Top Pentagon officials and the military command in Iraq contributed to an environment in which prisoners were abused at Abu Ghraib prison, according to a report released on Tuesday by high-level panel investigating the military detentions. The outside four-member panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to exercise proper oversight over confusing detention policies at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ...and for a change of pace it doesn't look like it's partisan based...Schlesinger was a Republican appointed Secretary of Defense. Thoughts?

When this whole thing first came to light, I argued that Rumsfield was ultimately responsible for the actions/policies of his subordinates. I thought then (and I still do) that he should resign.

I argued then and I argue now, the Abu Ghraib torture story has been overblown.


Don't forget one fact when presenting your evidence.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's appointment May 7 of a four-member panel to help advise him. The panelists include two former defense secretaries (James R. Schlesinger and Harold Brown), a retired Air Force general (Charles A. Horner) and a onetime Republican House member from Florida (Tillie Fowler).

What is your point.....it seems to paint an even worse picture of Rumsfeld & co. that the panel was partisan and selcted by him.... and still found his leadership wanting.

You said it wasn't partisan now you say it is? My point is that he appointed the panel which is presumptively unbiased since the outcome isn't favoring him, and so it would tend to suggest they are seriously looking into the issue as one would hope, therefore why jump to a conclusion and call for him to step down as Gulor does when they're just in the first phase of the investigation?

All I said was don't forget the fact that he appointed them himself. To me it adds strength to his position rather than weaken it.

Even if removing him from office would have been the right thing to do, it's too late to seek that recourse.

Back the freight train up a bit Winter...

My first post was referring to the outcome of the report....because they had the balls to actually criticize the Rumsfield and other top level officials. At that point I didn't even bother to look at the make of the group since it said "outside" I figured it wasn't partisan....what you posted shows that it was indeed partisan.

The fact that he appointed a obviously partisan panel makes it look more likely the level of incompetance is greater because if they are going to be biased, they would be biased in his favor....yet they still found him (and other high officials) ultimately responsible.

To me it adds strength to his position rather than weaken it.
That a partisan panel appointed by him still found his leadership in this area wanting?...umm ok. :rolleyes:

Kudos for him forming a commitee to look into it....but I would be real curious what a non-partisan panel might uncover.

Huh? I'm not even going to argue with you, it's pointless. You're too simple-minded to be harmful.

Huh? I'm not even going to argue with you, it's pointless. You're too simple-minded to be harmful.
Great All-knowing impartial Winter please lower yourself to express your incredible wit and wisdom on us lowly peasants. :p

Do explain how a panel that he appointed finding him responsible ultimately for happened at the prison helps his position here? I'd love to hear your all knowing and informed position about how any reasonable person could state what you are trying to even pass off as a reasonable position here Winterworg.

People that he appointed to look into what happened said that he was at significant fault for what happened, and you pass this off as a good thing for him? How can you also say that prisoner abuse to the scale at which it happened there was blown out of proportion? The people abused weren't read their rights, weren't permitted to an attorney, hell many of them were later released because they were either innocent or no evidence was available to show any reason for those people to be there.

How would you feel if your child was put in prison, with no rights, for no good reason, and then abused and sexually humiliated by the prison guards? I guarantee your anger would be warranted, and you'd go ballistic if people accused you of blowing it out of proportion.

The people abused weren't read their rights, weren't permitted to an attorney, hell many of them were later released because they were either innocent or no evidence was available to show any reason for those people to be there.
I believe you are confusing Gitmo with Ghraib.

The prisoners in question were not released because they were innocent or for lack of evidence, they were the worst offenders in the place.


How would you feel if your child was put in prison, with no rights, for no good reason, and then abused and sexually humiliated by the prison guards?
Fearmongering at its finest.

failed to exercise proper oversight over confusing detention policies at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The inquiry was about both prisons Cristo.

Winterworg-
As time has gone on, the evidence of widespread *systemic* abuse keeps piling up. First it was claimed it was just a few bad apple guards and a few prisoners and no one higher up was aware. Then it comes to light that the number of incidents and nature of the incidents was even worse than first disclosed, possibly including Gitmo as well. Now it has been revealed that a number of military intelligence officers directed the activities and had in fact hidden a number of prisoners from any red cross accounting intentionally. My reasons for thinking Rumsfield should step down are not because a few guards got out of control on his watch. They are because his directives and a culture of *fuck the rules* that have resulted have caused more damage to the US position than any other factor. How many additional people did we lose because of publicity in the arab world about that fiasco than were saved from an ambush by information derived from torture? Hundreds?

He has proven to be a loose cannon and has become a greater liability to the US than an asset. What good decisions he *has* made (like restructuring the military) can be continued and implemented by someone else without the stigma that surrounds him now. *That* is why I think he should have resigned, and the longer he waits the worse things will be perceived.

The only abuse was from Ghraib, so when he speaks of the abuse the prisoners suffered it is the only place he could be referring to. Meanwhile, the people released after being discovered to be innocent or for a lack of evidence were in Gitmo.

In other words it doesn't matter what the inquiry was about, he was confusing the two places and my observation is correct.

The only abuse was from Ghraib

Hmmm....
The Army inspector general's office said Thursday that it has examined 125 accusations that U.S. forces abused or killed prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 94 confirmed or possible cases of abuse.

I didn't know Ghraib was in Afghanistan.....

You are wrong on your first assertion, that abuse only occurred in Abu Ghraib.

Meanwhile, the people released after being discovered to be innocent or for a lack of evidence were in Gitmo.

Assuming you meant the only people released after being discovered to be innocent, let's examine the veracity of that statement:

There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

Ok, so innocent people were being held at Ghraib according to Major General Antonio M. Taguba. And abuses have been found in two different theatres according the Army Inspector General's Office.

Conclusion:
my observation is correct
Wrong.

Per usual.

Fil

It strengthens his position because it shows they're looking into it in a non partisan way. Geez it's terrible to have to explain shit to you over and over in every thread Ailwon. When you're ready to potty don't forget to call yer mommy to take you in. First you say its a non partisan commission, then you say oh no its a partisan commission. Just because he put the thing together doesn't mean it's a partisan commission by the way but I can't expect extrapolative thinking from you so I should have taken the time to explain that off the bat. So we have the first of 6 steps they are planning to take in investigating the matter, and obviously they are taking it seriously and being open with the results. All I said was don't be calling for heads at the first step especially since they have made it apparent they're proceeding in an open and fair manner. If the damn thing had said he had no fault the same jokers whould be yelling foul anyway. IE why even bring it up, you've made up your mind already.

didn't know Ghraib was in Afghanistan.....

You are wrong on your first assertion, that abuse only occurred in Abu Ghraib

Iraq and Afghanistan and found 94 confirmed or possible cases of abuse.
The only proven site that we know about with an abuse problem was Ghraib.


Ok, so innocent people were being held at Ghraib according to Major General Antonio M. Taguba. And abuses have been found in two different theatres according the Army Inspector General's Office.
We know of only(again) one place that definately had abuse involving a group of people.

Ghraib.

Now, if you wanted to actually look at the details from Ghraib you would discover that the abuse happened to the worst offenders(specifically the abuse HE mentions, sexual abuse).


Do explain how a panel that he appointed finding him responsible ultimately for happened at the prison
It found him responsible?


The report said the direct responsibility lay with soldiers and commanders in the field rather than in Washington.

The panel found that military commanders and staff officers in the field and in Washington bore more responsibility than the Pentagon’s civilian leaders
Hmmmm..

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/25abuse.html?pagewanted=all&position=)

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5807013/)


James R. Schlesinger: Director of the CIA, Director of Strategic Studies for Rand Corporation, Sec Defense for Nixon/Ford, and served in the Carter administration as the first head of the Department of Energy.

Not exactly partisan(seeing as he was in both Democrat and Republican administrations).

Harold Brown: Worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as a Deputy to the Sec Defense and eventually became Sec Air Force, and was Carter's Sec Defense.

Charles A. Horner: Worked his way up from being a pilot to his current job(which he was promoted to under the Clinton administration) as "commander in chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command, and commander of Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. As such, he is responsible for the aerospace defense of the United States and Canada, and exploitation and control of space for national purposes"


Tillie Fowler: Entered politics on the staff of Democrat a Congressman from Georgia. Her father was a Democrat and a "legendary" part of that pary in Georgia for 42 years. "She received the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award and the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. These are the highest civilian awards given by the Navy and the Department of Defense." She was on the Board of Visitors for the US Naval Academy. She was Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Stennis Center for Public Service. She was on the Board of Visitors for the Defense Department's Centers for Security Studies. She is current Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. She is on the Chief of Naval Operations' Executive Panel. She chaired the 7 member council appointed by Congress to review allegations of sexual misconduct at the Air Force Academy in 2003. She is a Distinguished Congressional Fellow at The Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Your claims that this panel is partisan is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

It contains two members who were appointed to the Cabinet by Democrats, a career officer, and someone with probably the best qualifications of the lot to be on this panel who happened to have been a Republican member of Congress.

It strengthens his position because it shows they're looking into it in a non partisan way. How so....they were selected by him, they are all card carrying GOP members....of course they are partisan. Even so they found his leadership lacking.


Geez it's terrible to have to explain shit to you over and over in every thread Ailwon. You have to explain it because you don't make sense.

When you're ready to potty don't forget to call yer mommy to take you in. I was trying to keep this from being personal Winter...I'll accept your apology when you calm down extend it. You want to to sling names, and make derogitory comments...go right ahead. It only makes you, and the positions you support, look that much weaker.

First you say its a non partisan commission, then you say oh no its a partisan commission. You corrected me...I assumed it was non-partisan because of them being critical of him. Thank you for correcting me on that point. So in looking at it again, taking into account the fact that are partisan (let's re-visit, appointed by Rummy and card carrying GOP members), I re-assessed their statements. IF an obviously partisan commision found the leadership wanting, there might be more there.....MIGHT BE!!! It could be they are being fair and honest too....guess we'll wait and see...after the election.


Just because he put the thing together doesn't mean it's a partisan commission by the way but I can't expect extrapolative thinking from you so I should have taken the time to explain that off the bat. He formed it, it's all GOP...it is much more likely to favor Rummy than be un-biased. You're right though...it doesn't mean they couldn't be....there's always that slim chance they will be completly unbiased and report all thier finding right before an election. ;)

So we have the first of 6 steps they are planning to take in investigating the matter, and obviously they are taking it seriously and being open with the results. Good.

All I said was don't be calling for heads at the first step especially since they have made it apparent they're proceeding in an open and fair manner. I never called for heads....that was someone else. They aren't going to do that no matter what the find....there's an election coming up. They'll be nice and low key.


If the damn thing had said he had no fault the same jokers whould be yelling foul anyway. IE why even bring it up, you've made up your mind already. You bet...THEY ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION. They were created by one of the people they are investigating. The fact that you don't see a problem with that is.....nevermind

they are all card carrying GOP members

Even when it is shown in the thread that 2 of the four member held Cabinet level stations in Democrat administrations, and that only one has real ties to the Republican party you still insist on spewing this tripe.

Your stupidity is astounding.

Your stupidity is astounding.

Mr. Passive-Aggressive strikes again!

I found only one for sure non GOP board member,Cristo....Harold Brown, Former secretary of Defense under Carter. I stand corrected. They aren't 4 card carrying GOP members.

The Other 3:

A Former Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford
A Retired Republican Representive
A Former Air Force General from Desert Storm <no idea of political affliation

The fact is...a commision picked by Rumsfeld has found his leadership wanting...I still fail to see how this makes him look better to anyone. They do not call for his resignation...which is good, it's too late for that. they do say this however:

The panel's findings do, however, provide new support for two central criticisms of the Rumsfeld team's approach in Iraq last year: that the invasion plan called for too few troops, half as many as were used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that the Pentagon failed to plan smartly for occupying the country after the United States defeated the Iraqi military.

That panel reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit, where the white collar guy and the crack dealer changed places in the legal system...
"I-I-I-I plead the fiz-ith"

How nice would it be to be able to hand pick the guys investigating you.
"Its good to be the king. Oh Pissboy!"

Fearmongering at its finest.
No, im sorry, that would be this:

http://hq.protestwarrior.com/includes/featured/Dallas/dallas_08.jpg

Mr. Passive-Aggressive strikes again!

You have no idea what passive aggressive means, do you Professor?


I found only one for sure non GOP board member,Cristo....Harold Brown, Former secretary of Defense under Carter. I stand corrected. They aren't 4 card carrying GOP members.
Mayhaps if you could actually read the thread(how many times do I have to say this?) you would notice that Schlesinger was the first Secretary of Energy, under(are you ready for it?) Carter. In fact, Schlesinger was a member of Carter's Cabinet longer than he was in the Nixon/Ford administrations.

Now, we can move on to Horner, a career military man..how can you consider him a "card carrying GOP member"? Do you have some 1337 infoz that give you that insight? You do realize he was given his current job under the Clinton administration, right?

Now we get to Tillie..again, if you had actually read the thread instead of being an ignorant blowhard you might have noticed that she was without a doubt the most qualified of anyone on the panel to be there, as she actually has a history of not only being appointed by Congress to investigate similar matters but heading those investigations.

Learn to read.

It will stop you from cramming your foot down your throat so often.

You have no idea what passive aggressive means, do you Professor? Yes, its someone who is too impotent in real life to release the rage and anger they feel at being so flaccid, that the only release for their hostility is the risk free and danger free insulting of people on the internet. Something they are too frightened of conflict in real life to do.
So other than the providing for you the illusion that you are brave and powerful, what do you get from insulting people? Make ya feel good?
Go to work, nod like a bobble head to your boss/foreman, kiss some ass, then come home and release all that hostility thats been building up inside you in the guise of a debate.
But you arent here to debate, your here to get your rocks off by attempting to belittle people. It's cool though, if putting up with your misplaced anger helps you get through the day, well then, I consider it a good deed. But just so you know, every time you insult someone, not just me, but anyone, nobody sees a powerful person, they see a sad little man, flailing away at strangers when he lacks the courage to insult the people he really wants to.

Yes crist0, people who are abusive on the internet are passive aggressive... thats you.

But what's it mean when you call me Armpit and Bush a Mcflightsuit chimp?

Sophmoronic is more apt, but I'll just call you a hipocrit now. Thank you.

But what's it mean when you call me Armpit and Bush a Mcflightsuite chimp
Yes the armpit thing is sophmoric, but really, so are the "debates" you and I are having. There is a world of difference between the inane banter of two people both willingly engaging in ridiculous and over the top repartee and the calling of people "stupid" or some other insult that has the direct aim to attempt to belittle another person.

And its Chimpy Mcflightsuit!! Get it right! But unless Bush reads these boards, or you are in a romantic type love with him, that doesnt count.

Yes, its someone who is too impotent in real life to release the rage and anger they feel at being so flaccid, that the only release for their hostility is the risk free and danger free insulting of people on the internet. Something they are too frightened of conflict in real life to do.
So, no..you don't have a clue what it is then.

Just for your own education, Professor:


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, pp. 634-635), for research purposes, describes Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder as a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks;

complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others;

is sullen and argumentative;

unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority;

expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate;

voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune;

alternates between hostile defiance and contrition.
Now then, do I:

passively resist fulfilling social/occupational tasks?

Nope.

Do I complain of being underappreciated and misunderstood?

Nope.

Am I sullen and argumentative?

Nope.

Do I scorn and unreasonably criticize authority?

Nope.

Do I express envy and resentment towards people apparently more fortunate?

Nope.

Do I voice exaggerated and persistant complaints of personal misfortune?

Nope.

Do I alternate between hostile confrontation and contrition?

Nope.

So I show..exactly zero...traits of passive aggressiveness(which you so incorrectly defined).

By the way, I would call you a moron if we were discussing this at a bar just the same as I would here, however I do find it interesting that you bring that up so often when your arguments go poorly.

Are you uncomfortable having discussions when you will only be judged on your intellectual contribution?

Does it bother you when people disagree with you and you are not physically there to back up your poorly formed arguments with your physique?


So other than the providing for you the illusion that you are brave and powerful, what do you get from insulting people? Make ya feel good?
I call you stupid, because in fact you are stupid not to see material placed in front of you. I would call you the less insulting ignorant(as I tried to earlier) if you held the opinion before being presented with proof to the contrary.

The other option is that you're a liar.

Is that it?

Am I sullen and argumentative?

No... not you! Cant really tell sullen, but I have NEVER seen a light hearted or joking and collegial post from you. See, heres something you just dont seem to ever get. You can disagree with a person and not hate them. Its possible. But continual and mean spirited constant attacks seems to suggest that you cant "get" that concept. Part of the fun of this board was the inherant sense of humor that ran through it. Thats gone. Its mostly bile and venom and attempts at overt cruelty. One wonders why a person would continue to interact with people they seem to so completely despise. But we both know the answer. The intentional attempts at infliction of cruelty.

Do I scorn and unreasonably criticize authority?

Sure "professor". Whatever "professor". While I am not in any way an authority figure to you, the teacher is a person in the traditional role. The sheer delight you seem to take in the scorn seems to lock you in pretty solid in that catagory.

Do I alternate between hostile confrontation and contrition?

Nope. Pretty consistant on hostile confrontation. There really is nothing else coming from you. Actually, you seem pretty incapable of any other type of interaction. Contrition? No need on the internet, you escape any of the consequences of belligerent anti social behavior. Just guilt free release of aggression.

Do I voice exaggerated and persistant complaints of personal misfortune?

Personal? Bemoan the liberal media or engage in conspiracy theorism? The level of victimhood you seem to personalize from "libs" that inflict such horrible cruelty upon you. You completely exaggerate your political accusations, to the point where any reasonable person would at LEAST cast a wary eye on the gaps and fallacies inherent in the extreme partisan arguements.

Ok, thats 4 without even really breaking a sweat.
Denial... it not just a river in Egypt

By the way, I would call you a moron if we were discussing this at a bar just the same as I would here, I can guarentee that you wouldnt. Not sure how much experience you have in the real world, but insulting partially intoxicated strangers who are about twice your size wouldnt be a wise life choice for people who wish to continue to eat solid foods. While me personally, Id just dump my beer in your lap and leave, there are people in this world who take that sort of thing personal.

however I do find it interesting that you bring that up so often when your arguments go poorly. This is my first post in this thread. I dont have a dog in this fight, other than calling you accountable for your anti social behavior.

L2, how could you so callously waste beer? :(

I need one of those Osama signs for my front yard! Until I see a picture of Rumsfeld pointing at some guys ass in an Iraqi butt pyramid, I'll continue to support him. Calling for his resignation for what a few people did on his watch is retarded, but I would expect no less from the liberals.


Zornhed

Retarded? What ever happened to holding public officials accountable for their policies? Are we now giving them carte blanche to do as they will with no fear of being held accountable to the public?

The whole set up keeping prisoners away from scrutiny and fostering a "results justify the means" atmosphere where these kind of abuses are inevitable, neither declaring them POWs or even admitting to the red cross that they are being held in the first place in some cases, is absolutely tied to the directives of Rumsfield. *He* has set the stage, no one else.

In the case of Gitmo, he has personally approved the arrangements. He is therefore ultimately responsible for any systemic abuses that may have taken place there.

Remember, we are not talking about a couple guards getting rowdy here. We are talking about a *plan* to break prisoners for information that uses techniques we ourselves decry as torture if used by anyone else in the world, all the while keeping the Red Cross or any other monitor at bay.

BTW, by no stretch of the imagination am I what you would call a liberal.

Cristo...I wasn't clear enough...

Now, we can move on to Horner, a career military man..how can you consider him a "card carrying GOP member"?
I was retracting my statement about there being 4 GOP on the panel. I even said in the post:

A Former Air Force General from Desert Storm <no idea of political affliation
Mayhaps if you could actually read the thread(how many times do I have to say this?) you would notice that Schlesinger was the first Secretary of Energy, under(are you ready for it?) Carter. In fact, Schlesinger was a member of Carter's Cabinet longer than he was in the Nixon/Ford administrations.
He's a Republican...my only point.

In 1969 Schlesinger joined the Nixon administration as assistant director of the Bureau of the Budget. When Jimmy Carter became president in January 1977 he appointed Schlesinger, a Republican, as his special adviser on energy and subsequently as the first head of the new Department of Energy in October 1977.

So the final tally for the commission appointed by Rummy:

2 For sure GOP
1 Unknown
1 Former democatic appointed Sec. of Defense.

To be honest it looks like a decent panel...real good if it had another Democrat on it.

The panel's findings do, however, provide new support for two central criticisms of the Rumsfeld team's approach in Iraq last year: that the invasion plan called for too few troops, half as many as were used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that the Pentagon failed to plan smartly for occupying the country after the United States defeated the Iraqi military.
and

Top Pentagon officials and the military command in Iraq contributed to an environment in which prisoners were abused at Abu Ghraib prison, according to a report released on Tuesday by high-level panel investigating the military detentions. The outside four-member panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to exercise proper oversight over confusing detention policies at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
From a panel that Rummy appointed himself...does not make him look like a good choice for the position. Hopefully he'll be replaced next term... whoever wins the election.

"Remember, we are not talking about a couple guards getting rowdy here. We are talking about a *plan* to break prisoners for information that uses techniques we ourselves decry as torture if used by anyone else in the world, all the while keeping the Red Cross or any other monitor at bay."

*****

I'm all for treating people decent but these guys were not just prisoners. They were combatants and if you have to shove fire-crackers up their ass to get information to save American troops lives the so be it. It wasn't so long ago Saddam was doing infinately more cruel things to thousands of people. An Iraqi butt pyramid is hardly torture.

If I were on the ground in Iraq I would want those guys to do whatever it took to help me not die. Hell I would have them in an Iraqi-butt octogon if that is what it took.

The problem Bise is if we do it, everyone else who holds an American will feel justified in doing it. You are not saving US lives when you outrage millions of arabs and get thousand of recruits to come kill us out of it. You are making sure *more* US lives are lost instead.

As far as "combatants" go, any American caught overseas in a country like Iraq or Afghanistan could equally be classified as a "combatant". It should not matter if they are a nebulous "combatant", a POW, or just a criminal, if you condone any torture, you are opening the door for all torture. It's the ends justifies the means argument, and we have prosecuted people for war crimes who tried to use that argument. It doesn't fly that we conveniently forget that now the shoe is on the other foot.

No... not you! Cant really tell sullen, but I have NEVER seen a light hearted or joking and collegial post from you.

You obviously never looked then.

As for argumentative, what the fuck do you expect during political debates on internet messageboards, candlelight and wine?


Sure "professor". Whatever "professor". While I am not in any way an authority figure to you, the teacher is a person in the traditional role.

I call you professor because you have made such a big deal out of your teaching career, yet are proven wrong with almost every issue you weigh in on.

Clue Incoming!

I am mocking you, not criticizing authority.


Pretty consistant on hostile confrontation.
Duh.

See argumentative.

You do understand that BOTH parts must apply, correct?


The level of victimhood you seem to personalize from "libs" that inflict such horrible cruelty upon you.
Where are you getting this?

When have I -ever- brought up being victimized by "libs"?

Even if you managed to find one(which you can't), it wouldn't apply.

Do you know what persistant means, Professor?


I can guarentee that you wouldnt. Not sure how much experience you have in the real world, but insulting partially intoxicated strangers who are about twice your size wouldnt be a wise life choice for people who wish to continue to eat solid foods

I LOVE it when you attempt to use psychobabble and then say stuff like this.

What a wonderful example of my earlier point:

When you feel intellectually inferior, you retreat to threats of physical violence. How thinly you veil your threats varies according to the level of insecurity you feel with the situation at hand.


This is my first post in this thread.

Speaking of denial, does your insecurity problem lead you to tell yourself the events that caused you to feel inferior didn't happen?

That was your fifth post in this thread Lleauaric, you started off with your ill fated attempt at psychoanalysis and went downhill from there, until we finally ended up in your(correctly identified on my part) retreat into your "safe place" of physical threats.

Remember Lleauaric, the first step is to admit you have a problem.

To be honest it looks like a decent panel...real good if it had another Democrat on it.Ailwon, if you want to solve a problem, the last thing you want is another beurocratic "bipartisan" commission trying to do something. They all end up spending more time facing each other off on the talk shows than they do actually working on what they're commissioned to do.

You've already come to your conclusion, so what exactly would another Democrat telling you what you want to hear do for the situation?

This "if it's not bipartisan - it's worthless" is the epitome of politics, and it's probably one of the most saddest mentalities out there.

If you don't like Rumsfeld, vote for Kerry. And then eat your ice cream.

You obviously never looked then. All your humor is at the expense of another person. Sorry man, thats just not funny, its sad and its kind of sick.

I call you professor because you have made such a big deal out of your teaching career, yet are proven wrong with almost every issue you weigh in on. I made a big deal because I mentioned it once? You are seriously disturbed.
I dont mind talking about my personal life, I dont mind talking about myself in RL context, because Im proud of who and what I am. Ive posted pictures of my son, my wife, because my family is so important to me. I talk about who I am and where Im coming from because I strive for an inherant honesty in my posts and the way I communicate with people. Disagree with me all day long, think im wrong, but dont doubt the sincerity that I honestly believe what I post. The sense of community on these boards is something that I like. You dont seek to be a part of that. You are here for release of aggression and to try to make yourself feel good by putting other people down.

You use your anonymity like a mothers skirt.
Are you ashamed of who you are? Of what you do? Of where you come from?
No pictures in the RL pictures thead, no clue as to who you are, no in game name, nothing but your passive aggressive anon abusive hostilty.
When you feel intellectually inferior, you retreat to threats of physical violence. How thinly you veil your threats varies according to the level of insecurity you feel with the situation at hand. I love the desperation that shows itself by you having to clip quotes to try to invent a point. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
I stand by what I said because, and I mean this in the most honest and clear way, I think you are a coward.
I was clear that I wouldnt ever physically attack another person, for ANY reason short of defending my family, but I think it is also clear that you are full of shit when you say you would call a stranger in a bar a moron.
You are a coward because you are an internet bully. You LIVE (here) to try to hammer people and demean. Thats all you are. There is nothing else thats coming from you.

My quote:

To be honest it looks like a decent panel
Your spin of my quote

"if it's not bipartisan - it's worthless"
Read a little closer Akipt.

Your right maybe adding another democrat would make the commission work a little slower, but I would at least like to see someone else other than the person being investigated form the panel.

If you don't like Rumsfeld, vote for Kerry
Believe me, it's not because I don't like Rummy that I'm voting for Kerry. It's also not because I like Kerry that I'm voting for him. :(

And then eat your ice cream.
I Lub Ice Cream !!! :)

All your humor is at the expense of another person. Sorry man, thats just not funny, its sad and its kind of sick.

Such a Lleauarican statement that one: absolutely no idea about what you are talking about because you have no desire to educate yourself.

It's not that you post bullshit, it's that you post things without bothering to find out whether they are or not.


made a big deal because I mentioned it once?

Actually you had a habit of mentioning it for a while(until it started to backfire, at which point you stopped).


The sense of community on these boards is something that I like. You dont seek to be a part of that.

Community?

This is an internet messageboard, specifically this is a RL NAG section of an internet messageboard.


You are here for release of aggression and to try to make yourself feel good by putting other people down.

I'm here because I like to argue, and I get a kick out of the verbal sparring of others.

Why do you come here, to change the ideas of people who disagree with you?

No, you come here for the same reason I do..you've said as much in the past.

It is entertainment, I don't come here to release aggression, nor do I have a need to put others down in order to ease personal insecurities(which really seems to be your bag, not mine).


Are you ashamed of who you are? Of what you do? Of where you come from?
No pictures in the RL pictures thead, no clue as to who you are, no in game name*, nothing but your passive aggressive anon abusive hostilty

No, I'm not ashamed of what I do or who I am, nor am I ashamed of where I come from.

You are correct that I have no pictures in the RL picture thread..as I said, this isn't a community, it's a RL NAG section of an internet messageboard. If it were a community, such as if I were a member in a guild and this were their forums..I would(and indeed I did post such things on my guild's board).

As far as the in game name..or even what I do, and where I come from..if you could manage to pull yourself together long enough to actually look into the subject, you could find all of those listed here and there on this very board(that would of course requiring reading).

Incidently, this part of your post reminds me of Beowulf when he addressed me by my character's name, and then tried to claim I was just an anon troll.


your passive aggressive anon abusive hostilty
Dear God, are you still trying to psychoanalyze?


I love the desperation that shows itself by you having to clip quotes to try to invent a point

On the contrary, the part I quoted was the primary part of that statement, in which you implied your capacity for physical violence. If you were not trying to threaten that(that threat is simply hilarious by the way), you would not have included that in your statement and merely said "I would pour my beer in your lap".


I was clear that I wouldnt ever physically attack another person, for ANY reason short of defending my family
No, you just implied that you were twice my size(sight unseen, which makes it even more amusing and again points to you attempting to be what you accuse me of: an "internet bully") and could make me not eat solid food!


but I think it is also clear that you are full of shit when you say you would call a stranger in a bar a moron.

Please, do tell me what I would do, the paragraph after you go into length about how you know nothing about me!

Brilliant!


You are a coward because you are an internet bully. You LIVE (here) to try to hammer people and demean. Thats all you are. There is nothing else thats coming from you.

Now then, so far we have me calling you stupid for your ability to continue arguing points that have been proven false..which makes me an "internet bully".

On the other hand we have you consistently implying that you can stop my ability to eat solid foods, attempted to lord your status in an online game as some sort of proof that you are better..which would make you what precisely?

Oh, and the best part is implying I "LIVE" here while having half again my post count :)

Yes, calling you stupid is all I do..I am quite aware of your ability to block out the poorly formed arguments you have made in the past.

After all, this *is* your first post in this thread, right?