Dubya's September Gauntlet

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Oh this month looks like it will be fun for Bush & Co. They will be dodging stories and allegations all month long.

1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)

2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)

3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)

4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)

He might have to drag out Osama early to kill these stories.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Oh this month looks like it will be fun for Bush & Co. They will be dodging stories and allegations all month long.

1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)

2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)

3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)

4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)

He might have to drag out Osama early to kill these stories.[/quote]

And Kerry will still lose.

Perhaps the election could be decided by an Islamic arbiter?

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Perhaps the election could be decided by an Islamic arbiter?

CTL[/quote]

Man, when you get fixated on something (no matter how wrongheaded), you just stick to it. I can see why you would want to vote for Bush.

But I guess you decided to stop arguing the Islamic arbitration in that thread because you kept getting shot down. So sad...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Perhaps the election could be decided by an Islamic arbiter?

CTL[/quote]

Man, when you get fixated on something (no matter how wrongheaded), you just stick to it. I can see why you would want to vote for Bush.

But I guess you decided to stop arguing the Islamic arbitration in that thread because you kept getting shot down. So sad...[/quote]

No I crushed you in that thread and you walked away from it...

At least you were smart enough to realize how badly you lost.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']No I crushed you in that thread and you walked away from it...

At least you were smart enough to realize how badly you lost.

CTL[/quote]

Nice delusion you live in. Do you get cable there?

I wasn't even the main one arguing with you. I simply said that as long as no one was coerced, I was for it. Then I challenged you to present a case where anyone had been forced into religious-based arbitration and you couldn't do it. And here's the fun part, even if you had a case like that, it doesn't matter because I only said I would support it without coersion.

Are you done hijacking the thread now?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']No I crushed you in that thread and you walked away from it...

At least you were smart enough to realize how badly you lost.

CTL[/quote]

Nice delusion you live in. Do you get cable there?

I wasn't even the main one arguing with you. I simply said that as long as no one was coerced, I was for it. Then I challenged you to present a case where anyone had been forced into religious-based arbitration and you couldn't do it. And here's the fun part, even if you had a case like that, it doesn't matter because I only said I would support it without coersion.

Are you done hijacking the thread now?[/quote]

No, in fact I am not.

The issue was more broadly defined than how you narrowly define it in this thread. I provided the example that when a consumer is presented with a banking agreement, that if, as is commonly the case, an arbitration clause is included that consumer has NO CHOICE but to accept the arbitration. It therefore follows that it more than reasonable to extend that there are many instances in which consumers are forced into arbtration. To that end it is only a matter of time until a consumer could be faced with having to agree to religious based arbitration agreement.

You argued that there was no-coercion. I am arguing that (1) arbitration is common (2) there is no way around accepting arbitration (3) to that end people are injured because they are required to accept arbitration and (4) you can't weasle out of your position by saying "who cares, it doesn't harm anyone" because it does, because the consumer doesn't have a choice.

CTL
 
Maybe if you tried to argue this in the original thread you would notice that I never said there was no coersion. I said as long as there was no coersion into using religious arbitration, I would support it. You have offered no proof of anyone being forced into religious arbitration.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe if you tried to argue this in the original thread you would notice that I never said there was no coersion. I said as long as there was no coersion into using religious arbitration, I would support it. You have offered no proof of anyone being forced into religious arbitration.[/quote]

Maybe if you hadn't run away from the original thread?

And my point is that arbitration is so common (by way of example of banking products), without any alternative for a consumer when presented with arbitration, that it is becoming the de facto manner in which many disputes are settled.

I don't have to show that someone was forced into religious arbitration if arbitration itself is prevelant and the possibility exists someone might be forced into it.

Thankfully this religious abritration nonsense is reasonably new. As such your point that "this isn't hurting anyone" is very premature.

CTL
 
Sorry I don't monitor this board to see what you've spewed up 24/7. I checked the thread this morning, saw you had not accepted my challenge, and you were arguing incoherently with the other posters. I honestly don't care about Islamic arbitration in Canada because I am not a) Islamic, b) in Canada and c) involved in any arbitration. The only reason this was a thread is because it involved (boogey-boggey) Muslims.

But feel free to rant about this all you want in as many threads as possible.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Sorry I don't monitor this board to see what you've spewed up 24/7. I checked the thread this morning, saw you had not accepted my challenge, and you were arguing incoherently with the other posters. I honestly don't care about Islamic arbitration in Canada because I am not a) Islamic, b) in Canada and c) involved in any arbitration. The only reason this was a thread is because it involved (boogey-boggey) Muslims.

But feel free to rant about this all you want in as many threads as possible.[/quote]

Yeah, thanks for playing.

CTL
 
It would be pretty much impossible for (say) a bank to force you into Islamic (or any other specific form of) arbitration. The fact that a company says that arbitration is your only legal recourse is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. Seriously, it means NOTHING.

The first step in any legal dispute is to go to court for a preliminary hearing. At that point, the company you're having the dispute with will usually request arbitration as the first step of the process. In most cases, the judge will agree to this request simply because arbitration is so much cheaper and faster than a full-blown lawsuit (and in most cases, it actually does settle the dispute.)

The company does NOT choose the arbiter. In most cases, the arbiter is chosen by the court, who usually asks both parties if they have any specific objection to the arbiter chosen (and if there is, the court will pick another arbiter.) As stated in the article about the Islamic arbitration service, the Islamic service is only chosen if both parties request/agree to that path.

NOBODY is going to be forced into that form of arbitration. The only POSSIBLE scenario that you can come up with involves coercion, and in that case, if you're already blackmailing/threatening someone, it would probably be a lot easier to just force them to drop the lawsuit entirely rather than go through the trouble of arbitration.
 
1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)

Coming from a man who has generated over $100,000 for John Kerry and is expected to become a cabinent member in a potential Kerry administration. A man who gave sworn affidavits before that no such thing was done with his knowledge. Too bad Ben Barnes is a horrible source of "truth". Link Yes, this is a GOP site but ALL sources of information are indexed to their mainstream source.

2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)

Yet these records have come under fire online and even on broadcast TV as being fake. The NBC Nightly News tonight cast serious doubt on their authenticity.

3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)

Yet Sharon Bush (Niel's ex-wife.) who is supposed to be a major source of information and "truth" in this book has come out point blank denying any information attributed to her in Kelley's book. I'm not even going to get into a diatribe about Kelley, she's been proven wrong so many times on so many issues that she makes Oliver Stone's filmography look like historical source documents.

4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)

I thought it was Cheney that let GW off the chain? Can't you lefties keep your stories straight?

This one will land victory in November. Fact of the matter is in war you always test out new commanders on the opposing side. You find out Rommel is in Berlin? You invade and see what his number 2 is all about. You find out you've killed a strong general? You attack to take advantage of a hoped for weakness. You bloody an enemy in battle? You attack where he's weakest in an attempt to finish him off.

You see a leader of your enemy has been forced from office and perceive that his successor is weak? You attack. Only liberals seem to ignore this military fact and claim the statement must be partisan politics.

Yep, it's a bad month all right. I debunked all of your points in 5 minutes or less.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)

Coming from a man who has generated over $100,000 for John Kerry and is expected to become a cabinent member in a potential Kerry administration. A man who gave sworn affidavits before that no such thing was done with his knowledge. Too bad Ben Barnes is a horrible source of "truth". Link Yes, this is a GOP site but ALL sources of information are indexed to their mainstream source.

2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)

Yet these records have come under fire online and even on broadcast TV as being fake. The NBC Nightly News tonight cast serious doubt on their authenticity.

3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)

Yet Sharon Bush (Niel's ex-wife.) who is supposed to be a major source of information and "truth" in this book has come out point blank denying any information attributed to her in Kelley's book. I'm not even going to get into a diatribe about Kelley, she's been proven wrong so many times on so many issues that she makes Oliver Stone's filmography look like historical source documents.

4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)

I thought it was Cheney that let GW off the chain? Can't you lefties keep your stories straight?

This one will land victory in November. Fact of the matter is in war you always test out new commanders on the opposing side. You find out Rommel is in Berlin? You invade and see what his number 2 is all about. You find out you've killed a strong general? You attack to take advantage of a hoped for weakness. You bloody an enemy in battle? You attack where he's weakest in an attempt to finish him off.

You see a leader of your enemy has been forced from office and perceive that his successor is weak? You attack. Only liberals seem to ignore this military fact and claim the statement must be partisan politics.

Yep, it's a bad month all right. I debunked all of your points in 5 minutes or less.[/quote]

Your points, in order:

(1) Ben Barnes is such a partisan that he supported the election of Republican State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn in 2002. You know, the mother of White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php

(2) I note you say that NBC News cast doubt on the memos, but provide absolutely no link backing that up. I just looked on MSNBC and saw nothing of the sort on their website. Where do you come up with this stuff?

(3) The New York Daily News cited an "unimpeachable" source in today's paper who says she was with Kelley and Sharon Bush at that lunch and that Bush is lying.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/230275p-197775c.html

(4) This is such a sick argument I don't know where to begin. So if you have a leader who has failed during wartime, you shouldn't replace him because that invites an attack? This is the classic definition of failing upwards, something Chicken George has done his whole life.
I think this argument will have the opposite effect you anticipate. Fear works short-term on Americans, but I don't think we as a country like to be pushed around by boogeymen, or by the people using boogeymen to prop up their sagging Administrations.
 
what is with yalls fixation with calling him "Dubya" ? Basically you're making fun of his southern accent, and how he says "W".. which i somewhat find offensive. I might as well refer to Kerry as Horse Face, or some shit like that. i find it hard to listen to your argument when the title of the thread is Dubya this or Dubya that.

But as soon as somebody calls Kerry a name, everyones on our ass, and all of a sudden you're saying that we have no argument and we're just calling names or some shit.


Seriously, you may not like the guy but he is still the freakin president. You all talk about him and call him names like he's a jackass sales clerk at gamestop or some shit.
 
[quote name='Cracka']what is with yalls fixation with calling him "Dubya" ? Basically you're making fun of his southern accent, and how he says "W".. which i somewhat find offensive. I might as well refer to Kerry as Horse Face, or some shit like that. i find it hard to listen to your argument when the title of the thread is Dubya this or Dubya that.

But as soon as somebody calls Kerry a name, everyones on our ass, and all of a sudden you're saying that we have no argument and we're just calling names or some shit.


Seriously, you may not like the guy but he is still the freakin president. You all talk about him and call him names like he's a jackass sales clerk at gamestop or some shit.[/quote]

Ummm...Cracka, don't know how much you've been reading, but his loyal supporters also call him Dubya. It's just his nickname. Been that way his whole presidency. Kind of background noise at this point.

Now Chicken George.......THAT's some fun name-calling, with the added value of being absolutely correct.
 
[quote name='Cracka']what is with yalls fixation with calling him "Dubya" ? Basically you're making fun of his southern accent, and how he says "W".. which i somewhat find offensive. I might as well refer to Kerry as Horse Face, or some shit like that. i find it hard to listen to your argument when the title of the thread is Dubya this or Dubya that.

But as soon as somebody calls Kerry a name, everyones on our ass, and all of a sudden you're saying that we have no argument and we're just calling names or some shit.


Seriously, you may not like the guy but he is still the freakin president. You all talk about him and call him names like he's a jackass sales clerk at gamestop or some shit.[/quote]

How about Court Appointed President, or Pretender in Chief? Are those okay?

After 8 years of reading about Slick Willie from conservatives, Dubya is one of the nicestt hings I could call Bush.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. Bush pulled political strings to get into the Guard. (not a big surprise, but nice to have confirmation)

Coming from a man who has generated over $100,000 for John Kerry and is expected to become a cabinent member in a potential Kerry administration. A man who gave sworn affidavits before that no such thing was done with his knowledge. Too bad Ben Barnes is a horrible source of "truth". Link Yes, this is a GOP site but ALL sources of information are indexed to their mainstream source.

2. Bush didn't fulfill his service while he was in the Guard. (keep releasing those records)

Yet these records have come under fire online and even on broadcast TV as being fake. The NBC Nightly News tonight cast serious doubt on their authenticity.

3. Kitty Kelly's book with allegations of George & Laura snorting coke at Camp David. (Honestly, I put this just slightly above the Swift Boat liars and only because her book has supposed been scrutinized to death by the publishers lawyers. We'll see how well her allegations hold up...)

Yet Sharon Bush (Niel's ex-wife.) who is supposed to be a major source of information and "truth" in this book has come out point blank denying any information attributed to her in Kelley's book. I'm not even going to get into a diatribe about Kelley, she's been proven wrong so many times on so many issues that she makes Oliver Stone's filmography look like historical source documents.

4. Letting Cheney of the chain. (let him keep telling voters that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists, see how far that gets ya)

I thought it was Cheney that let GW off the chain? Can't you lefties keep your stories straight?

This one will land victory in November. Fact of the matter is in war you always test out new commanders on the opposing side. You find out Rommel is in Berlin? You invade and see what his number 2 is all about. You find out you've killed a strong general? You attack to take advantage of a hoped for weakness. You bloody an enemy in battle? You attack where he's weakest in an attempt to finish him off.

You see a leader of your enemy has been forced from office and perceive that his successor is weak? You attack. Only liberals seem to ignore this military fact and claim the statement must be partisan politics.

Yep, it's a bad month all right. I debunked all of your points in 5 minutes or less.[/quote]

1. If Ben Barnes is such a horrible source because he has changed his story, I guess that discounts the Swift Boat Liars who praised Kerry in the past, right?

2. We'll just have to wait and see about that service record of Bush's that keeps trickling out.

3. And a Bush (Sharon) certainly wouldn't lie, would she? Since there is a third party who was at the meeting with Kelley and confirms Sharon's original story. But I'm sure your GOP cheerleading news sources didn't report this, so how were you to know?

4. Please, please, please let Cheney be the public face for this election. Nothing would make me happier than to see his rabid, frothing maw as the face of compassionate conservatism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top