Stonehead Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Wag the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Props to Fairweather! Not only is he the sole intelligent voice of the right still representing here but he is also big enough to admit a change in perspective. Now should some of the other dogmatic leftists here exhibit the same open-mindedness. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 OK Matt. Here it is: Re: The invasion of Iraq For the most part you were right and I was wrong. Is that better? I suspect you've had problems at certain points in your life with this, so here it is... Just graciously accept my acquiesence regarding this issue and move on. If you wish to discuss any aspect of the Frontline show in any greater detail I am more than happy to do it with you. Or, if you want to discuss future prospects for Iraq, the Bush Administration's ongoing duplicity, whatever, I'm OK with that. But your last two posts have been smarmy at best. Again; you were right, and I was wrong. Yes, I know, you told me so. I get it now. Balls! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 This thread should be upgraded to three stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 this thread should get a room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Props to Fairweather! Not only is he the sole intelligent voice of the right still representing here but he is also big enough to admit a change in perspective. Now should some of the other dogmatic leftists here exhibit the same open-mindedness. . . FW presents a smarmy suck-up to Matt, and you call this open-mindedness? Come on, FW admits that Cheney and Rumsfeld ought to be investigated for treason and/or war crimes but says he still thinks Bush is a good man -- open-mindedness is mutually exclusive to this ongoing worship of the tough-guy aw-shucks father figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I don’t think it was smarmy, but it WAS a bit manipulative to state “OK, I was wrong - and now YOU are mean to suggest that I should have realized this three years ago.” Of course, you’ll see plenty of smarm in that N Korea thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Suck up to a self-promoting choad like MattP? I hardly think so. His response was pretty much what I predicted based on past exchanges. Matt may wish to pose as a father figure here - and I can't really stop him from doing that - but as a father myself I can tell you with complete certainty he would have a difficult time raising children. Additionally, I don't hold in high esteem those who post pictures of themselves with their avatar. It just seems to wreak of self-importance. And Matt's WAC exploits demonstrate him to be amongst the kings of manipulation and self-importance. As for the Frontline show, my change of heart is sincere - although I don't think I ever mentioned the word treason. And, I might add Crux, that the entire premise of the piece was Cheney as the dark lord and GW as the reluctant dupe, so I'm not sure why you would claim my conclusion is any less valid than the story's - other than your own shrill anger. Matt and I proposed to watch the Frontline piece - which I agreed in advance was likely a neutral stage - and write about our conclusions here. I did. But thanks to the repeated "I told you so" childishness of Matt, your classic left-wing anger, and the highly predictable responses of others here, I will keep future concessions and changes-of-heart to myself and try not to interfere in the leftist love-fest this shit hole has always been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Fairweather, you have been calling me delusional, paranoid, full of conspiracy theories, etc. for four or five years. In virtually every political argument, and even in many discussions related to climbing, you go out of your way to insult the other guy. There are few on this entire board who have been as "shrill" as you. As I stated in my first responsive post, I was impressed that you were man enough to admit your revelation on cc.com, but where you then seek to use that revelation as a springboard to justify further personal attack, I call B.S. Show us your stuff: stick to the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 By the way, my "argument" that you objected to was not that I was right and you are wrong; it was that virtually all of the information that you cited as the basis for your reevaluation had previously been published and most of it was published three or four years ago. The question is how did a few self-seving members of the administration manage to cow the military and so completely fool most of the American public when the intelligence community was saying that there was no uranium purchase, no Prague meeting between Iraq and al queda, no evidence of an ongoing nuclear program, etc. etc. (And how do they continue to blame "intelligence failure" and get away with it?) If you were reading carefully and objectively, the information was really pretty clear but it was all passed off as "liberal media bias." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I don't hold in high esteem those who post pictures of themselves with their avatar. It just seems to wreak of self-importance. So you don't like my Avatar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Suck up to a self-promoting choad like MattP? I hardly think so. His response was pretty much what I predicted based on past exchanges. Matt may wish to pose as a father figure here - and I can't really stop him from doing that - but as a father myself I can tell you with complete certainty he would have a difficult time raising children. Additionally, I don't hold in high esteem those who post pictures of themselves with their avatar. It just seems to wreak of self-importance. And Matt's WAC exploits demonstrate him to be amongst the kings of manipulation and self-importance. As for the Frontline show, my change of heart is sincere - although I don't think I ever mentioned the word treason. And, I might add Crux, that the entire premise of the piece was Cheney as the dark lord and GW as the reluctant dupe, so I'm not sure why you would claim my conclusion is any less valid than the story's - other than your own shrill anger. Matt and I proposed to watch the Frontline piece - which I agreed in advance was likely a neutral stage - and write about our conclusions here. I did. But thanks to the repeated "I told you so" childishness of Matt, your classic left-wing anger, and the highly predictable responses of others here, I will keep future concessions and changes-of-heart to myself and try not to interfere in the leftist love-fest this shit hole has always been. FW, the aw-shucks, tough-guy father figure I alluded to is Bush. You know, the guy who is President, not the guy who is hooked up with the Women's Athletic Club or whatever. By the way, wasn't that Limbaugh talking about erection fraud on the radio today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Isn't the "Room 101" reference John Barth's Floating Opera? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Wait no, 1984 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 What is 1984? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.