Monday, June 15, 2009

Bait

The first conservative or libertarian who wants to debate the issues here gets a cookie.

I'm out of cookies.

54 comments:

TJENKINS said...

Issue 1: Do you prefer your blow up dolls blonde or brunette?

TJENKINS said...

Alright serious question....What do you think of GOD KING OBAMA's stunning lack of comment regarding the Iran protests, where Ahmadinejad's forces are actively SHOOTING PROTESTERS IN THE STREETS and raiding dorm rooms to beat students? Do you think your GOD KING should maybe say something? Condemn the actions maybe?

TJENKINS said...

I know you're around Ian, your janitorial shift doesn't start for a couple hours yet.

TJENKINS said...

C'mon Ian, any comment of Obama's lack of sympathy?

Do you think it's his general hatred of democracy or is he just jealous that it steals print and TV time away from him? I think the latter, it's obvious his narcissism has him paralyzed and not knowing what to do.

Jim said...

Hey, I could take that bait. What kind of cookies are you out of?

TJENKINS said...

Obama just announced that through his deafening silence he has created or saved up to 1 million Iranian dissidents!

Ian McGibboney said...

Jim - Any kind you want. No one's bitten yet, so I have yet to go to the store.

Teej - Obama's smart to not speak too soon. Doing so could undermine the dissident cause, because the hard-liners could use the Western association against it.

TJENKINS said...

Other world leaders have spoken out against it, what possible damage could he do? He's a LIGHTWORKER and the greatest human ever born. You do understand Ahmadinejad's thugs are roaming the streets BEATING and SHOOTING women, children and students, right? how could Obama saying "hey uhh ummm guys uhh umm that's not right" possibly make it WORSE?

Maybe his teleprompter is in the shop so he doesn't know what to say?

Ian McGibboney said...

Obama's words carry a lot of weight, being the most powerful man in the world and all. If he were to speak out in favor of Mousavi, then Ahmadinejad could say that the movement is Western and thus Satanic, and clamp down even worse than it already has. If he stays in power, it could permanently damage U.S. relations and undermine our goals in the region. But, obviously, Obama is also not going to dismiss the developments to appease Ahmadinejad.

Obama's relative silence on the issue should not be confused with apathy or ignorance of it. This is a potentially history-making development, and deserves careful consideration.

TJENKINS said...

No one is saying he should support Mousavi, but he could..I don't know, maybe condemn the government thugs patrolling the streets killing dissidents, I guess maybe I'm not nuanced enough but that seems like a pretty deplorable state of affairs.

TJENKINS said...

Answer me this Ian, If you think speaking out against the Iranian government will get more people killed, explain why we're supposed to let them build nukes?

NOLA Progressive said...

Well you know we could always do what King George was so found of doing...Let's just start another war. Hell 3 fronts at one time shouldn't be any problem for the greatest nation on earth right? Absolutely not, and we all know that once the U.S. has a militarty presence somewhere we always fix what was wrong.

Go piss on someone else and tell them it's raining Teej.

TJENKINS said...

You're a fucking idiot. How do you go from me wanting Obama to do something as simple as denouncing the violence to advocating war?

Since I'm sure the LSD has fried what little brain you had allow me to let you in on a secret; GEORGE BUSH ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE YOU CAN STOP USING HIM AS THE CATCH-ALL BOOGEYMAN NOW.

NOLA Progressive said...

Thanks for the input Cheech. I ask what would you want our (yeah yours and mine; I'm sure that galls) to do? Any pronouncements or comments he makes will only be used to play the Western Devil interference card. Indeed it is U.S. interference in placing leadership that has led to much of the trouble we have with Iran now. So that doesn't seem like a good idea.


Again there is the whole military action thing, which dovetails nicely with the "Bomb Bomb Iran" crown, but we all realize what a tremendous cluster that would be. So what the hell Teej? What's got your shorts up your ass today? Your'e favorite contestant on Real World Road Rules challenge got kicked off? Haven't had time to tweet about the latest episode of The Hills? So what the hell let's stir up some shit about a Presidential move or lack thereof before we even see what the outcome may be. That's a smart move. Unless of course it winds up working out, then you just look like a whiny ass...oh wait...I see now, nothing to lose. Later on.

TJENKINS said...

So you douchebags whine when I'm mean and ridicule you, and you whine when I actually ask substantive questions about our president's lack of balls. All you do is whine it seems.

GOD KING OBAMA can simply say "He you know, killing women and children in the streets is maybe something a government shouldn't be doing". If he's too paralyzed with fear to express something as simple as that then maybe he should go back to organizing bums in Chicago or whatever the fuck he used to do.

NOLA Progressive said...

Exactly...you're absolutely right...on all points I concede to your logic, impeccable as it is, blah blah blah....you got it...right on...etc... I miss anything?

TJENKINS said...

Feigned uncaring, a sure sign of defeat.

TJENKINS said...

Issue 2: ObamaCare and why it will suck.

From the CBO's very own director:
"According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

So...wow, 1 trillion to remove 17 million people off the "uninsured" tally. What a fiscal GENIUS this Obama guy is.

I fully expect the CBO budget director to be fired and replaced with an ACORN employee very soon.

TJENKINS said...

Issue 3: Obama gets his own Pravda

"On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

How...GLORIOUS! Our dear leader and anointed GOD KING will have the media readily available to parrot his propaganda directly from his house! I don't even think Stalin got that kind of media dedication.

TJENKINS said...

Issue 4: MOST TRANSPARENT GOV'T EVAR!!

"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

He played you all for chumps. He has basically shit in all your mouths and is snidely laughing in your face...and you still clap wildly at everything he does. How does it feel to be such patsies?

C'mon people, let's DEBATE THE ISSUES

Ian McGibboney said...

C'mon, Teej, focus. You're starting to catch on to this whole issue thing, but like most wingnuts you have so much rage that you cannot stay on topic.

1) That actually sounds pretty cheap. A better return than what we're getting from the Iraq war, hey?

2) Are you kidding? TONS of reports have come from the White House over the decades. It doesn't mean a thing. On the other hand, Tony Snow of Fox News became Dubya's press secretary. Where was your outrage then?

3) I agree, he should release them. But no, that does not compel me to reject Obama's presidency as a whole.

NOLA Progressive said...

Okay absolutely let's dance...

1. From your very own cbo article.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

This doesn't sound to sound or sure. Especially since it does not appear to take into account any of the proposed 2 Trillion dollars in healthcare cost cuts guaranteed recently by healthcare providers. Awfully shaky ground to stand on, especially when such preliminary and sketchy research shows a net gain in the millions of those who will move from uninsured to insured.

In addition, the CBO also found that allowing the public to buy into Medicare or a Medicare-Like plan at any age prior to 65 would increase coverage and dramatically reduce costs. This is in essence what the public option is offering. Don't rely so heavily on one snippet of on entry that is not fully vested, especially when you are dealing with a topic as broad reaching and detailed as healthcare.

2. I'm not sure how having the leader of our country express his ideas which will be voted on by elected officials and weighed in on by the citizenry is a Stalin-like problem. I'd say start to worry about this when opposition is attempted to be suppressed in the media or censoring takes place. In other words if Obama shuts fixed noise down and strips opposing viewpoints from print, then you may have a point. Until then you smack eerily of a 9/11 conspiracy nut with this tripe.

3. I can't argue the fundamental point of your FOIA argument. I don't mean the played us for a fool piece, but I do agree with you on the not living up to his transparency pledge. This is my major issue with Obama since taking office, since it can be judged immediately on its merit unlike the majority of other issues. He has not released enough of the information on the torture program, Abu Grahib, or genera Taguba's report. I firmly support the FOIA suits to have this information released. I'd like to have a full accounting released to the country and ultimately the global community.

You have this snide idea that if you can find fault with a democratic candidate in anyway shape or form you have somehow proven the almighty righteousness of your ideology. Progressives/Liberals are actually quick to point out these flaws on their own, and be quite vociferous about them. I would have assumed you'd noticed this since you seem to hang out at the KOS quite regularly. There are floods of diaries taking the POTUS to task for any number of shortcomings.

TJENKINS said...

What does the Iraq war have to do with it? Can't you liberals DEBATE ISSUES with falling back on EVILBUSHMCHITLER talk? And no, 1 trillion dollars to insure a net total of 17 million is not a good return.

"Reports coming from the White House" is a lot different than ABC setting up shop and turning their programing over to Obama to spout his BS with no counterpoint. It's propaganda. People leave journalism positions to join admins all the time, Obama has had quite a few of them do it, but I guess it's only bad when Republican presidents do it, right?

So him turning his back on a key plank of his entire election campaign is cool with you? Got it dude.

NOLA Progressive said...

Your 1 trillion for 17 million is not a solid number, in fact is not necessarily even in the ball park. What do you see when the letters all come together in your head?

Ian's last comment didn't state Obama wavering on some key transparency issues was "OK with him". He stated that he had a problem with it,but would not throw the baby out with the bathwater (paraphrasing obviously). That's the problem with having a debate with you man. You butcher a simple statement to mean something else entirely.

Again I will concede a point you have made and agree. Obama has indeed brought on several media figures and consultants to his administration. That fact however doesn't amount to a Red Sqare conspiracy or some other Communist/Dictator aggrandizement.

TJENKINS said...

The 1 trillion for 17 million isn't MY estimate, it's the estimate of the CBO. It's not finalized because there is no actual bill yet, but it's all based off of Ted Kennedy's bullshit legislation he's putting together, and if you think Obama will exclude Kennedy's opinion and legislation you don't know Obama. He would get on his knees and suck the man off if he was sure the cameras wouldn't catch it. Kennedy's boondoggle will be the center piece of his shit pile "overhaul".

"Again I will concede a point you have made and agree. Obama has indeed brought on several media figures and consultants to his administration. That fact however doesn't amount to a Red Sqare conspiracy or some other Communist/Dictator aggrandizement."

ABC is turing over their nightly programming to the Obama White House gratis, and from what I hear most of ABC's morning and daytime programming that day will be devoted to reporting about it. He'll have a nice lectern to talk about how great he is and how important this UHC money pit is to "America's financial stability!" and he'll have no one to challenge him or question him..you know "hey Barry, how ya gonna pay for all this?". It's a fucking propaganda feed right from the White House disguised as hard hitting news. When did they EVER do something like this for Bush? Hell they didn't even do it for Clinton. They LOVE this simpleton and are willing to cash in whatever journalistic integrity they have left for a chance to sniff his ballsack for the night.

NOLA Progressive said...

Again I simply point out the cite I included in my earlier comment from the very same CBO blog article you quote that basically stated that the whole estimate was circumspect and highly evolving depending on policy measures that may or may not be included. No one senator writes a bill and has it pushed through intact. This bill is being debated, amended, morphed, cut, augmented constantly by a horde of people both qualified and unqualified to do so unfortunately. The point I'm making is that which you quote with certainty as if you commanded all of the information is not nearly as cut and dry and at your disposal as you make it out to be.

I seem to recall when there was a crisis at the beginning of the previous President's tenure the country bending over backwards to support him and do what we all saw as necessary to get through a difficult time. I'd say that is basically what we are seeing here. Will Obama betray his country and it's ideals wholesale as his predecessor did? That is something that remains to be seen.

Also if you don't think that Mr. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and the rest of that bunch won't be railing against anything that Obama states or puts forward in his time on ABC, then you are hitting a really good pipe my man. They are going to have people waving tea bags all around the country over and over for principles they mostly don't understand shouting from the rooftops that Obama is the antichrist, Stalin, Hitler, Fascist, Dictator to end all dictators.

So I'm not even going to entertain some notion that Obama is being graced with some bulletproof platform from which to issue his dictates.

TJENKINS said...

Oh sure Fox News will be the only outlet to criticize him, my point was it's highly unlikely he'll face any stiff competition from the people at ABC putting the travesty on. He'll basically have a free hour or so from ABC to say whatever he wants without challenge, do you really think Diane fucking Sawyer will hit him with hard questions? really?

And again with this Bush shit. I don't recall any news outlets, even the vilified Fox News, setting up shop in the White House and giving Bush hours of their programming in prime time to lay out his case for Iraq. Apples and oranges.

NOLA Progressive said...

Oh wow this is rich. In doing some reading I stumbled across the fact that the CBO report is evaluating a version of the healthcare bill that does not include a public option at all! Fantastic. So you're purporting how horrible this whole thing is and how much Obama is pushing it, and in fact, he isn't pushing this at all. He is rather using his "Stalin-like" media platform to push for healthcare reform with a public option which would drastically change the numbers on all of this.

This is what I get for even engaging in debate without being 100% in the loop. Damn. Take a day or two off of reading to spend a little family time and there are so many strawmen built it looks like a casting call for wizard of oz.

TJENKINS said...

You act as if the public option is something great, all it will do is drive out the competition and drive a stake through Obama's "if you like the healthcare you have now you can keep it" rhetoric.

NOLA Progressive said...

He says as the entire basis for his initial argument is null and void. There is no point in you and I even discussing the public option. I'd like nothing more than for our country to transition solely to a single payer system, so I seriously doubt that you and I can find any sort of common ground here at all.

I think that Obama will do more than most in his position to maintain private enterprise even in the health industry, but if exactly what you are saying transpires and for profit health insurance companies or murder by spreadsheet companies are put out of business I will have absolutley no problems with it whatsoever.

Now you and I can argue about the ethos of public and private healthcare until we are blue in the face, but it will do neither of us any good.

TJENKINS said...

So you have no problem putting millions out of business and even millions more losing access to doctors they've had for years merely for political gain?

HOPE AND CHANGE

NOLA Progressive said...

Like I said we really have nothing to discuss further on this issue. That you actually believe that makes the fact vivid. I just hope that the majority consensus pushes its representatives to voice their opinion.

TJENKINS said...

So at what point in your life did you start hating your fellow Americans enough to get practically giddy at the prospect of scores of them losing their jobs and businesses? Why are you so filled with hate?

TJENKINS said...

Oh by the way, here's a little addition to the ABC/Pravda news:

"It turns out the Director of Communications for the White House Office of Health Reform, since last month, is former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass, who left journalism last year to join the Obama campaign. This is leading some to wonder whether ABC News had the upper hand in landing the president for the primetime special as well as an interview on GMA and allowing two ABC News broadcasts to originate from the White House next week."
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/white_house_health_reform_communications_director_is_former_abc_news_correspondent_119126.asp

but but but Bush....

NOLA Progressive said...

Bush has nothing to do with this so stop being a petulant child. I only reference him or his administration when it is relevant and there is a legitimate parallel or link.

Although I do have a chuckle watching you freepers lose your minds about not letting businesses fail and the market "work itself out" all the time when Obama decides to save jobs, but let me talk about a threat to the murderous private insurance cartel and it's all about the jobs.

O.K. I'll redirect from the ad hominem now and address your statement. I would be giddy about those individuals who amass huge fortunes by denying care to those who diligently pay for it their entire lives until the one day that they actually need it they receive a 3 digit rejection code on an explanation of benefits denying critical and life saving care recommended by their doctor. I don't want to see joe schmo the rag picker lose his job no.

As for people being denied doctors they have had their entire lives...in the words of good ol jack...sell crazy somewhere else cause we're all stocked up here.

NOLA Progressive said...

As for ABC getting preferential treatment...boo freakin hoo! Perhaps they are; I certainly don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt. The bottom line is if this were a McCain presidency inviting Bill O Reilly or Sean Hannity or hell even Morning Joe to the whitehouse you would not be reacting this way. You always accuse Ian here of cribbing the latest liberal whining point from the KOS or somesuch, and you walk in here with this Hannity's America weak crap?!

Get over it man. Healthcare is a huge issue, and the POTUS is using a period of popularity to his advantage. Have you ever stopped to ponder why a majority of Americans support the president? Could it possibly be that they want many of the changes that Obama is proposing? Especially on healthcare? I'm sure you think that they will wake up and be dearly sorry for their complicity in Obamania, but see that's the thing...you're wrong. We may wish he had gone further, but most of us are just tired of this nonsense.

TJENKINS said...

"I don't want to see joe schmo the rag picker lose his job no."

Yes you do, you even said so. You can attempt to move the goalposts all you like, but you said you want those businesses that employ all those "joe schmo rag pickers" to close. I fail to see any other way to infer that statement than you hate American workers and want to see them unemployed to get back at "the man". Why do you hate "joe schmo" so much?

TJENKINS said...

Btw, love the "freepers" dig, go back to DU you fucking dipshit, and join in the Obama circle jerk free of opposing opinions.

You seem to have this belief that because you're a hyper partisan hack, that anyone that DARES oppose you must be one as well. I don't even watch Fox News because their blatant disregard for journalistic ethics is appalling, something you obviously only care about when it might affect your ONE TRUE KING. So take you little minstrel show on back to Skinner and his cabal of pederasts and walking vaginas, you're a pathetic waste of my energy.

NOLA Progressive said...

Have you ever been evaluated for a mental disability or specific learning disability? In all seriousness, because you are either mentally disabled in some way or you are just a total prick.

If it's the former I'd be happy to recommend some highly qualified evaluation staff.

So you begin the day with an argument that was totally shown to be bologna in an article from the CBO you used like a club that didn't even discuss what you wanted to tout...Then I point blank tell you that having a further discussion about the tenets of healthcare is pointless between us....Then you just denigrate into completely making stuff up...Hey have you ever thought about running for a Republican Congressional seat? I'm sure there is a bible thumping little town somewhere that would loooove you. LOL...I've said it before and faltered in my rationale decision to not entertain your juvenile pot stirring which is for no other reason than to get people with actual ideas and interest in civilized discourse. It looked as though you might actually be interested discussion rather than being a punk kid.

Enjoy yourself I'm sure you will bait someone else into an argument at least until they realize how much of a punk you actually are. Then they will move on from discussions with you and your like just like they moved on in November. Enjoy irrelevance.

NOLA Progressive said...

Foker Out!

Ian McGibboney said...

Teej: "Go back to DU you fucking dipshit, and join in the Obama circle jerk free of opposing opinions."

DU is anything but a circle jerk (at least in the worship-Obama sense). In fact, a lot of DU members sound just like you, Teej. They're very critical, sometimes to a fault, about Obama. Sometimes it's constructive; sometimes you get the sense that they don't know how to do anything other than criticize for its own sake. So that can be pretty irritating.

Of course, that also means that your notion of Obama as Infallible King of the Liberals is moot.

TJENKINS said...

You mean the same DU that bans you if you espouse any thought that does anything other than parrot far left liberal talking points...that DU? Yeah dude, they are JUST like me.


and NOLA, adios douchebag, go off and masturbate to job loss numbers since it's obvious thats what gets you off.

TJENKINS said...

Lol, An addendum to Issue 2:

"Health Systems Innovations Network, a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated (pdf) the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, "this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality."

President Obama, in a speech to the American Medical Association on Monday, declared of the price tag of health care legislation: "it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits."
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/16/report-kennedy-bill-would-actu


Awesome! "free" healthcare for all! The only way he could enact a boondoggle like this is taxing THE SHIT out of everyone, not just "the rich" you all hate so much. And bear in mind that estimates are never exact, especially when the government is concerned, I'd fully expect something like this to cost 5 or 6 trillion after all those corrupt Dems get their fingers on it. I'd never thought I would long for the days of Bush's shitty fiscal discipline.

Ian McGibboney said...

Teej, it's clear you don't read DU posts at all. If you did, you'd realize how petty and vindictive they are. Half of the posters are still bitter that Hillary didn't win the nomination. You'd fit right in on some of those posts.

As for health care: 1) Ensuring preventive care for all Americans would cost less than we pay now, because preventive care is cheaper than when taxpayers have to subsidize desperate, late-stage care like we do now; 2) $4 trillion over 10 years is not staggering. $679 billion over six years - a rough cost of the Iraq war - now that's staggering. If you're so hot about taxes, why not be angry about that? THAT'S "shitty fiscal discipline."

It would also help your cause if you didn't cite bean-counting corporate consultants and the American Spectator. Sort of undermines your accusation that I'm the mindless partisan robot around here.

TJENKINS said...

Lol, it doesn't matter if I cite the CBO or anyone else, you'll discount it for pure ideological reasons.

When did I ever say I wasn't pissed about the money spent in Iraq? I guess to you though it's OK for Obama to piss away money because Bush did it too?

I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone that thinks Dennis Kucinich is anything other than a joke.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, you certainly don't talk much about the spending in Iraq, but you do harp endlessly on a program that is not only in its planning infancy, but is a tiny fraction of the war cost and stands to do far more good. I don't understand how that could enrage you so unless partisan politics comes into play.

As for the Kucinich reference: what is that? Do you have a list of names and buzzwords that you use at random?

TJENKINS said...

Am I just supposed to blurt out random government spending I disagree with? Have you and I talked about war spending in the past?

How do you come up with that figure that this UHC crap is cheaper than the war? The figures I see show a little less than 900 billion spent on it in the last 8 years. How do you figure 4 TRILLION over 10 years is cheaper? Did they have math course at the community college you went to?

As for the Kucinich comment, you've said in the past you're close to him "ideologically". Which is sad considering he's as fucking looney left as they come.

Ian McGibboney said...

OK, that was an oversight on my part, I admit. Unlike you, I am occasionally wrong.

But that doesn't change my point at all, that you and people like you are suddenly outraged over government spending now that it stands a chance of going to something you don't like. And I say that any money spent to make health care more equitable in this country is worth it. By contrast, the war on Iraq has been expensive and not worth a cent.

I'm tired of this conservative mind-set that all taxes are automatically bad, especially since this argument is more of a convenient lie than anything.

TJENKINS said...

I notice people generally get tired of arguments once they realize they are losing one.

And by the way, I'm not "suddenly" outraged over government spending, Bush's spending was fucking retarded, a point I thought I got across by bemoaning his "shitty fiscal discipline" but I guess you're too fucking stupid to understand what I meant and just have to stick to your talking points.

Ian McGibboney said...

You said you had a long list of blogs of mine that you wanted to address. When I asked you for a second, you said you weren't going to make the effort. Maybe you should make the effort before accusing me of getting tired.

And one token phrase over Bush's efforts after you get called out on it doesn't lend consistency to your argument.

TJENKINS said...

My opinion on Bush's spending or the war has never been brought up HERE, or I would have said something. Sorry I don't have precognition and preemptively started posting my Bush policy dislikes as soon as I came here. Silly me for not thinking ahead.

When did I ever say I had a "long list" of blogs of yours I wanted to address? I know you like to make shit up to smear your opponents Ian, but c'mon don't be such an obvious liar.

Ian McGibboney said...

"Lol, Ian, looking through your past posts regarding Bush you did nothing but throw up straw man after straw man."

Later, after citing "There is no God": "There's others, but we'll start with that one."

In the real world, people back up their accusations. And you were only too happy to dredge one up, but balked at another. As far as I'm concerned, the burden's on you.

But like I said in that other thread you keep infecting, as long as your only goal is to harass and insult me, then I don't care if you don't follow up.

TJENKINS said...

I did back up my accusation you twit, you asked for ONE instance of it happening, and I gave it. Judging by your response to me actually proving you wrong I know providing MORE examples would only lead to lame excuses about you being on your period that day or whatever else you can think of to move the goal posts and demand ANOTHER instance of it happening.

Ian McGibboney said...

Then I asked you for another, one that might actually hold up, and you balked. And your constant, vitrolic, unfounded personal attacks on someone you don't even know are tiresome. It's almost like you're trying to drown out your complete lack of anything worthwhile to say with your harassment. Get lost.