WHO'S THE PARTY OF LINCOLN?

[chefmike]

TFool cleary isn't up to this, Quinn.

His obfuscation and prevarication skills aren't even on par with WMC...

Well, I guess you are that obtuse after all – so I’ll explain it as simply as possible. Try to keep up:

1.Trish made a comment about the US doing for Iraq what she felt Iraq should be doing for itself;
2.Guyone responded that “if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be accomplished by now,” which, by any reasonable act of interpretation, clearly puts the blame for Iraq dragging on with individuals who dissent against the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.
3.I responded by making clear that it was the Bush Administration’s poor planning and implementation that was responsible, following it up with a point about the effects said administration’s deleterious policies have had even among the Republican base.

Guess what? That response is entirely appropriate to the point at hand. You couldn’t deal with it, so you attempted to characterize said point – and by extension me – as dishonest. Once again, stop whining like a passive-aggressive teenage girl and stand behind your conduct – hypocritical though it may be.

-Quinn

No need to characterize. All I need do is put your quote in context with guyone's post.

Let's take a third look at guyone's quote-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.

So how do you make the leap from "blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?

You made a deliberate, aggressive attempt to distort the mans words and now that you've been called on it, you're sheepishly attempting to refine what you said. Passive-aggressive.

And I didn't come into this thread, I started it.

[chefmike]

And I didn't come into this thread, I started it.

[Quinn]

No need to characterize. All I need do is put your quote in context with guyone's post. .

Agreed, but let’s put the whole thing in so that simpletons like you can hopefully grasp what is painfully obvious to everyone else. Guyone responded to Trish’s posts on Iraq with the following:

. . . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.

Being smart enough to recognize this for what it is – the uninformed opinion of a 19-year old who lives at home with his parents – I responded with the following:

Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.

Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.

Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.

So, what don’t you get? Is it my use of clear, unambiguous, and well written English that confuses you? Would you prefer that I write it in Spanish? Maybe if I included a diagram with stick figures?

Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/impelementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).

Now, you can whine like a little bitch about distorting someone else’s statement to make my own argument (something you are known for) or making personal attacks (something else you are known for), but the fact is you are both a hypocrite and a fool whose opinions are among the least respected on this forum. Once again, be a man and stand by your conduct – even if it is hyporciritical.

-Quinn

P.S. Unlike you, I don’t engage in personal attacks and then passive-aggressively whine about someone else doing it. I simply do it when I feel it’s appropriate – like right now – and stand by it.

Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/impelementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).

Still using that word "respond"? Ok, I'll give you that word. But your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.

Like I said from the outset. "That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement."

Let's take yet another look at guyone's post and then your response-

Guyone said-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.

You responded-
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.

Yeah, that's the problem? See here, you start off in agreement then manipulate from there. Then, you strawman guyone's post "It's not a matter of poor planning......"

You're weaving a complex web of misrepresentation and manipulation.

[chefmike]

LMFAO...the goddamn left wing and their smoke and mirrors...

TFool is on the ropes....no...he's on the mat now...TFool is struggling to get up.....OOHHHH!!

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

And TFool has been knocked out once again!

LMFAO...the goddamn left wing and their smoke and mirrors...

See, this is the difference between human beings and sheep, sheep.

Human beings aren't constantly looking over their shoulders for the huckster. You are. You are because you possess a suspicious mind, distrustful of all people. Largely because your own intentions are bad.

So, being a good human being, I'll disregard the balance of your angry bullshit post as the ramblings of a bitter, old man.

[Quinn]

LMFAO!!!! That’s it????? That’s all you have?????? You know, TFan, though I’ve often disagreed with your positions on Bush and religion (we have actually agreed on things, too, like Israel, etc.), I used to think you were fairly intelligent. Clearly, I couldn’t have been more wrong in that regard as your grasp of basic written English couldn’t be more underwhelming. That said, let the lesson begin. This will probably hurt a little:

. . . your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.

OK, for starters let’s make sure you comprehend the meaning of the word “mischaracterize,” which is as follows:

Verb: mischaracterize

1. To characterize falsely or erroneously; to give a wrong character to.

Now, why don’t you explain to those of us who don’t live in an alternate reality how that portion of my response to Guyone’s post on Iraq, posted below, mischaracterizes his post as stating or even implying anything about the “Bush Administration’s poor planning” – rather than serving as refutation of his own ridiculous assertion that people whining is why we haven’t won in Iraq yet?

Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.

Face it, you just disagree with the post and don’t have a cogent argument to counter it. As such, you came out with the only intellectually bereft response you could: a ridiculous allegation not supported by even the most forgiving of interpretations, an allegation far more relevant to your own conduct than anyone else’s.

-Quinn

P.S. On a positive note, at least you’ve stopped hypocritically whining about my engaging in “personal attacks.” Now if we can just deal with your other glaringly obvious hypocrisy.

[Quinn]

LOL... I know, Chef. Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.

-Quinn

[guyone]

It's not poor planning on the part of the Bush administration. It's just that the left resents having one of their own dethroned. Sadam being a good little socialist will get the support of the left. So the left will do anything they can to undermine America's policy. Even to the detriment of America itself.