Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Originally posted by 3Ball
    I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong"
    You are uninformed. You are totally wrong.




    That felt good.



    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      You are uninformed. You are totally wrong.




      That felt good.



      .
      Not the first, won't be the last!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        Batboy, This is just weird. I did object to you insulting a fellow poster, especially when you made personal remarks that you know nothing about. That was classless. I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record. The term WMD is misleading, but it was only the Bush administration who used to to mislead the country into war. Blair was just as much of a liar, and I think there is plenty of documentation to prove that as well. Yes, France and the others thought there were "WMDs" (a few moldy canisters of mustard gas given to him by Reagan), but could see as well as anyone that Iraq was no military threat. Even Iraq's neighbors who he invaded didn't want war.

        I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong", and I certainly don't mind if you accuse congressional democrats of whatever. But I really do object to you going after posters in slimy ways.
        You are right. It is weird. You -- and others -- seem to believe that you can say whatever you wish about a public figure, call them dishonest, liars, corrupt, whatever, and that is just fine (certainly not "classless" or "slimy") because "I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record." Maybe, but part of that public record is that lots of Dems used the same term and said the same thing -- Clinton and others claimed Saddam had and potentially imperiled us with WMDs. Oh, but they didn't say it in the context of leading us to war, as if that makes any difference -- the point is, they said it, they presumably believed it, and they utilized the same intelligence (evidently incorrect intelligence, but we still don't know for sure) as did Bush, yet you claim Bush and Blair were "liars." Well, public official or not, that is a "personal remark." And your sophistic insistence on distinguishing it when Bush and Blair said it from when Clinton and Gore said it is intellectual dishonesty.

        As is your nitpicking comment as somehow too personal about a jocular point made to Eindar. If you are going to throw stones on the size you throw, you need to cowboy up and lose the indignant tone over tossed pebbles.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

          Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
          You personally attack the president, calling him variously an "idiot", a "liar", etc., and yet you regard this to be merely "taking an aggressive stance on an issue," even on a controversial topic such as WMD, about which there was solid consensus that Iraq did have them, and absolute puzzlement over why they were later not found. You would pretend that, from wherever your safe perch in 2007, you have more info than did the intelligence specialists who said otherwise about WMD in 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2003. You do so with absolute confidence, absolute certainty, and anyone who thought otherwise back then is a liar and an idiot in your own words. Yet when someone makes a fairly mild jest to illustrate how easy it is to take retrospective pot shots against public figures from the safety of the "parents' basement", oh my! How you have been wronged! Now its personal, the line got crossed! And its slimy too! Call the moderators!

          I think you have a perfect right to have these feelings and opinions, and to express them. I also think that if you do so, in the vicious and nasty way you often do, you look pretty funny claiming your feelings get hurt by a single line in a long post the arguments of which you thereby avoid answering.

          Again, go back and re-read your posts. There is NO difference between what you routinely engage in and what you complain about.
          Have you ever actually read the Rules of Pacers' Digest? You should. There's nothing forbidding me from, one time, referring to Bush as an "idiot". Were I to do nothing but sit here and badmouth Bush every single time I get a chance to forward my own agenda, just like you do with the entire democratic Party, liberals, and anyone else not sharing your own hyper-conservative views, then yes, that would be breaking the rules. There are, however, rules forbidding personal attacks on other posters. I got a private apology, but you sure as hell don't really seem contrite. In fact, you seem intent on dragging this argument to an ugly conclusion.

          Maybe you should go back and re-read your own posts. You constantly and consistently break the rules of these boards, both in the general sense, and also the Politics-specific rules, and I've yet to see you be punished. To me, the only difference between you and Sassan is that you're more eloquent in your delivery.

          I told you I'm done with you, and I am. I'm putting you on ignore, AGAIN. Maybe I'll take you back off in another six months to see if you've reformed.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
            Have you ever actually read the Rules of Pacers' Digest? You should. There's nothing forbidding me from, one time, referring to Bush as an "idiot". Were I to do nothing but sit here and badmouth Bush every single time I get a chance to forward my own agenda, just like you do with the entire democratic Party, liberals, and anyone else not sharing your own hyper-conservative views, then yes, that would be breaking the rules. There are, however, rules forbidding personal attacks on other posters. I got a private apology, but you sure as hell don't really seem contrite. In fact, you seem intent on dragging this argument to an ugly conclusion.

            Maybe you should go back and re-read your own posts. You constantly and consistently break the rules of these boards, both in the general sense, and also the Politics-specific rules, and I've yet to see you be punished. To me, the only difference between you and Sassan is that you're more eloquent in your delivery.

            I told you I'm done with you, and I am. I'm putting you on ignore, AGAIN. Maybe I'll take you back off in another six months to see if you've reformed.
            Unbelievable. You pretend to see no distinction whatsoever in your name calling of the president, Tony Blair and other persons -- anything goes because they are public officials. You can sit back and, as you and others have done repeatedly, call him false and disparaging names ("idiot", "drunk", "liar" etc.), and in your mind that is proper conduct and fair game and in perfect compliance with PD rules. Yes, I have read the PD rules, and I am surprised that you view your own conduct as fine and mine as in violation.

            It does not even cross your mind that calling others names without backing up the facts can be as offensive to some of us as if you wrote the same things about individual posters. I have made some tough posts about public officials -- for example, I have written that Bill Clinton was a serial liar and other things while in the White House, and there is an ample public record and judicial findings to support that. The difference here is that there is no such public record, there remains a great deal that is unknown about the intelligence for going to war (other than much of it was incorrect, which is not the same thing as saying, as you and others wish to insist, that it was a lie).

            Let me be specific here, because you seem not to get it: I do not believe President Bush is an "idiot." I do not think you literally believe that either, and instead that you are using that term as nothing more than an insult. Fine, but stop pretending your post is other than name-calling. I do not believe President Bush is a drunk. I do believe -- because he said so during his campaign -- that he had a drinking problem and that he took affirmative steps to deal with it, namely to give it up. If he was formerly a drunk but has not had a drink in years, it might make a very nice insult, but it is factually false to persist in calling him that if he has not taken a drink in a decade. And for you to accuse him of intentionally misleading the American people for purposes of his own political advantage and re-electability concerning the WMD and other questions is to call him a liar, as many on here have done explicitly. I do not believe he did any of these things, and have said so based on facts. You have refused to engage on those facts and sulk away.

            Your defense to such conduct is to claim that, because you don't do so in every single post, there is nothing wrong with it. Well, no, not as a first amendment matter -- you have a right to build entire arguments around boorish name-calling -- but you seem offended that such arguments are found lacking or that your unwillingness (or more likely inability) to defend them is pointed out, as here. Am I wrong? Prove it: respond to the arguments on the merits.

            When your actual postions are challenged -- in the course of which you are teased with the suggestion that your posts are so much tough talking 20-20 hindsight from the safety of your parents' basement, or that your special claim to national security intelligence because you work somewhere, in some unspecified capacity in some Indiana law enforcement office may not be quite the same thing as making you privy to NSA information -- suddenly your feelings are hurt and you hit the ignore button, but only after inviting the moderators to weigh in and punish the baddy.

            In several posts you never answer the actual argument about how it can be that all the Dems who said the same thing as Bush about Saddam and WMDs get a free pass from you, yet you call Bush and now Blair liars. Such refusal to discuss the merits, and insistence on sulking away and summoning monitors and hitting ignore etc. is your right, but do not think it is a substitute for actually arguing the facts.

            You are correct that I apologized, in private and in public, for a post that apparently hurt your feelings. I was and am truly sorry for hurting your feelings. But I would be less than honest if I did not tell you that I am also having trouble understanding how someone who so easily engages in name calling of public figures, and who refuses to explain or defend such conduct on the facts, can nonetheless claim to be so tender hearted when the rebuttal stings. But there is a great deal I don't understand here.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

              Batboy, Get off it. The difference is between comments on the PUBLIC policy of PUBLIC officials and crude personal comments about posters. If you don't see that difference then nothing else I say will make any difference. And anyway, you've called Clinton a Coke snorting, murderous, draft dodging, rapist, so I really don't see why you think accusing Bush of misleading us about Iraqi intelligence is so out of bounds.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                Batboy, Get off it. The difference is between comments on the PUBLIC policy of PUBLIC officials and crude personal comments about posters. If you don't see that difference then nothing else I say will make any difference. And anyway, you've called Clinton a Coke snorting, murderous, draft dodging, rapist, so I really don't see why you think accusing Bush of misleading us about Iraqi intelligence is so out of bounds.
                3Ball: I made no "crude" personal comments. I made a joking reference to one posting of Eindar, to tease about the implication that he is somehow a national security expert, by claiming that he is using 20-20 hindsight from the safety of home (to which I continue to believe inordinate offense was taken, but for which I have repeatedly apologized). Your characterizing the joke as crude, slimy, and classless is over the top and far out of proportion.

                Your claims that I have called Clinton these names are false. What I have made reference to are the existence of law enforcement tapes in which Clinton's brother is recorded talking about his drug use with his brother. I have not called Clinton a coke-snorter and do not know if he was, but I do know that his own brother claimed that he was, and did so in a circumstance that I did post about. In other words, there are facts about which we can debate, and I have presented them but neither of you has, nor have you addressed the ample evidence that Bush said the same thing Dems said a few years earlier. Is that splitting hairs too fine for you? I think that is the major difference, and we will be on par if and when -- but ONLY if and when -- you, Eindar, or someone else can present information that he lied, and not merely that the intelligence he (and Dems, earlier) relied on that turned out to be incorrect.

                Do you honestly dispute that Clinton was a draft dodger? He admitted as much during the 1992 campaign. You see no distinction between that or other allegations for which there is evidence in existence -- Clinton was found in contempt of court by a federal judge, and was disbarred from the practice of law, for example -- and the name calling ("liar") of Bush for which there is significant evidence to the contrary.

                Yes, public officials are held to a different standard than individuals in terms of slander and libel (that was the holding of NYT v. Sullivan), because public officials are deemed to have the ability to defend themselves and rebut false allegations to an extent private citizens do not. But that does not mean that absolutely anything said about a public official is okay -- contrary to what you and others seem to think, calling public officials names just because it isn't legally actionable is not noble. And referring to public information about a public official isn't ignoble if the information is true. I can make the case that Clinton is a liar and perjurer, and can back it up with public records and facts -- perhaps you or Eindar can make the case that Bush is, based on WMD or some other matter, but neither of you have been able to do so thus far, and the way you fail to distinguish between actual evidence and your feelings, and your insistence on pretending to be wounded by joking personal references makes pretty clear you will be unable to do so. Still, I'm listening, give it a shot -- and if you do, please respond with facts this time.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                  You say you didn't call Clinton these things and then, IN THE SAME POST you repeat the allegations? Strange. And for the record, here are a few winners:

                  A few Bush lies
                  In 2002 Bush claimed to have first met Ken Lay in 1994. Not true.

                  "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."- September 12 2002. Not true

                  On Saddam: "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." May 2003. Not true.

                  On why Bush attacked Iraq when he did: "Saddam would not let the inspectors in." Not true. Bush made the claim at least twice, but the inspectors were there and it was the US who told the inspectors to get out or risk being bombed.

                  October 22, 2006 interview with Stephanopoulos: "We’ve never been staying the course, George!" Not true.
                  On other occasions: "We will stay the course." 8/30/06, "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. 8/4/05, "We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course." 12/15/03, "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course." 4/13/04, "And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it." 4/16/04, and "And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." 4/5/04

                  During the 2000 campaign: "I won't run a deficit...I was a governor. I believe in balanced budgets." Spectacularly not true.

                  On Meet the Press: "I released all my National Guard records in 2000." Not true. Actually, he only released more records (there may still me more) fours years after they were first requested.

                  Again on Meet the Press: "I'm spending less than Bill Clinton." Not true, and easily verifiable. Actually Bush increased spending more than any president since Lyndon Johnson

                  And my personal favorite: During the first campaign, Bush said that "The vast majority" of his tax cuts would go to the bottom 50%. Not true. In reality, 14.7% went to the bottom 60%.

                  And as a bonus, here is one from Cheney. [On the supposed connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam] "Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni. " Not true. What the (Republican chaired) Senate Intelligence Committee actually found: "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." [pg. 109]

                  I could go on, but my parents just said it's time to go to bed [KIDDING!]

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                    You say you didn't call Clinton these things and then, IN THE SAME POST you repeat the allegations? Strange. And for the record, here are a few winners:

                    A few Bush lies
                    In 2002 Bush claimed to have first met Ken Lay in 1994. Not true.

                    "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."- September 12 2002. Not true

                    On Saddam: "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." May 2003. Not true.

                    On why Bush attacked Iraq when he did: "Saddam would not let the inspectors in." Not true. Bush made the claim at least twice, but the inspectors were there and it was the US who told the inspectors to get out or risk being bombed.

                    October 22, 2006 interview with Stephanopoulos: "We’ve never been staying the course, George!" Not true.
                    On other occasions: "We will stay the course." 8/30/06, "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. 8/4/05, "We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course." 12/15/03, "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course." 4/13/04, "And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it." 4/16/04, and "And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." 4/5/04

                    During the 2000 campaign: "I won't run a deficit...I was a governor. I believe in balanced budgets." Spectacularly not true.

                    On Meet the Press: "I released all my National Guard records in 2000." Not true. Actually, he only released more records (there may still me more) fours years after they were first requested.

                    Again on Meet the Press: "I'm spending less than Bill Clinton." Not true, and easily verifiable. Actually Bush increased spending more than any president since Lyndon Johnson

                    And my personal favorite: During the first campaign, Bush said that "The vast majority" of his tax cuts would go to the bottom 50%. Not true. In reality, 14.7% went to the bottom 60%.

                    And as a bonus, here is one from Cheney. [On the supposed connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam] "Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni. " Not true. What the (Republican chaired) Senate Intelligence Committee actually found: "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." [pg. 109]

                    I could go on, but my parents just said it's time to go to bed [KIDDING!]


                    3Ball... You need to research those 'lies' a LOT more before you run to the bank with them.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                      enough is enough already, I'm locking this one, you can discuss politics in this forum, not posters.

                      The personal attacks for viewpoints have to end, you are discussing the ideas and the events, not the poster(s).

                      If you can't do better then there are 3 options:
                      1. we close the politics board
                      2. we enforce the rules for PD harder then ever before
                      3. you just stop posting in this forum

                      2 is going to happen, no matter what, you can all count on that and in that same sequence I would strongly advise all of you to read the updated rules of PD (see link on top of page).

                      We like the political discussion in this forum, however no one should feel threatened to post for fear of personal retaliation and insults, that's one step to far.

                      Stick to the topic, do not shoot the messenger, and always remember;

                      In a land advocating free speech, you can always discuss the opinion, but never the person who holds it.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X