If the terrorists were men and not sissies and cowards hiding behind women and children, we wouldn't have to shoot up an entire house to get them. But that would be against your agenda to blame those responsible.

Why do we "have to shoot up an entire house" in order to get the terrorists?

That makes no sense.
Only a lazy person (or somebody without a moral compass) would think that shooting up an entire house to get to terrorists is rational.

Nobody is saying to ignore the terrorists.
We're saying we shouldn't ACT LIKE terrorists while we're attacking them...

Then let's take YOUR approach to combatting global terrorism.

It's real easy to be an arm-chair expert, and criticize everything - when you yourself are doing nothing but sitting on your lazy butt.

Jefferson, I HAVE served my country in the military.
Can you say the same?

But regardless, your "reply" isn't really a reply at all.
People who aren't actually over there can't argue for humane treatment of non-terrorist individuals?
Go back to your crayons...

Your silly over-reaction to everything, and everybody you don't agree with clearly paints the picture of you as a sissy armchair expert.

Jefferson, there were five sentences in that post you responded to. Four of them were arguments against your claim. One, an admitted jab, but hardly significant in my opinion.

I'm reacting to you with the same vitriol (if not less) that you show, yet it's me who is "over-reacting to everything"...

And AGAIN you respond with nothing but insults, ignoring the point made...

But to your claim: "everybody you don't agree with clearly paints the picture of you as a sissy armchair expert", that's just you and alias, who is obviously just following your lead because he isn't bright enough to come up with his own material...

Do you realize how the people who disagree with you "paint" you?

I saw a documentary earlier this year about Osama bin Laden... I think it was on History Channel around September...

Anyway, apparently Clinton chose not to bomb Osama bin Laden into the ground in the mid nineties because he was living in a camp with his wives and kids, and they were worried about the PR disaster of accidentally killing women and children.

Here are several irrefutable points:
1. You sit around and blindly bitch about EVERYTHING that is in any way connect with the Bush Administration. That proves that you are closed-minded and blind.

2. You go balistic anytime anybody says ANYTHING that is "less than positive" about the gay & lesbian lifestyle. You go off screaming about it being discriminatory and homophobic. That proves that you are overly-sensitive and hypocritical. You love to shovel it, but get all sissy about it when somebody shovels back.

3. You spout off about Iraq as if you're some expert, when the fact is you don't know anymore about it then the next redneck who's sitting around yelling things that are the opposite of what you yell. This proves that you're no different than Bubba.

4. You expect intelligent responses to STUPID posts you put up, while not all of your posts are even worth responding to. This proves that you are egomaniacal.

5. You have no sense of humor. This shows you to be a bore.



Did I leave anything out?

Actually, highly refutable...


Not true.
I support Bush on a variety of things. His actions in Afghanistan against the Taliban are an example. His attempts to revamp Social Security in preparations for the programs upcoming demise is another.
With that said, there are other issues which I don't agree with him on.

And on that note, is there any issue in "connection with the Bush administration" that you won't defend them tooth and nail on?
Because if not, then it is proof that YOU are "closed-minded and blind"...


<yawn>
"balistic (sic)" is your hyperbole.
And the rest of your statement is full of lies. People talking smack about gays is not discriminatory. I've already told you this, but you lie about my position anyways.

And the whole "get all sissy about it when somebody shovels it back" is just plain dumb. The only thing I have explicitly said is that people who try to use these stereo-types for the purposes of DISCRIMINATION are without justification. That's it.


What the heck are you babbling about here?
Because I think you're referencing a specific CONTEXT while trying to avoid PRECISELY what that thread was all about in the first place.


ROFLMAO!
Then don't respond.
My only point is that when an on topic point is made, and people ignore it in favor of blind insults, THAT is the "stupid post".
And for the record, you'll sit there and CLAIM my post is "stupid", but hands-down you'll prove incapable to SHOW WHY you think it's stupid.


I've got a great sense of humor.
I just have no tolerance for mindless partisanship, of which you are a perfect example.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

And, YET AGAIN, Jefferson can't seem to help himself in making me the center of attention and his SOLE topic of discussion.
With you so fixated on me and talking about me so much, you could make me into an "eglomaniac"...
<end sarcasm>

See? "Sense of humor"!

You've just proven EVERYTHING I said. Thank you!