even thinking I said that.

So, for the record, I didn't write something down and mean to imply anything. I don't see how you can even think I meant to apply something, even if it was supposedly from my perspective or Mayor Giuliani's. You're looking for something that isn't there.

See: That UCONN reading comprehension link.

[maxvsmaradona]

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/the-situation_293x416.jpg

?

/thread

srs bznz is srs.

[crackedthesky]

Really? You seemed to do a damn good job.

see:




And to be 100% honest, I don't see how if you apply the most literal, most loose definition of terrorism possible, that both of these wouldn't be considered terrorst attacks (Reid and Hassan). You saying only Hassan's would be is flat out wrong.


I never said Hasan wasn't a terrorist. I said that he claimed not to be, and Reid did, but Giuliani completely ignored this fact.

As for putting words in your mouth, When I said:

You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.

The "it could be argued" was meant to apply to both things. You said it could be argued that fort hood was a terrorist attack, and you also said that it could be argued that Reid was not a terrorist. I wasn't trying to say that you said Reid wasn't a terrorist; you quite explicitly stated otherwise. My apologies for the ambiguous statement; I'm playing a zombie game right now, so I'm not entirely focused on my syntax.

[xshady121]

I never said Hasan wasn't a terrorist. I said that he claimed not to be, and Reid did, but Giuliani completely ignored this fact.

As for putting words in your mouth, When I said:

You said it could be argued that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack and that Richard Reid was not a terrorist.

The "it could be argued" was meant to apply to both things. You said it could be argued that fort hood was a terrorist attack, and you also said that it could be argued that Reid was not a terrorist. I wasn't trying to say that you said Reid wasn't a terrorist; you quite explicitly stated otherwise. My apologies for the ambiguous statement; I'm playing a zombie game right now, so I'm not entirely focused on my syntax.

Once. AGAIN. I never said it could be argued Reid wasn't. It can't be.


I said he made himself to be more important than he really was. He still was a terrorist though-- just not this mastermind he wants us to believe he is.

[coma]

Stop Fucking Arguing About Nothing. Jesus Kitty Litter Christ.

[crackedthesky]

I never came remotely close to claiming anything you tried attributing to me.

You're talking about this post.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107221#post60107 221

In it I say two things.

1) the fort hood attacks are terrorist by the loosest definition possible. Does that mean I consider it one? No. Not even fucking close.

2) that reid had a big ego, and tried taking credit for shit he had nothing to do with. Does that mean I don't consider what he did an act of terrorism? I don't have any idea how you can come close to even thinking I said that.

So, for the record, I didn't write something down and mean to imply anything. I don't see how you can even think I meant to apply something, even if it was supposedly from my perspective or Mayor Giuliani's. You're looking for something that isn't there.

See: That UCONN reading comprehension link.


When you said "Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest definition" followed by "it could be argued that Reid wasn't a terrorist," regardless of whether you were arguing that or not, I assumed you were saying these things for a reason. Since you've made it very clear that you yourself were not arguing this, coupled with the fact that I said GIULIANI seems to believe this, to which you've replied with nothing other than insults on my reading comprehension, it would appear you said these things side by side... just for fun, since you so explicitly stated you weren't implying anything with them. My apologies for not knowing you were saying things just to say them. Most of the people I debate have a point or a motive, I'm not used to someone coming along and saying things just because he likes the sound of his own typing.

[crackedthesky]

Once. AGAIN. I never said it could be argued Reid wasn't. It can't be.


I said he made himself to be more important than he really was. He still was a terrorist though-- just not this mastermind he wants us to believe he is.

And that's where our problem lies. Considering I never once said anything about Reid's ego, I'm not entirely sure why you ever brought his ego up. It's part of that "saying things just to say them" we talked about.

[xshady121]

When you said "Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest definition" followed by "it could be argued that Reid wasn't a terrorist," regardless of whether you were arguing that or not, I assumed you were saying these things for a reason. Since you've made it very clear that you yourself were not arguing this, coupled with the fact that I said GIULIANI seems to believe this, to which you've replied with nothing other than insults on my reading comprehension, it would appear you said these things side by side... just for fun, since you so explicitly stated you weren't implying anything with them. My apologies for not knowing you were saying things just to say them. Most of the people I debate have a point or a motive, I'm not used to someone coming along and saying things just because he likes the sound of his own typing.

ONCE AGAIN> NOT. WHAT. I. SAID.

You really really REALLY should check out that uconn link.

I SAID. AND I QUOTE.
"
it could also be argued (although not by me) that Richard Reid was inflating his own ego. He also claimed at one time he was going to be the 5th bomber on 9/11, a claim believed to be bogus by every government agency."

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107221#post60107 221

Now, where did I use the words "Reid wasn't a terrorist"?

Where?

I'm curious.

[xshady121]

When you said "Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest definition" followed by "it could be argued that Reid wasn't a terrorist," regardless of whether you were arguing that or not, I assumed you were saying these things for a reason. Since you've made it very clear that you yourself were not arguing this, coupled with the fact that I said GIULIANI seems to believe this, to which you've replied with nothing other than insults on my reading comprehension, it would appear you said these things side by side... just for fun, since you so explicitly stated you weren't implying anything with them. My apologies for not knowing you were saying things just to say them. Most of the people I debate have a point or a motive, I'm not used to someone coming along and saying things just because he likes the sound of his own typing.

When you time and time again misappropriate quotes to people (I've lost count, but in the name of academic honesty I'll go back and count them) then yeah, you prove that you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

[crackedthesky]

Stop Fucking Arguing About Nothing. Jesus Kitty Litter Christ.

I understand this is annoying.
However, if you were to try to legitimately talk about something, and I were to start childishly calling you names after every single post you made, would you not be a bit offended by this? Especially if I kept covering my tracks by saying the things I said weren't meant to have a point, but I was just saying them because?

I'd love to talk about the situatino at hand. That's why I started the thread.
Unfortunately, some people would rather pick out things that I didn't say or do which happen to have nothing to do with anything, and try to use them to insult me for no apparent reason.

[crackedthesky]

When you time and time again misappropriate quotes to people (I've lost count, but in the name of academic honesty I'll go back and count them) then yeah, you prove that you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

When you time and time again say things and then go back and say they didn't mean anything at all, and insult people for assuming you had a point, then you probably need to shut the fuck up.
Especially when half of the things you think I said about you were taken the wrong way and the other half were apologized for.

[xshady121]

6 times. Counting the title of the thread.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60108951#post60108 951
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60108661#post60108 661
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60108232#post60108 232
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107541#post60107 541
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107821#post60107 821

[crackedthesky]

ONCE AGAIN> NOT. WHAT. I. SAID.

You really really REALLY should check out that uconn link.

I SAID. AND I QUOTE.
"
it could also be argued (although not by me) that Richard Reid was inflating his own ego. He also claimed at one time he was going to be the 5th bomber on 9/11, a claim believed to be bogus by every government agency."

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60107221#post60107 221

Now, where did I use the words "Reid wasn't a terrorist"?

Where?

I'm curious.



Where did I say you said this?

[xshady121]

When you time and time again say things and then go back and say they didn't mean anything at all, and insult people for assuming you had a point, then you probably need to shut the fuck up.
Especially when half of the things you think I said about you were taken the wrong way and the other half were apologized for.

I'm still waiting for where I said Reid wasn't a terrorist.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I just posted the article on my Facebook with links to Wikipedia articles about 9/11, Richard Reid, the anthrax attacks, and the DC sniper. I wonder if anybody will try to defend what he said.

Of course they will. That's what they do. You're talking about the people criticizing Obama for waiting three days to talk about the underwear bomber when Goerge Bush took twice as long to talk about the same exact type of situation. Hell, these people don't consider it to have been an attack under Bush, only under Obama, despite it being the exact same thing.


Seems strange that you didn't have a problem when he referred to something like the DC sniper as a terrorist act, yet when it comes to Ft. Hood, your definition suddenly becomes so much more strict. How exactly is one a terrorist act and the other isn't?

[crackedthesky]

I'm still waiting for where I said Reid wasn't a terrorist.

I never said you said Reid wasn't a terrorist.
I said that you said it could be argued he wasn't, which is what I inferred from you saying he was inflating his ego. I have also, MANY MANY MANY FUCKING TIMES said that I understand this and have not brought it up since. You, however, bring it up in every single post, and I'm really not sure why. You're arguing against something I never even said.

[xshady121]

Where did I say you said this?

You're honestly too much.

Where did you say it? I bolded it for you.
When you said "Fort Hood was a terrorist attack under the loosest definition" followed by "it could be argued that Reid wasn't a terrorist," regardless of whether you were arguing that or not, I assumed you were saying these things for a reason. Since you've made it very clear that you yourself were not arguing this, coupled with the fact that I said GIULIANI seems to believe this, to which you've replied with nothing other than insults on my reading comprehension, it would appear you said these things side by side... just for fun, since you so explicitly stated you weren't implying anything with them. My apologies for not knowing you were saying things just to say them. Most of the people I debate have a point or a motive, I'm not used to someone coming along and saying things just because he likes the sound of his own typing.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60108951#post60108 951

Quotes generally mean I said that.

Here's a quick tutorial on how quotes work.
http://library.duke.edu/research/plagiarism/cite/directquote.html

So, once again, where did I say "it could be argued that reid wasn't a terrorist"

[crackedthesky]

Seems strange that you didn't have a problem when he referred to something like the DC sniper as a terrorist act, yet when it comes to Ft. Hood, your definition suddenly becomes so much more strict. How exactly is one a terrorist act and the other isn't?

I never said the DC sniper was a terrorist attack.

[xshady121]

Seems strange that you didn't have a problem when he referred to something like the DC sniper as a terrorist act, yet when it comes to Ft. Hood, your definition suddenly becomes so much more strict. How exactly is one a terrorist act and the other isn't?

Duh. Solid lines are only drawn when they behoove us!

There can't be a blanket definition of anything, because then we might be caught with our pants down from time to time.

[crackedthesky]

You're honestly too much.

Where did you say it? I bolded it for you.


http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=60108951#post60108 951

Quotes generally mean I said that.

Here's a quick tutorial on how quotes work.
http://library.duke.edu/research/plagiarism/cite/directquote.html

So, once again, where did I say "it could be argued that reid wasn't a terrorist"

I didn't say "you said Richard Reid isn't a terrorist."
I said "you said it could be argued that he wasn't a terrorist, even though you don't argue that."

I also said, once again, MANY TIMES that I went back and read it and I WAS WRONG. I TOOK IT THE WRONG FUCKING WAY. How many times do you want me to say that?

[crackedthesky]

Duh. Solid lines are only drawn when they behoove us!

There can't be a blanket definition of anything, because then we might be caught with our pants down from time to time.

Before you try to back up his claim against me, you might want to actually read the attributed quotes.
I never said the DC Sniper was a terrorist.

[coma]

itt: crackedthesky eats troll bait all day.

[xshady121]

I didn't say "you said Richard Reid isn't a terrorist."
I said "you said it could be argued that he wasn't a terrorist, even though you don't argue that."

I also said, once again, MANY TIMES that I went back and read it and I WAS WRONG. I TOOK IT THE WRONG FUCKING WAY. How many times do you want me to say that?
Didn't say it. It can't be argued.

That makes the misappropriated quote count 7.

[crackedthesky]

itt: crackedthesky eats troll bait all day.

I don't know what itt means.

But yeah, I'm really, really bad at letting things go, especially when people insult me.

[Josh Weinstein]

Wouldn't Seung-Hui Cho's case be considered an act of domestic terrorism under Bush's tenure?

[crackedthesky]

Didn't say it. It can't be argued.

That makes the misappropriated quote count 7.

PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE POST YOU JUST FUCKING QUOTED.
The part where I say I FUCKED UP AND READ IT WRONG AND YOU NEVER SAID THAT.

[xshady121]

PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE POST YOU JUST FUCKING QUOTED.
The part where I say I FUCKED UP AND READ IT WRONG AND YOU NEVER SAID THAT.

So is this the part of the thread where you come to me with your tail between your legs apologizing for taking my quotes grossly out of context, and realize that all along you agreed with everything I've been saying?

It feels like it is.

[crackedthesky]

Wouldn't Seung-Hui Cho's case be considered an act of domestic terrorism under Bush's tenure?

Depends on how you define terrorism. I don't think so, though; he was a kid with psychological issues who shot some people he didn't like. He didn't have national socio-political motives; that's the difference. That's also why I don't think Hasan should be considered a terrorist; he shot a bunch of people because he didn't want to go to Afghanistan, not because he wanted to assert Islam as the dominant religion in the world. But yeah, if you apply looser terms, I guess it could be.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I never said the DC sniper was a terrorist attack.

I never said you did. I said for some strange reason, you had no problem with that poster referring to the DC sniper as a terrorist attack, yet had to correct whoever said Ft. Hood could POSSIBLY be considered a terrorist act.

[coma]

It means that this guy is a troll, and is arguing with you for no other reason but the fact that you will argue back, like a dumbass. Stop eating that bait.

[xshady121]

It means that this guy is a troll, and is arguing with you for no other reason but the fact that you will argue back, like a dumbass. Stop eating that bait.

Hi. You're new here. You obviously don't know who you're talking about.

I'll let this one slide.

[xshady121]

I never said you did. I said for some strange reason, you had no problem with that poster referring to the DC sniper as a terrorist attack, yet had to correct whoever said Ft. Hood could POSSIBLY be considered a terrorist act.

Yeah. Let's forget about passive confirmation, amirite?

[Machu505]

Xshady is far from troll. I mean, I hated him when I first encountered him but he's grown on me.

[crackedthesky]

I never said you did. I said for some strange reason, you had no problem with that poster referring to the DC sniper as a terrorist attack, yet had to correct whoever said Ft. Hood could POSSIBLY be considered a terrorist act.

That guy made his post and then left the thread, and he was right about the others besides that. And I didn't "correct" anyone for saying Ft. hood was a terrorist attack... not sure where you're getting this. I said Giuliani is wrong to say Ft. Hood was but Richard Reid wasn't.

[xshady121]

Xshady is far from troll. I mean, I hated him when I first encountered him but he's grown on me.

Yeah. The respected regular is the troll. Not the guy who time and time again twists quotes and makes up words to put in people's mouths.

Wait, just look at the title of the thread!

Yeah, I'm the troll

[Josh Weinstein]

Depends on how you define terrorism. I don't think so, though; he was a kid with psychological issues who shot some people he didn't like. He didn't have national socio-political motives; that's the difference. That's also why I don't think Hasan should be considered a terrorist; he shot a bunch of people because he didn't want to go to Afghanistan, not because he wanted to assert Islam as the dominant religion in the world. But yeah, if you apply looser terms, I guess it could be.

I only bring it up because I feel that Obama shouldn't be blamed for Fort Hood, Bush shouldn't be blamed for Cho, and Clinton shouldn't be blamed for McVay. Guiliani is trying to suggest that if Obama was more responsible, he would have been able to prevent the Fort Hood Massacre. With these types of incidents, alot of people seem to point the blame at the commander in chief at the time.

[crackedthesky]

It means that this guy is a troll, and is arguing with you for no other reason but the fact that you will argue back, like a dumbass. Stop eating that bait.

Well aware. I apologize.

Hi. You're new here. You obviously don't know who you're talking about.

I'll let this one slide.

Not a troll. An asshole maybe, but not a troll.

Yeah. Let's forget about passive confirmation, amirite?

To be honest, I didn't even read his post until recently. And again, you're attributing to me things that never happened... for someone who is so adamently against people putting words in the mouths of others, I would think you wouldn't want to do that.

[crackedthesky]

So is this the part of the thread where you come to me with your tail between your legs apologizing for taking my quotes grossly out of context, and realize that all along you agreed with everything I've been saying?

It feels like it is.

I did that several posts ago. But you missed it, so here;
I apologize for misreading your quote. When you said "it could be argued that Reid's ego was inflated," I took that to be a suggestion that it could be argued he wasn't a terrorist rather than a statement that didn't mean anything at all, resulting in the ensuing confusion.

I won't expect the same of you misquoting me several times, and hey, I'll even ignore your being a complete asshole about it, as long as you actually READ it this time and stop bringing up something I corrected myself on a long time ago.

[crackedthesky]

Yeah. The respected regular is the troll. Not the guy who time and time again twists quotes and makes up words to put in people's mouths.

Wait, just look at the title of the thread!

Yeah, I'm the troll

Lol, I'm a troll? Now who doesn't know what they're talking about?
If you go click on my profile, you'll find that I've been a regular poster since May.
And that's not including the account I used before this one. But nice try.

I only bring it up because I feel that Obama shouldn't be blamed for Fort Hood, Bush shouldn't be blamed for Cho, and Clinton shouldn't be blamed for McVay. Guiliani is trying to suggest that if Obama was more responsible, he would have been able to prevent the Fort Hood Massacre. With these types of incidents, alot of people seem to point the blame at the commander in chief at the time.

I agree with this. It's easy to blame someone, hindsight is 20/20. I don't even blame Bush for 9/11. It happened under him, and he probably had signs of it that he didn't act upon... but the dude's the President. He probably has signs of a lot of shit, 99.9% of which ends up being nothing. We can't catch them 100% of the time, and it isn't the fault of a single man when someone slips through the cracks.

[SunnyInPhilly]

To be honest, I didn't even read his post until recently. And again, you're attributing to me things that never happened... for someone who is so adamently against people putting words in the mouths of others, I would think you wouldn't want to do that.

Do you always give a full paragraph response to posts you didn't even read? You didn't do yourself any favors with that statement.

[crackedthesky]

Do you always give a full paragraph response to posts you didn't even read? You didn't do yourself any favors with that statement.

I didn't argue with him because he didn't claim one person was a terrorist but someone in an equal situation wasn't.
I don't even know why you're harping on about this. What did you want me to do? Rip his balls off over it? Once again, I never acted like it was ridiculous to consider Hasan a terrorist. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see where I say why I think some people consider him to be one. I said I don't, and I said it was ridiculous for Giuliani to say Hasan was a terrorist but Richard Reid wasn't, on the basis that Reid claimed to be one and Hasan claimed to not be one.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I didn't argue with him because he didn't claim one person was a terrorist but someone in an equal situation wasn't.
I don't even know why you're harping on about this. What did you want me to do? Rip his balls off over it? Once again, I never acted like it was ridiculous to consider Hasan a terrorist. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see where I say why I think some people consider him to be one. I said I don't, and I said it was ridiculous for Giuliani to say Hasan was a terrorist but Richard Reid wasn't, on the basis that Reid claimed to be one and Hasan claimed to not be one.

Be consistent.

[xshady121]

I never said you did. I said for some strange reason, you had no problem with that poster referring to the DC sniper as a terrorist attack, yet had to correct whoever said Ft. Hood could POSSIBLY be considered a terrorist act.





To be honest, I didn't even read his post until recently. And again, you're attributing to me things that never happened... for someone who is so adamently against people putting words in the mouths of others, I would think you wouldn't want to do that.

Oh I see. We now agree with stuff without reading them.

That's not irresponsible at all.

[crackedthesky]

Be consistent.

Where was I inconsistent?

[xshady121]

I didn't argue with him because he didn't claim one person was a terrorist but someone in an equal situation wasn't.
I don't even know why you're harping on about this. What did you want me to do? Rip his balls off over it? Once again, I never acted like it was ridiculous to consider Hasan a terrorist. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see where I say why I think some people consider him to be one. I said I don't, and I said it was ridiculous for Giuliani to say Hasan was a terrorist but Richard Reid wasn't, on the basis that Reid claimed to be one and Hasan claimed to not be one.
Maybe he had a mental lapse. You know, similar to the one you had when you failed to point out that Mitch was wrong in his assertions and thus agreed with his statement.

[caveBEAR]

Soooo....what did I miss?

[IntoTheSun]

Soooo....what did I miss?

A bunch of petty arguing and phrase-picking...?

[crackedthesky]

Maybe he had a mental lapse. You know, similar to the one you had when you failed to point out that Mitch was wrong in his assertions and thus agreed with his statement.

How was Mitch wrong again?
And I didn't say "I agree, the DC sniper was a terrorist!" I said people would surely defend what Giuliani said.
And, once again, I didn't say it was wrong to call Hasan a terrorist, I said it was wrong to call Hasan a terrorist but Reid not one.

I don't know why you two can't seem to grasp that. Had Mitch said the DC sniper was a terrorist but Hasan was not, I might've had an issue with it. But he didn't. You're comparing two compeltely unrelated issues and trying to make me out to be a hypocrite because of it.

[xshady121]

How was Mitch wrong again?
And I didn't say "I agree, the DC sniper was a terrorist!" I said people would surely defend what Giuliani said.
And, once again, I didn't say it was wrong to call Hasan a terrorist, I said it was wrong to call Hasan a terrorist but Reid not one.

I don't know why you two can't seem to grasp that. Had Mitch said the DC sniper was a terrorist but Hasan was not, I might've had an issue with it. But he didn't. You're comparing two compeltely unrelated issues and trying to make me out to be a hypocrite because of it.
Mitch was wrong by saying the DC sniper was an act of domestic terrorism.

[xshady121]

A bunch of petty arguing and phrase-picking...?

I'm going to steal a photo from your profile page.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/customprofilepics/profilepic1040862_14.gif

[caveBEAR]

A bunch of petty arguing and phrase-picking...?

Seems like it. Soooo, just another Friday night?

[crackedthesky]

Mitch was wrong by saying the DC sniper was an act of domestic terrorism.

To quote someone else from this thread,
"By the loosest definition of the term..."

And again, that wasn't even what I agreed with. I agreed that people would defend what Giuliani said.


Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

[IntoTheSun]

I'm going to steal a photo from your profile page.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/customprofilepics/profilepic1040862_14.gif

Yup, pretty much what I expected.

[xshady121]

Seems like it. Soooo, just another Friday night?

Isn't the jets game the 4pm game tommorow? I wonder what your saturday night is going to look like when the sanchize tears apart your secondary.

[Machu505]

Seems like it. Soooo, just another Friday night?
The Politics Forum never fails.

[xshady121]

Yup, pretty much what I expected.

You picked the perfect time to jump in the thread.

[caveBEAR]

Isn't the jets game the 4pm game tommorow? I wonder what your saturday night is going to look like when the sanchize tears apart your secondary.

......:-(





Where's the crying emoticon?

I've already got two 6 packs ready to drink away another lost season....

[IntoTheSun]

Seems like it. Soooo, just another Friday night?

It's a little bit more hectic for a Friday night haha, people seem more angry or maybe just bored shitless. It'd be really funny if we just had a chill convesation amongst all the bickering, huh. Reminds me of this one skittles ad.

Missed seeing you around lately...I'm guessing you haven't been outside the politics forum much?

[IntoTheSun]

You picked the perfect time to jump in the thread.

I always have the best timing ever, and by the best I mean the worst. Not even kidding...

[xshady121]

......:-(





Where's the crying emoticon?

I've already got two 6 packs ready to drink away another lost season....

I can agree with that.

I don't like the Jets at all and to be honest, I like Carson Palmer.

I still feel like if he didn't get injured that one year, when they were real kick ass, they would have won the super bowl Was it 2006?

[xshady121]

I always have the best timing ever, and by the best I mean the worst. Not even kidding...

http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/2981/3996olive_branch.jpg

[xshady121]

To quote someone else from this thread,
"By the loosest definition of the term..."

And again, that wasn't even what I agreed with. I agreed that people would defend what Giuliani said.


Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

That wasn't what Giuliani meant though.

Using his absurdly stupid comment of "islamic attack" all of mitch's points would be rendered moot, sans reid.

[IntoTheSun]

http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/2981/3996olive_branch.jpg

Sorry, I do not know my plants well. Is this a symbol of peace or some obscure insult? :-d

[xshady121]

Sorry, I do not know my plants well. Is this a symbol of peace or some obscure insult? :-d

It's an olive branch, I'm not clever enough to come up with that subtle of an insult.

[IntoTheSun]

It's an olive branch, I'm not clever enough to come up with that subtle of an insult.

Gotcha.

Oop, looks like I killed the thread...wow.

[crackedthesky]

That wasn't what Giuliani meant though.

Using his absurdly stupid comment of "islamic attack" all of mitch's points would be rendered moot, sans reid.

I was quoting you, not Giuliani. "Under the loosest definition of the term, it could be." But it doesn't really matter, you weren't saying Hasan was, and I'm not saying the DC sniper was. :shrug:


Know what my real problem with you is?

The team in your avatar. Boo.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Gotcha.

Oop, looks like I killed the thread...wow.

Oops implies that it was a bad thing.

[coma]

Yeah. The respected regular is the troll. Not the guy who time and time again twists quotes and makes up words to put in people's mouths.

Wait, just look at the title of the thread!

Yeah, I'm the troll

Your post count has NOTHING to do with whether or not you're fucking trolling someone. The fact of the matter is, you didn't have to come in here and pick shit with this guy for 3 fucking pages. Ergo, you're the fucking troll. You may be respected, and you are definitely a regular, but to sit here and say you aren't trolling the thread is shenanigans.

[xshady121]

I was quoting you, not Giuliani. "Under the loosest definition of the term, it could be." But it doesn't really matter, you weren't saying Hasan was, and I'm not saying the DC sniper was. :shrug:


Know what my real problem with you is?

The team in your avatar. Boo.

They're unstoppable. Stanley Cup champions 2011. Put it in the books.

[xshady121]

Your post count has NOTHING to do with whether or not you're fucking trolling someone. The fact of the matter is, you didn't have to come in here and pick shit with this guy for 3 fucking pages. Ergo, you're the fucking troll. You may be respected, and you are definitely a regular, but to sit here and say you aren't trolling the thread is shenanigans.

For a thread denouncing revisionist history, you sure practice it with the best of them.

[crackedthesky]

Your post count has NOTHING to do with whether or not you're fucking trolling someone. The fact of the matter is, you didn't have to come in here and pick shit with this guy for 3 fucking pages. Ergo, you're the fucking troll. You may be respected, and you are definitely a regular, but to sit here and say you aren't trolling the thread is shenanigans.

Thanks. But hey, I'm the jackass who bought into it, so I'm at fault, too.

[crackedthesky]

They're unstoppable. Stanley Cup champions 2011. Put it in the books.

Haha.
I haven't watched the sport in a LONG time. Are the Devils still fucking amazing?

[coma]

For a thread denouncing revisionist history, you sure practice it with the best of them.

Go ahead and tell me what I revised, you know, instead of just writing your own comment off with a snarky finish.

Either way, I don't care, because I'm not hungry for troll bait tonight. Try again another time.

[xshady121]

Haha.
I haven't watched the sport in a LONG time. Are the Devils still fucking amazing?

Brodeur is. The Eastern Conference is miserable, sans a handful of teams.

But yeah, the devils still are one of the biggest teams in the new york area. Everyone in NY likes the devils; nobody likes the isles.

[xshady121]

Go ahead and tell me what I revised, you know, instead of just writing your own comment off with a snarky finish.

Either way, I don't care, because I'm not hungry for troll bait tonight. Try again another time.

I didn't come in here and "pick shit" with the guy. I called him out for his sensationalist title, then commented on one thing he said. He wrongly put words in my mouth. He admitted he was wrong.

I'm sorry. It wasn't me who killed your dog. I promise. No need to try and get on me for things I didn't do.

[crackedthesky]

Brodeur is. The Eastern Conference is miserable, sans a handful of teams.

But yeah, the devils still are one of the biggest teams in the new york area. Everyone in NY likes the devils; nobody likes the isles.

Yeah, I heard he just broke like a shitload of records, lol.

[coma]

I didn't come in here and "pick shit" with the guy. I called him out for his sensationalist title, then commented on one thing he said. He wrongly put words in my mouth. He admitted he was wrong.

I'm sorry. It wasn't me who killed your dog. I promise. No need to try and get on me for things I didn't do.

Exactly. YOU CAME IN HERE AND PICKED SHIT WITH HIM. Call it whatever the fuck you want, but it's what you did. Stop being a dumbass and just admit it.

[caveBEAR]

Exactly. YOU CAME IN HERE AND PICKED SHIT WITH HIM. Call it whatever the fuck you want, but it's what you did. Stop being a dumbass and just admit it.

Does someone else want to point out the irony that the argument had kind of died down before this guy posted his diatribe, or should I?

[xshady121]

Exactly. YOU CAME IN HERE AND PICKED SHIT WITH HIM. Call it whatever the fuck you want, but it's what you did. Stop being a dumbass and just admit it.

Oh. I see how it is then.

When we don't agree with what a person says, if we want to call them out on it, we can't. That's trolling, right?

I'm going to make a thread called "Obama is ... a muslim"

Don't you dare go in and tell me I'm being sensationalist. That'd be trolling?

amirite?

[caveBEAR]

Missed seeing you around lately...I'm guessing you haven't been outside the politics forum much?

Yeah, don't tend to stray outside the B-Sides forum and Politics lately. Been really busy with a project I've been working on, so I kind of use those two as a distraction, but I don't want to get too distracted, ha ha ha.

I'll have to make the Brand New thread, even with it's boring name, another stop on my list. :-)

[caveBEAR]

Oh. I see how it is then.

When we don't agree with what a person says, if we want to call them out on it, we can't. That's trolling, right?

I'm going to make a thread called "Obama is ... a muslim"

Don't you dare go in and tell me I'm being sensationalist. That'd be trolling?

amirite?

I was going to say I didn't agree with you, but then I'd be trolling. :rolleyes:

[xshady121]

I was going to say I didn't agree with you, but then I'd be trolling. :rolleyes:

Don't you dare pick shit with me bear.

[asmolitor]

just so we're clear and i can prevent extensive debate, we're agreed on giving george stephanopoulos a free pass on this one?

i clearly fell on the wrong side of the debate last year, re: lady on fox news calling for obama's assassination via euphemism. just wondering what the consensus is on newspeople not breaking script to clarify or rebuke.

EDIT: nevermind, machu's got it. mmm, search function.

[coma]

lmao, I can't get enough of it. You are SUCH a fucking troll it's not even funny.

No, you don't have to agree with someone, and you can definitely let them know. What you can't do, however, is string them along for three god damn pages, twisting everything they say to work in your favor, and otherwise just being a fucking tool about it. That, sir, is being a troll.

[xshady121]

lmao, I can't get enough of it. You are SUCH a fucking troll it's not even funny.

No, you don't have to agree with someone, and you can definitely let them know. What you can't do, however, is string them along for three god damn pages, twisting everything they say to work in your favor, and otherwise just being a fucking tool about it. That, sir, is being a troll.

Why don't you show me which post it was that I started "trolling" him.

Oh right, you can't. Don't you dare show me the post where he yelled at me for ignoring his points and not answering him back. Or where I agree with him, but he decides "I'm going to say you said x when you really said y". Quoting those posts would really hurt your cause.

Is this trolling you? Is calling you out for calling me out trolling you? Or are you trolling me? Can we each be trolling each other? Help I'm confused. Help me out interwebzmaster.

[caveBEAR]

lmao, I can't get enough of it. You are SUCH a fucking troll it's not even funny.

No, you don't have to agree with someone, and you can definitely let them know. What you can't do, however, is string them along for three god damn pages, twisting everything they say to work in your favor, and otherwise just being a fucking tool about it. That, sir, is being a troll.

I was entertained by their 3 pages of back and forth...your whining this late in the game does nothing for me.


Oh, and here's a penis; 8===D

[caveBEAR]

I wish I had enough capital to start my own srs bsns...

[xshady121]

I was entertained by their 3 pages of back and forth...your whining this late in the game does nothing for me.


Oh, and here's a penis; 8===D

I called him out for the title. It's sensationalist, and is nothing like what Giuliani said. The OP admitted it. No harm no foul.

Then, while I was agreeing with the OP, he said I said something that I didn't. Then for three pages he tried to understand what I said (while each time being more wrong than the previous time) until I finally spelled out what I originally said. This was followed by another page of him still not understanding what I said.

Then the internetz police showed up and called me out.

I've trolled people before. This wasn't trolling. If anything, it's made worse by the OP's stupidity.

[caveBEAR]

I called him out for the title. It's sensationalist, and is nothing like what Giuliani said. The OP admitted it. No harm no foul.

Then, while I was agreeing with the OP, he said I said something that I didn't. Then for three pages he tried to understand what I said (while each time being more wrong than the previous time) until I finally spelled out what I originally said. This was followed by another page of him still not understanding what I said.

Then the internetz police showed up and called me out.

I've trolled people before. This wasn't trolling. If anything, it's made worse by the OP's stupidity.

Ha ha ha, I know, I read the whole thing, I just can't believe this 100 post guy kept up the trolling lectures after you and Cracked's thing had kind of blown over.

Oh, and I made a penis.

[IntoTheSun]

Does someone else want to point out the irony that the argument had kind of died down before this guy posted his diatribe, or should I?

Haha, I wanted to say that actually, but with my terrible luck with timing I was afraid the thread was going to flame back up again before I could make the point.
Yeah, don't tend to stray outside the B-Sides forum and Politics lately. Been really busy with a project I've been working on, so I kind of use those two as a distraction, but I don't want to get too distracted, ha ha ha.

I'll have to make the Brand New thread, even with it's boring name, another stop on my list. :-)
Yay! This make me happy :]

Totally boring name I know. We've already decided the next one (since there's not much better to do in there, ha). But you'll have to go there to see what it is...
lmao, I can't get enough of it. You are SUCH a fucking troll it's not even funny.

No, you don't have to agree with someone, and you can definitely let them know. What you can't do, however, is string them along for three god damn pages, twisting everything they say to work in your favor, and otherwise just being a fucking tool about it. That, sir, is being a troll.

Just drop it dude.

[crackedthesky]

I called him out for the title. It's sensationalist, and is nothing like what Giuliani said. The OP admitted it. No harm no foul.

Then, while I was agreeing with the OP, he said I said something that I didn't. Then for three pages he tried to understand what I said (while each time being more wrong than the previous time) until I finally spelled out what I originally said. This was followed by another page of him still not understanding what I said.

Then the internetz police showed up and called me out.

I've trolled people before. This wasn't trolling. If anything, it's made worse by the OP's stupidity.

True. However, you're leaving out the part where I corrected myself and you still went on for two pages asking me to show you where you said the thing you didn't say regardless of me going "oh shit, you didn't say that, my bad." And you're also leaving out the part where something I didn't say in a thread that wasn't this one made me a hypocrite when compared to something I also didn't say in this one.

Not sure it's trolling, but I'm not the only one who fucked up.

[Machu505]

:sperm:

[IntoTheSun]

Why is the sperm so sad?

[caveBEAR]

:sperm:

Blue goo?

[caveBEAR]

Why is the sperm so sad?

He's homeless. Such a shame...

[Burn That Shit]

I was entertained by their 3 pages of back and forth...your whining this late in the game does nothing for me.


Oh, and here's a penis; 8===D

8=====================D

[crackedthesky]

:sperm:

Why is the sperm so sad?

I was going to ask the same thing, lol.
Maybe he knows he's headed for the hand?

[Machu505]

Why is the sperm so sad?
Poor thing came out expecting a vagina to be his new home. All he got was a sock.

You would be sad too.

[coma]

It doesn't surprise me that you were entertained by their back and forth, beer. You live in the politics forum, aka the pointless argument forum. I'm not really whining though, I'm just trollin' the troll.

[IntoTheSun]

He's homeless. Such a shame...

Too bad there's no egg emoticon.
8=====================D

It looks fragile.

And uh, this pretty much describes the Brand New thread...

[xshady121]

True. However, you're leaving out the part where I corrected myself and you still went on for two pages asking me to show you where you said the thing you didn't say regardless of me going "oh shit, you didn't say that, my bad." And you're also leaving out the part where something I didn't say in a thread that wasn't this one made me a hypocrite when compared to something I also didn't say in this one.

Not sure it's trolling, but I'm not the only one who fucked up.

Don't feed the trolls.

I'm talking about coma.

Why else would he come into a thread he had no business in and call someone out?

[caveBEAR]

8=====================D

Someone's overcompensating...

[xshady121]

I was entertained by their 3 pages of back and forth...your whining this late in the game does nothing for me.


Oh, and here's a penis; 8===D

It doesn't surprise me that you were entertained by their back and forth, beer. You live in the politics forum, aka the pointless argument forum. I'm not really whining though, I'm just trollin' the troll.

Beer! Now he's trolling you.

Quick, someone hide Machu! He's much to young to be exposed to trolls.

[IntoTheSun]

I was going to ask the same thing, lol.
Maybe he knows he's headed for the hand?

Poor thing came out expecting a vagina to be his new home. All he got was a sock.

You would be sad too.

Hahaha, living the life of a sperm is a tough deal.

[crackedthesky]

Don't feed the trolls.

I'm talking about coma.

Why else would he come into a thread he had no business in and call someone out?

When you called the OP stupid, I thought you were referring to me.
And he's called himself out as a troll, too :shrug:

Also, as for having no business in it, he was poting in here all night.
Usually to call us both stupid, lol.

[xshady121]

Hahaha, living the life of a sperm is a tough deal.

Get out of here! Women and children must evacuate the thread. There is a troll on the loose!

[caveBEAR]

It doesn't surprise me that you were entertained by their back and forth, beer. You live in the politics forum, aka the pointless argument forum. I'm not really whining though, I'm just trollin' the troll.

'Trollin' the troll'? Wow, what are you, fucking 9 years old? No, what happened was you got your panties in a bunch because people in the 'pointless argument' forum were having an, alas, pointless argument. It died down, then you came in and tried to start pointless arguments about it after the fact.

You call it 'trollin' the troll', I call it 'tools will be tools'.

Piss off.

[Machu505]

Beer! Now he's trolling you.

Quick, someone hide Machu! He's much to young to be exposed to trolls.
*hides virgin eyes*

[crackedthesky]

Hahaha, living the life of a sperm is a tough deal.


Sperm are alive?

O.O

NOBODY TELL THE PRO-LIFERS.
Instead of blowing up abortion clinics, they'll start blowing up teenaged boys.

[xshady121]

Sperm are alive?

O.O

NOBODY TELL THE PRO-LIFERS.
Instead of blowing up abortion clinics, they'll start blowing up teenaged boys.

I laughed.

[Machu505]

Sperm are alive?

O.O

NOBODY TELL THE PRO-LIFERS.
Instead of blowing up abortion clinics, they'll start blowing up teenaged boys.
I've killed millions. Nay, billions.

[caveBEAR]

Get out of here! Women and children must evacuate the thread. There is a troll on the loose!

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsH/7562-25474.gif
THERE'S A TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!!!






Thought you should know.

[coma]

lmao @ piss off.

hypocrisy looks good on you, beer.

[IntoTheSun]

Get out of here! Women and children must evacuate the thread. There is a troll on the loose!


Really now, this isn't the sinking of the Titanic haha.

You guys are about as trustworthy as politicians...now who's the real trolll? SHOW YOURSELF!

x
Sperm are alive?

O.O

NOBODY TELL THE PRO-LIFERS.
Instead of blowing up abortion clinics, they'll start blowing up teenaged boys.

Millions of lives saved for the mere sacrifice of one. He was a waste anyway...

[caveBEAR]

I've killed millions. Nay, billions.

I came up with a mathematical formula for this once; it was how many years old the average male is when he's killed enough potential babies to refer to himself as a 'destroyer of worlds'.



I think it was like 32.

[IntoTheSun]

If only Hilter had known...

[crackedthesky]

Millions of lives saved for the mere sacrifice of one. He was a waste anyway...

That's the most retarded logic I've ever heard... and probably what such pro-lifers would actually try to say.

I came up with a mathematical formula for this once; it was how many years old the average male is when he's killed enough potential babies to refer to himself as a 'destroyer of worlds'.



I think it was like 32.

I don't know, I know some guys who probably got there by 14.

[caveBEAR]

lmao @ piss off.

hypocrisy looks good on you, beer.

You'll notice all the other posts I'm making that have nothing to do with you? That's the difference between a contributor and a troll. The only posts you have in this thread is you whining about other people's posts. Congrats.

[xshady121]

Really now, this isn't the sinking of the Titanic haha.

You guys are about as trustworthy as politicians...now who's the real trolll? SHOW YOURSELF!

x


Millions of lives saved for the mere sacrifice of one. He was a waste anyway...

Fine, that's the last time I look out for you.

I'm taking my olive branch back. Fend for yourself!

[caveBEAR]

That's the most retarded logic I've ever heard... and probably what such pro-lifers would actually try to say.



I don't know, I know some guys who probably got there by 14.

Average. It's astonishing how high the Mormons pull the age.

[Machu505]

We all know dumpster babies, but what are these? Sock babies? Shower babies? Keyboard babies?

[caveBEAR]

We all know dumpster babies, but what are these? Sock babies? Shower babies? Keyboard babies?

Public restroom babies?

[IntoTheSun]

lmao @ piss off.

hypocrisy looks good on you, beer.

Who's nagging about pointless shit now, huh?

[IntoTheSun]

We all know dumpster babies, but what are these? Sock babies? Shower babies? Keyboard babies?

I'm never going near your keyboard. Ever.

[crackedthesky]

Average. It's astonishing how high the Mormons pull the age.

True that.

We all know dumpster babies, but what are these? Sock babies? Shower babies? Keyboard babies?

Well, for me at least, they're:

Hand babies, sock babies, blanket babies, sheet babies, shower babies, toilet babies, toilet paper babies, underwear babies, pants babies, shirt babies, carpet babies, hardwood floor babies, mattress babies, stomach babies...



And my favorite of course, your mother's face babies.






Your mother being a general term, not actually your mother. I've never met your mother. I'll bet she's nice.

[Machu505]

Public restroom babies?
Banana peel babies?

[xshady121]

True that.



Well, for me at least, they're:

Hand babies, sock babies, blanket babies, sheet babies, shower babies, toilet babies, toilet paper babies, underwear babies, pants babies, shirt babies, carpet babies, hardwood floor babies, mattress babies, stomach babies...



And my favorite of course, your mother's face babies.






Your mother being a general term, not actually your mother. I've never met your mother. I'll bet she's nice.

I don't know what the code for the rofl smiley is, but imagine it being inserted here.

[caveBEAR]

Who's nagging about pointless shit now, huh?

Right?

As well, I never understood why people refer to me as 'Beer' over 'Bear', I mean, beyond the fact that 'Bear' is my actual nickname and where the whole beer for the Bear thing came from, wouldn't you call someone by an animal before a beverage?

Oh, the internet, what a silly place.

[Machu505]

I'm never going near your keyboard. Ever.
I'm shocked and embarrassed that you would think me to be so unhygienic.

[caveBEAR]

Your mother being a general term, not actually your mother. I've never met your mother. I'll bet she's nice.

:lol:

[crackedthesky]

Right?

As well, I never understood why people refer to me as 'Beer' over 'Bear', I mean, beyond the fact that 'Bear' is my actual nickname and where the whole beer for the Bear thing came from, wouldn't you call someone by an animal before a beverage?

Oh, the internet, what a silly place.

I almost called you Beer the first time I saw you just because it comes first and is in all caps :shrug:

[IntoTheSun]

I don't know what the code for the rofl smiley is, but imagine it being inserted here.

:rotfl:

Right?

As well, I never understood why people refer to me as 'Beer' over 'Bear', I mean, beyond the fact that 'Bear' is my actual nickname and where the whole beer for the Bear thing came from, wouldn't you call someone by an animal before a beverage?

Oh, the internet, what a silly place.

Whatever you say, beer ;]

(Maybe they have a hard time spelling "bear" correctly...you are asking for too much from the internet.)

[caveBEAR]

I almost called you Beer the first time I saw you just because it comes first and is in all caps :shrug:

Guess I should have went with BEARfortheBEER. Oh well, live and learn. :shrug:

[xshady121]

:rotfl:



A+ effort .

[crackedthesky]

Guess I should have went with BEARfortheBEER. Oh well, live and learn. :shrug:

What? That maketh no sense. Beers don't need bears. No, beers don't need bears at all...

[xshady121]

Alright, you all deserve a hearty pat on the back for this effort tonight.

I'm sure I'll catch up with you all tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll be able to celebrate a Jets loss.

[caveBEAR]

What? That maketh no sense. Beers don't need bears. No, beers don't need bears at all...

I just imagined some short, bespectacled, frustrated park ranger storming off, muttering to himself, 'no, beers don't need bears at all!'

[caveBEAR]

Alright, you all deserve a hearty pat on the back for this effort tonight.

I'm sure I'll catch up with you all tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll be able to celebrate a Jets loss.

....where's my fingers crossed emoticon?

[Machu505]

Aye, may the Jets be beaten into submission.

[IntoTheSun]

Alright, you all deserve a hearty pat on the back for this effort tonight.

I'm sure I'll catch up with you all tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll be able to celebrate a Jets loss.

Uh-huh, because I totally give a damn about sports :-p

/kills thread love

[crackedthesky]

I just imagined some short, bespectacled, frustrated park ranger storming off, muttering to himself, 'no, beers don't need bears at all!'

That would be epic.




Who the fuck are the Jets, and what the fuck do they play?


:doesn't follow sports at all:

[caveBEAR]

That would be epic.




Who the fuck are the Jets, and what the fuck do they play?


:doesn't follow sports at all:

Football. They're from New Jersey. They're playing the Cincinnati Bengals (my favorite team) tomorrow in the first round of the playoffs, and it appears there is very little Jet love in the politics forum tonight.

[crackedthesky]

Football. They're from New Jersey. They're playing the Cincinnati Bengals (my favorite team) tomorrow in the first round of the playoffs, and it appears there is very little Jet love in the politics forum tonight.

Oh.
I'd rather play sports, than watch them.
But I don't usually play them, either.

[Machu505]

If the Ravens don't beat the Patriots on Sunday, I'm taking it out on you all.

Get scared.

[caveBEAR]

If the Ravens don't beat the Patriots on Sunday, I'm taking it out on you all.

Get scared.

That's OK, because depending on the outcome of the Cinci game, I may be 'trollin' them trolls' tomorrow night, just to make others feel my pain!


Troll's gotta troll.

[Machu505]

That's OK, because depending on the outcome of the Cinci game, I may be 'trollin' them trolls' tomorrow night, just to make others feel my pain!


Troll's gotta troll.
I only know one person who likes the Bengals; no one very much likes him and he hasn't hit puberty yet.

That's my impression of the Cincinnati Bengals.

[caveBEAR]

I only know one person who likes the Bengals; no one very much likes him and he hasn't hit puberty yet.

That's my impression of the Cincinnati Bengals.

Yeeaaah, that's not far off.

[SunnyInPhilly]

That's OK, because depending on the outcome of the Cinci game, I may be 'trollin' them trolls' tomorrow night, just to make others feel my pain!


Troll's gotta troll.

Depending on the outcome of the Eagles game, I'll be there with you. I plan on watching some Dancing on the Stars tomorrow night though, so don't count on it.

[zion the lion]

Sperm are alive?

O.O

NOBODY TELL THE PRO-LIFERS.
Instead of blowing up abortion clinics, they'll start blowing up teenaged boys.

When I was 15 me and my friend had a very lengthy conversation when I went to visit her in greece (we actually talked about it for days) about whether or not it was cannibalism when you swallow. We never came to a real conclusion.

[IntoTheSun]

Uhhh...

[caveBEAR]

Uhhh...

She's fresh off a thread entitled 'Lesbian SEX: Is it real sex?' so you'll have to forgive her.


On a side note, if any of you like the unintentional comedy of PersonalLifer's discussing sexuality, that thread is a must-read.

[IntoTheSun]

She's fresh off a thread entitled 'Lesbian SEX: Is it real sex?' so you'll have to forgive her.


On a side note, if any of you like the unintentional comedy of PersonalLifer's discussing sexuality, that thread is a must-read.

Oh good grief the PL, I love that place. It's like a huge pile of shit in there with a few nuggets of gold.

I will be reading that soon...

[crackedthesky]

When I was 15 me and my friend had a very lengthy conversation when I went to visit her in greece (we actually talked about it for days) about whether or not it was cannibalism when you swallow. We never came to a real conclusion.

...
Mind fucking blown.

[zion the lion]

She's fresh off a thread entitled 'Lesbian SEX: Is it real sex?' so you'll have to forgive her.


On a side note, if any of you like the unintentional comedy of PersonalLifer's discussing sexuality, that thread is a must-read.

Are you lurking that thread?

[zion the lion]

...
Mind fucking blown.

I had turned 15 (and crossed the international dateline and missed my birthday) on the plane ride there, you cant tell me that you didnt somewhat wonder the same thing when you were younger.

[IntoTheSun]

...
Mind fucking blown.

You were right all along, David, you were right all along...

[caveBEAR]

Are you lurking that thread?

When you see that thread title on the Discussion page, it's kind of hard not to look. Reading a few posts reminded me, however, that I wouldn't be posting in there.

[crackedthesky]

I had turned 15 (and crossed the international dateline and missed my birthday) on the plane ride there, you cant tell me that you didnt somewhat wonder the same thing when you were younger.

Never even crossed my mind. I don't think I'll ever sleep again.

You were right all along, David, you were right all along...

What?

[zion the lion]

When you see that thread title on the Discussion page, it's kind of hard not to look. Reading a few posts reminded me, however, that I wouldn't be posting in there.

That's the only reason I went in there, and I think I spiced it up a little.

Never even crossed my mind. I don't think I'll ever sleep again.



What?

How can the thought of killing potential babies cross your mind, but not the thought of a girl or a guy being a cannibal when they ingest your semen? I've wondered how many potential babies I'm blocking from leaving by being on birth control.

[crackedthesky]

That's the only reason I went in there, and I think I spiced it up a little.



How can the thought of killing potential babies cross your mind, but not the thought of a girl or a guy being a cannibal when they ingest your semen? I've wondered how many potential babies I'm blocking from leaving by being on birth control.

Nobody has ever ingested my semen, so I guess the two just didn't click :shrug:

[loveisdead]

Nobody has ever ingested my semen, so I guess the two just didn't click :shrug:
Sorry what? I'm as freaked out as you, but are you honestly telling me a girl has never swallowed for you? Jeeze.

[crackedthesky]

Sorry what? I'm as freaked out as you, but are you honestly telling me a girl has never swallowed for you? Jeeze.

I've had one girlfriend in my life. And we didn't make it that far. Even if we had, oral sex isn't something I'd ever ask someone to do.