Read it again tidler. He is asking for proof of your claim. Pure and simple. If you cant, admit it. if you can, do it. If you cant understand the written word, say it. ESL is not just for foreigners.

Amd I would take a hard look in the mirror since it is not only me saying you are a bit remiss in thread reading and english comprehension.

At this rate, everyone on this site is going to be a troll, except the new kid on the block. Perhaps you do need a copy of a dictionary. Since you seem to not comprehend english(and yes, I am repeating myself, but then with you that is the only thing you can understand - what was written in the last 10 seconds).

I was wrong, and I am honest enough to admit my errors. It was not Senator Kennedy that said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. It was Senator Jay Rockefeller that said it. My mistake but as soon as I got home I had to report it.

I also notice that Tiddler commented a lot but not on the subject at hand. Is there a problem or what? Did he agree with me and in doing so agree never to bring up the lies he has been saying these many years? Or is he ignoring me so he can continue to tell the same lies? An answer or admission would be the proper thing to do. Am I wrong here?

Clearly, hence my reference to you as a troll Charles... still recognizing your condition is the first step in any recovery process.



So you're in the habit of calling people you think are pretty cool "suckers" then are you Charles?



The difference of course is that I offered it as my opinion of what reasonable people would think rather than as a claim that I spoke for them.



So you dont claim to speak for everyone you just speak for ShadowWar? And you claim that I tried to insult him? What could be more insulting to one man than to have another claim to speak and fight his battles for him? Especially by one so readily submissive as you.



O.k so note to self. Charles does what Tiddler tells him to do.

Lets see you finally make a contribution to this thread for fear I might get my knickers in a knot that you hadn't and now your acting out the roles you think I picked for you. In addition to all the other names you've proffered, I hope you're not now going to start calling me "Daddy" now as well.



So according to you Charles, Dr Guy, Shadow War and Paladin are all lightweights then? I wonder what they might think of that characterization? But as above given your predilection for falling into line and doing as you're told its not surprising that you should so readily offer your rank.

Yes there is, we seem to be getting a lot of noise on this line Paladin. So before we continue from reply #54 lets clear a couple of things up.





Paladin, although Dr Guy has made this claim, can you
a) quote where I "stated it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs". Can you then
point out where "you challenged me to prove that it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs"? In fact can you then
c) point out where you've challenged me to prove anything?

Reply #1. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #1? Yes or no?

Reply #8. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #8? Yes or no?

Reply #35



Lets break that down. First sentence: stating something about how you feel. Second sentence:claiming you will help me to "see the light". Third sentence: asking me to list one or as many [of my claims] as I wish and then claiming that YOU will disprove them point by point.

In which of those sentences did you challenge me to prove myself??? Was it sentence 1,2,3 or none of the above.

Reply #36. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #36? Yes or no?

Reply #54. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #54? Yes or no?

Reply #55. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #55? Yes or no?

In fact can anyone, coroberate what Dr Guy "The Guardian of Reading Comprehension" has claimed I stated. Anyone at all??

Clearly YOU'VE challenged YOURSELF to disprove everything I say Paladin. So I'd like you to address these claims before we continue.

Thanks

Last I checked a troll is someone who goes around making things up with little if any facts and sticks to his guns. Sounds familiar. But hey, if you wanna go around giving new definition to words be my guest. Sticks and stones as they say. I see you're gonna milk the word.



So, as usual, you assume. Well you know what they say. Besides, I may think someone is OK, but will point out when I think they being suckers, or what every other name I chose to use at the moment. Besides, why do you care what I do to others, or are you one of those sensitive people who's bothered with others picking on your friends, or fans in this case?



So you talk for others, again? Col, someone is stealing your act here!!!!



No, I speak for myself and back up those who I agree with. Guess you don't like getting ganged up on, huh?



Haha, your jokes are killing me, but not fast enough.



Proof of how idiotic you are, I already said my 2 cents. Goes to show just how much you pay attention. Couldn't expect less from you though. Just like Col you ignore things and then act as if you never saw them so that you don't have to respond to it.



Well, in a sense. You see they all like to debate in a nice way. With facts and very little insult. But there are some here who will eat you alive. Anyways you will eventually feel it. These guys could probably teach you a thing or 2 but will do it in a more calm way, which in the end is still a but whipping.

He does not debate. I am beginning to think he is Furry Canary come back in another guise. But then at least Furry was rational and knew how to follow a thread.

Some people think that a molotov cocktail is debating. All flash and no memory.

Sure does. See reply #65 and perhaps you can give Paladin a helping hand.



They're not jokes Charles. They're observations. Observe reply#59.



2 cents..... in a sellers market "maybe".



So being nice and debating with facts and very little insult is what you call "lightweight"? You continue to reveal yourself.

By all means feel free to address reply #65 Dr Guy and then we can all move forward.

What does this have to do with the deal I asked if you would make? Why are you dragging me into your spat with Dr. Guy? My, deal was with you. Are you setting up a straw man for you to knock down and look good in your mind? You brought up lies, I asked you do list them the only one you came up with was answered by me. You don't seem to have a reply so that means to me that you agree with what I wrote.



Not at all. I stated that if you wish to continue to state lies about the president I was going to answer each of those lies and disprove your side of the argument. Your challenge to me meant you accepted the deal. Why do you need to deflect that with your pissing contest with Dr. Guy? Did I join this spat and not know of it? Can you deal with two issues at one time or is that beyond your ability?

My point is you told an outright lie. I proved it was a lie. Now like most liberals you wish to move the goal post to include someone else, I don't ask people to fight my battles and I don't fight other peoples battles. Look at all my replies you will see that this is true since I have been on JU. you went fishing with the wrong bait.

Its hardly deflection Paladin. It will only take you all of a minute to answer my questions? a,b,c on reply #65

If you're annoyed by the distraction then put it out of its misery. Its quite simple.

Are you referring to the Jan 2003 State of the Union address?



I dont care who stated it. I didn't and dont believe it at all. Its my opinion that Iraq posed no threat to the US population.



Yup. Thats right. No imminent threat. None as in zero.

So when I claim false pretences what am I referring too??

Statements such as these:

August 26, 2002—Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

NO DOUBT??? No doubt he has them. No doubt he is amassing them for use against us. NO DOUBT. False pretence.

September 18, 2002—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

Well as we know they had NONE.: false pretence.

October 7, 2002—President Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

No they didn't: false pretence.

March 16, 2003—Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to Saddam Hussein, “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Nuclear weapons??? Based on what evidence??? False pretence.

March 17, 2003—In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

NO DOUBT?? False pretence.

March 30, 2003—On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld reiterated the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, adding, “We know where they are.”

He knows where they are??? Where are they then?? False pretence.

Bush 2003 State of the Union Address:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons "

They didn't have any. None. false pretence.

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world,"

Sorry how were they a threat again??? They already had disarmed. False pretence.

a) "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a [report] came out of the Atomic - the IAEA that they were [six months away from developing a weapon]. I don't know what more [evidence] we need." (Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair)

This is just a flat out lie. As per :

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said. ... "We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998."

Hence my use of the term false pretence Paladin.

where is your proof that he had disarmed. according to one of his generals the chemicals went to syria. and i believe the nuke went to iran.

You still cant tell the difference between a lie and bad intelligence. Now for honesty sake (if you are that honest), list the quotes from the democrats from 1998-2002 that said the same thing -WITH access to the same intelligence.

In your world, there is no room for errors, only lies. You live in a very sad world.