04 Mar 05
1 edit
I have a few. You have no intellect. You only spout what you have heard. The thought of thinking on the fly terrifies you. As it should. You are not capable.
I have another thought. You only want to prove your worth. The easiest way is to "adopt" the 'Easist' position. You have correctly assed that to be "anti US".
What your poor mind failed to tell you was that "thar' be bears in them thar' hills".
I am your worst nightmare. I call you a coward and you can't respond. Because you know it's true. Mighty lawyer. Huh. Who knew?
04 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightNot a bad thought. Do away with "lawyer" pap. Good idea.
Maybe there should be a separate SVW Forum?
After all... I don't really take pride in clobberin' stupid people. See my lenient attitude toward religious folk.
Come on mr. lawyer. Let's discuss the notion that Saddam was a good "ruler". If you dare. Lost your courage? Yer' balls dropped onto your "brief"?
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm in the Debate Forum to debate issues, not respond to delusional ranting and ravings. Your "knowledge" of Vietnam was so pathetic that you went on a 3 page rant about how Carter "abandoned" South Vietnam, when Saigon fell BEFORE he became President. Now go on and make some idiotic rambling and call people "chimps" and that rot; I talk to grownups, not morons.
I have a few. You have no intellect. You only spout what you have heard. The thought of thinking on the fly terrifies you. As it should. You are not capable.
I have another thought. You only want to prove your worth. The easiest way is to "adopt" the 'Easist' position. You have correctly assed that to be "anti US".
What your poor mind failed ...[text shortened]... you a coward and you can't respond. Because you know it's true. Mighty lawyer. Huh. Who knew?
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo. I lied.
I'm in the Debate Forum to debate issues, not respond to delusional ranting and ravings. Your "knowledge" of Vietnam was so pathetic that you went on a 3 page rant about how Carter "abandoned" South Vietnam, when Saigon fell BEFORE he became President. Now go on and make some idiotic rambling and call people "chimps" and that rot; I talk to grownups, not morons.
You are happy now that we lost Viet Nam and you want desperately that the terrorists win in Iraq.
Everything you have said proves this thesis.
If you don't think it is good that the terrorists win, speak now. We are all ears.
04 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "I'm in the Debate Forum to debate issues, not respond to delusional ranting and ravings."
I'm in the Debate Forum to debate issues, not respond to delusional ranting and ravings. Your "knowledge" of Vietnam was so pathetic that you went on a 3 page rant about how Carter "abandoned" South Vietnam, when Saigon fel ...[text shortened]... l people "chimps" and that rot; I talk to grownups, not morons.
Look who's talking ....... 😲 🙄
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsn't the usual location of a troll under a bridge, Ivanhoe? Some of us (except SVW) are actually trying to discuss an issue; have you become incapable of doing that or weren't you ever capable of doing that?
No1: "I'm in the Debate Forum to debate issues, not respond to delusional ranting and ravings."
Look who's talking ....... 😲 🙄
04 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI have an issue. You just are not smart enough to see it yet. I think you just say whatever is expedient and have no ability to support a point of view.
Isn't the usual location of a troll under a bridge, Ivanhoe? Some of us (except SVW) are actually trying to discuss an issue; have you become incapable of doing that or weren't you ever capable of doing that?
That is an issue worth debating. Because you portray yourself as a person of reason when it is a lie.
That is the best reason of all to cause a quarrel and pick a fight.
Sorry. You are not amongst your buddy lawyers anymore. Welcome to the world of debate. if you dare.
Ooops. Forgot to give an exact example. You say that Iraq would be better off with Saddam. I say the opposite. Why do you want him back?
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat four people? Was Cronkite one?
Wow!
You just hit the heart of Viet Nam.
the diff now is that we have more sources of news. The lefties who had decided to take the part of Moscow back then had no counter voice. I know it is hard for young kids to imagine. There was a time when four powerful people DOMINATED AND DICTATED REALITY. Lenin was right. "To control the masses, first co ...[text shortened]... gan didn't defeat. We are stuck with old Lenin's professors for an indeterminate time to come.
04 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes. But Dan Rather was the guy on the ground every night. He is the reason Pol Pot happened. You had to be there to believe it.
What four people? Was Cronkite one?
Sure we lost 65,000 troops. All (UN) nations combined.
But the vietnamese people never deserved the betrayal that cowards like marauder managed to give them. They are good people. they deserve better than slavery. Which is what they have to this day.
For anybody with enough guts and brains to examine the world as it is, instead of how their chimp vote went.