Harris wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I give a detailed, well thought out
argument, and you respond with personal insults and statements like "you
need to do more research." I see few if any relevant responses from you to
the issues I've raised.

Perhaps it is because, unbeknownst to you, that your arguments are not really well
thought out, and they require only a passing comment?

At least I'm arguing issues, and not just making personal insults.

No you're not. You're talking typical Liberal bull****.

Someday, (maybe) you'll learn the difference.

dxAce

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

At least I'm arguing issues, and not just making personal insults.

No you're not. You're talking typical Liberal bull****.

Then at least reply with your typical conservative bull****.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article et,
Harris wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I give a detailed, well thought out
argument, and you respond with personal insults and statements like "you
need to do more research." I see few if any relevant responses from you
to
the issues I've raised.

Perhaps it is because, unbeknownst to you, that your arguments are not
really well
thought out, and they require only a passing comment?

At least I'm arguing issues, and not just making personal insults.

Snip

Yes but your "issues" are personal and nobody else cares.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I give a detailed, well thought out
argument, and you respond with personal insults and statements like "you
need to do more research." I see few if any relevant responses from you to
the issues I've raised.

Perhaps it is because, unbeknownst to you, that your arguments are not really well
thought out, and they require only a passing comment?

Something for you to think about.

More likely that you can't offer a well thought out rebuttal to his
arguments.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
longwave wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I give a detailed, well thought out
argument, and you respond with personal insults and statements like "you
need to do more research." I see few if any relevant responses from you
to
the issues I've raised.

Perhaps it is because, unbeknownst to you, that your arguments are not
really well
thought out, and they require only a passing comment?

Something for you to think about.

More likely that you can't offer a well thought out rebuttal to his
arguments.

No it's more like if a person is to dense to understand then nothing you
can post will make a difference.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Doug Adler wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:22:16 GMT, "Arthur Harris"
wrote:

"clifto" wrote:
Harris wrote:

Well it isn't easy trying to find something that's not there. Clearly, by
March 2003 there were no WMD to be found, although that was the reason given
for rushing into war. How do you explain that to the grieving relatives of
those killed in action?

It's pretty obvious in the aftermath that they were liberals who wouldn't
have found anything unless they couldn't have avoided finding it.

So if there were massive amounts of WMD (as Bush said in his 2003 State of
the Union address), how come we found nothing?

Art H.

You ain't got a clue! Now go look in the mirror, I think your tin foil
hat is just a wee bit askew.

The pattern continues... You can't make a cogent argument based on the
facts, so you resort to personal insults.

Art H.

Telamon wrote:
Harris wrote:

Authorizing the president to use force is much different than "voting for
war."

By God you are right. Bush should have gone over there by himself with a
club. The nerve of him using our armed services for that purpose.

No, Bush seems to have an aversion to war when it involves him being in
harms way.

Art H.

Harris wrote:

Telamon wrote:
Harris wrote:

Authorizing the president to use force is much different than "voting for
war."

By God you are right. Bush should have gone over there by himself with a
club. The nerve of him using our armed services for that purpose.

No, Bush seems to have an aversion to war when it involves him being in
harms way.

What wars you been in Artie? You ever volunteer for any? You ever serve in the
Armed Forces?

dxAce

Harris wrote:

Telamon wrote:
Harris wrote:

Authorizing the president to use force is much different than "voting for
war."

By God you are right. Bush should have gone over there by himself with a
club. The nerve of him using our armed services for that purpose.

No, Bush seems to have an aversion to war when it involves him being in
harms way.

It would also seem that Kerry himself has an aversion to war when it actually
involves him being in harms way.

He got those medals just as fast as he could, anyway he could, and he ran, ran,
just as fast as he could!

A REAL 'hero' would have stayed with his men and completed his tour.

dxAce
A Navy and National Guard Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud Kerry.

dxAce wrote:

Harris wrote:

No, Bush seems to have an aversion to war when it involves him being in
harms way.

It would also seem that Kerry himself has an aversion to war when it actually
involves him being in harms way.

He got those medals just as fast as he could, anyway he could, and he ran, ran,
just as fast as he could!

Read the official Navy records. Three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a
Silver Star. Do you really believe someone goes out and says, "I think
I'll get shot today, so I can win a medal and get out of here?"

You dare to compare Kerry's military record with Bush's? Good luck.

Art H.