TROLL said:
thats funny, i remember in another debate we had you kept harking on the fact that i wasnt posting any links or any 'proof', but when it comes to me asking u to show me one examaple, its me 'not being serious' for not searching it for myself.. ive been pretty good about providing links to any and all claims i make..
never heard of that site... and those links arent working.. ill try again later to see if they do..
i havent seen the links yet because they arent working.. but if the links you posted have info that have been out in the public domain then it was meaningless to post em up anyway because this convo is about personal information.. a reporter posts up their contact info for a reason.. :cheeky:
ok show me where in that paragraph u came up with 'it mostly deals with' children then.. because i dont remember it referring to an age group at all..
lol.. i have yet to hear of an arguement u made successfully about anything ive posted.. the only time you ever came close was about habeas corpus and that was because i posted it in two parts, one about the MCA and the other about the patriot act.. funny how you dropped that arguement now.. beacause didnt alberto gonzales say that we 'americans' weren't promised habeas corpus in the constitution, yet your argueing that they wouldnt take it away LOL. but anyway..
lol.. funny, why is it that the few prisonplanet links i posted, (in your mind) became my staple for arguements when ive posted links from the guardian, msnbc, AP, cnn, etc? and if ive posted ANY propagandist links, why havent you been able to disprove or discredit any of them? if its propaganda (to you) then it should be a cinch to debunk.. right?
There is no "proof" necessary. I'm not talking about scientific or historical evidence. I'm talking about something that is commonplace: propaganda news sites who provide faulty information, then accompany it with contact info, to get their zealous readers to send crap e-mails and make lame phone calls to harrass the journalist/politican "responsible" for the "bias". -- And the links only work if you click them. Try clicking them.
Already explained the difference. (Again, I wonder if you're even reading and double-checking what I say, or just pretending to read...) It's one thing to include YOUR contact info with YOUR news/opinion piece. It's another thing to write a REBUTTAL to someone else and include THEIR contact info,
encouraging YOUR readers to contact THEM. -- Remember Cindy Sheehan whining and bitching about not getting to meet with President Bush a 2nd time? It's the same principle: wasting time.
"that malice or intent to do harm up ^^^^^ in there, mostly deals with children and families, and their protection" --- Are you blind, or just wasting my time?
WTF does Alberto Gonzales have to do with my argument?
I tire of tracking down anti-propaganda. It is usually a waste of my time. Most of the time, it contains pure bullshit like "a senior official confirms" and "someone close to the pentagon reports" etc etc...pure nonsense. Other times, it's based on junk science and blurry photos. Remember the so-called "Doctors" that said Nick Berg "couldn't" have been beheaded, because the blood would have flowed in such-and-such a manner? Then they were all, more or less, proven to be full of shit?
In a more Pro-Bush world, this 9/11 Conspiracy mess would have been put out of the question long ago. It's only because he's such a great Conservative leader that the mostly leftist scientific community will sit idly by and let the crap "theory" circulate and linger...though they also know it is full of holes.
But this is not about all that.
This is about you being incapable of argument without the aid and comfort of your beloved propaganda websites. But you're not alone. The issue is that most people here just aren't able. They require some kind of crutch, be it websites, or friends, or books, or something...ANYTHING else. But on their own, they are mostly worthless, and have to resort to non-stop questioning, and challenging, and red herrings, and strawmans, and who knows what else you keep coming up with.
Understand: this is an exercise in logic...not in research. You're going to need to READ and COMPREHEND.....not just READ and PRETEND.
