Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Profiling

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,189
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glauistean
    Damn Bobby. You almost sound like that crazy lady from Minnesota. Yapping about something other than fact and trying to make it so.

    Was filing for bankruptcy a prerequisite? The 9 billion credit line sure came in handy. How high was the unemployment going to be as stated by President Obama? Just a wild figure and a source will do and an explanation as to how he was going to fix everything that the last regime screwed up over eight years.

    Cut and Run!!!! The most insulting cliché used by you Reich wingers. The withdrawal started PRIOR to President Obama taking office.

    "Before beginning debate on the 2007 supplemental spending bill, the Senate voted on S.J.9, which was titled "A joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq." The resolution would require President Bush to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 120 days of the enactment of the resolution. It would set a goal (not binding) of redeploying all troops by March 31, 2008. After this date, remaining troops could remain in the country only to act as security and training of Iraqi forces."

    It's people like you that are followers and listen to uneducated jargon, and that is what the these alpha types look for. You are easily identifiable as the guy with the sign stating MORAN when he meant, oh you know what he meant to write Bobby.

    You should take a visit to Walter Reid and see how the war for WMD's that were never found because they were never there and see the young men and women, limbless and lost, not to mention the thousands dead. Why are you such a gung-ho type Bobby? Have you got all of your limbs. You have lost something but it would be remiss of me to point it out. It is self evident with the final part of your post. By the way. Have you helped any of the US troops that are homeless? Those sufferring from PTSD. There are no homeless troops in the UK. I wonder why that is. Hmmmmm

    Where is there undeniable proof that the tax program was a reason for the loss in Congress. Bobby, do you make $250,000 a year or more? Are you unwilling to share 3% more of that money in order to help the "country you love"? Bobby, you are , if you're working already receiving a tax cut. With this new Congress you will lose it.
    So now you are on to Iran. Another country you know nothing about. You could not place it on a map and if I asked you without you having goggle to name the capital, the religious capital you would fail as John McCain did in trying to identify the difference between the two warring factions in Iraq and which could be most influenced by Iran.
    Gee, look up what- non-binding means.

    Ford survived the trashed economy quite well, of course to you that is non-sequitur, of course anything that does not agree with your baseless accusations is non-sequitur.

    Obama pulls troops out of Iraq on -his- time-tables, but now HIS administration is worried about what Iran is doing concerning Iraq, the typical donkey chasing the carrot syndrome.

    OK, now you can have another hissy-fit.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    338
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
    Gee, look up what- non-binding means.

    Ford survived the trashed economy quite well, of course to you that is non-sequitur, of course anything that does not agree with your baseless accusations is non-sequitur.

    Obama pulls troops out of Iraq on -his- time-tables, but now HIS administration is worried about what Iran is doing concerning Iraq, the typical donkey chasing the carrot syndrome.

    OK, now you can have another hissy-fit.
    Again, you accuse and then you blather without a mention of the fact that Ford had a 9 billion line of credit. You evade the Bush issue on Iraq and did not even mention the troops that were killed nor those with PTSD and homeless.

    As for the "non-sequitor". Don't make me laugh. You I'm afraid have no idea of when it applies and more importantly what it means. If you read what I stated you would NEVER use it thus showing your ignorance.

    Well done Bobby.
    "Believers that socialism is a one aspect theory are deluded and do not comprehend it"
    O'OC

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,189
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glauistean
    Again, you accuse and then you blather without a mention of the fact that Ford had a 9 billion line of credit. You evade the Bush issue on Iraq and did not even mention the troops that were killed nor those with PTSD and homeless.

    As for the "non-sequitor". Don't make me laugh. You I'm afraid have no idea of when it applies and more importantly what it means. If you read what I stated you would NEVER use it thus showing your ignorance.

    Well done Bobby.
    Here you go little fella, as you obviously have no idea what it means:

    Definition of NON SEQUITUR
    1
    : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
    2
    : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said


    You do seem to be fully immersed by number 2, as your trolling statements can be accurately described by it.

    Please show me the accusation, if you would, especially how it relates to your rhetoric, after which you may return to your trolling hissy-fit.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    338
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
    Here you go little fella, as you obviously have no idea what it means:

    Definition of NON SEQUITUR
    1
    : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
    2
    : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

    You do seem to be fully immersed by number 2, as your trolling statements can be accurately described by it.

    Please show me the accusation, if you would, especially how it relates to your rhetoric, after which you may return to your trolling hissy-fit.
    The first part was easy enough to understand. Your impotence as to the use of specific words of the English language are telling. Something I have already explained ad nauseum to you.

    As for the second part, where you try to ask a question pertaining to an accusation and in the middle of same you suggest it relates to my "rhetoric" is I would characterize as infantile.

    When someone responds to a post and based within that post there is a cornucopia of information to address ,then, it is incumbent on you Bobby, to address the content.

    You don't and you never do. You take a paragraph from a statement made through via the Senate in 2007 and try to refute the whole content by pointing out that "non-binding" in some form or fashion defeats the argument presented. If you can't understand the context of the statement that was made what is the point in me wasting my time on you just as your "teachers" obviously did?
    "Believers that socialism is a one aspect theory are deluded and do not comprehend it"
    O'OC

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •