Quote:

And yes, I do take personal attacks personally. When someone with a head bigger than he can hold comes on here and calls me stupid, tells me I can't formulate an argument, calls every one of my opinions uninformed, and is just all around an as$hole to me, I will call them that. In none of my posts before these attacks were launched at me did I ever say he was an idiot. I don't need to defend my intelligence against anyone, especiallt someone like that, but don't call me stupid and expect me to not take it personally.



I never called you stupid in this thread. I did say that you lacked comprehension, but that's based on the fact that judging by your replies, you did not comprehend what I said.

I believe I did explicitly call you stupid in that whole EU thread thing, but I was the last of a lot of people to finally cave in to your non-sensicalness (is that a word?) in that thread.

I only think that you can't formulate an argument because you, literally, rarely ever have one . You hardly actually rebuteanything; you just come back with "Liberal This" and "Liberal That" and a whole slew of assumptions every time. This is another one of those occasions. It's supposed to be Point -> Counter-Point.

On the 2 occasions I can recall you actually did make an actual rebuttal of a post of mine I thought you did an excellent job and I even made a point to say so. I was duly impressed with your arguments. Unfortunately I can't think of the topics right now.

I apologize if I am an "all around as$hole" to you. I do think you are often uninformed, highly reactionary, and are extremely stubborn, but I try my best not to be an [censored]. But you are very frustrating when you take things I said in an entirely different context, don't respond to any actual points made, and fire back with a bunch of non-sensical Anti-Liberal generalizations than actual facts, as you have in this thread.

You make HUGE assumptions in virtually every post you make that tarnish whatever it is you hope to say. In this thread alone they include:

1> I hate Bush.
2> I opposed the invasion of Iraq.
3> I think Saddam didn't have chemical weapons.
4> I think Saddam wasn't a threat.
5> I am a Liberal.
6> I oppose the continued occupancy of Iraq.

Believe it or not, you can like Bush, support the War, think Saddam likely had WMDs, think he was a threat, and still know not think that sufficient evidence exists to back the "WMD-Case" for entering Iraq.

Hell, I think OJ killed Nicole -- but I don't think the Prosecution did a good job of proving their case there either. Same thing we've got here. And a single shell is NOT a smoking gun.

Quote:

Everything I have ever said was directed at anyone who opposed the war with the reasoning being that we had no proof.



And we still don't. Not proof on the continued development and productions of CBNs anyways. There were plenty of other good reasons to invade.

If you can tell me how a shell that pre-dates the Persian Gulf War is proof that Saddam Hussein continued to develop and produce chemical weapons after the Post-Persian Gulf Sanctions, I would love to hear it.

Or, because obviously the first thing is impossible to prove...

How a single shell is proof that Saddam Hussein knowingly stock-piled and hid WMDs from UN inspectors that should have been destroyed in the mid-90's.

2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX Webpage 2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX