Thread: Hillary! I don't think so.

Yahooo !!!
Bama is back !!
I thought you were banned.

crocket is naive, he replied to my posts so many times after I told him I'm not responding to him anymore, and 2ndamendmis, I kept my word. Crocket replied to me more than 7 times after my announcement i'm not talking to him anymore, and he still replies. very naive. He hurt my feelings this is the reason I ignore him and his posts. Just read it, that's all

Originally Posted by cassie

Yahooo !!!
Bama is back !!
I thought you were banned.

crocket is naive, he replied to my posts so many times after I told him I'm not responding to him anymore, and 2ndamendmis, I kept my word. Crocket replied to me more than 7 times after my announcement i'm not talking to him anymore, and he still replies. very naive. He hurt my feelings this is the reason I ignore him and his posts. Just read it, that's all

You said that you were not responding to me, as did Bama (presumably to "prove" that he is no troll), yet interestingly enough you both decided to make comments about my post at the same time. What a coincidence. BTW- I did not say that I would stop commenting on your posts. In case you haven't noticed, I'm an equal opportunity debunker.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Yahooo !!!
Bama is back !!
I thought you were banned.

crocket is naive, he replied to my posts so many times after I told him I'm not responding to him anymore, and 2ndamendmis, I kept my word. Crocket replied to me more than 7 times after my announcement i'm not talking to him anymore, and he still replies. very naive. He hurt my feelings this is the reason I ignore him and his posts. Just read it, that's all

You said that you were not responding to me, as did Bama (presumably to "prove" that he is no troll), yet interestingly enough you both decided to make comments about my post at the same time. What a coincidence. BTW- I did not say that I would stop commenting on your posts. In case you haven't noticed, I'm an equal opportunity debunker.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by neilsthepoet

cassie,

You're sick of the war in Iraq.

Why don't you just put down your pack and rest a bit?

I'm resting more and more, didn't you notice that I post much less than in the beginning ?? I need time for myself too. I already know who I will vote in the presidential election, I'll vote the Democtat that wins the primaries. I don't want another Republican to fight wars for big business again. I bet Tancredo would also start an unjust war somewhere, I've no evidence, just my feeling.

Given your criteria, fighting the Nazis in WWII was unjust. After all, when did the Nazis ever attack the US?

What a terrible "point".

Hitler and Mussolini had already declared war on the United States before Congress delcared war against "the Nazis".

[1] Yes, and so had Saddam, at least rhetorically.

[2] He had repeatedly fired on our aircraft in the no fly zone and was already subject to and in violation of conditions set by the cease fire from the first Gulf War.

[3] I thought you had promised to stop stalking me... Were you being less than honest when you said that you would steer clear of harassing me? I mean, anyone is certainly free to comment on anything written here, but given that you were clearly stalking me, that you had told William that you were going to make an effort to avoid future attacks on me, and that one of your first posts after a short absence is a hapless attack on one of my posts, it seems that you were more than a bit disingenuous when you offered that little bit of faux magnanimity...

[1] "At least rhetorically"? Show me a legitimate source where Hussein ever stated that he'd declared war on the United States, post Gulf War.

[2] Saddam violated U.N. resolutions, not resolutions of the United States; hence, any such violations were the business of the U.N., not the U.S. -- and I would think that you'd be of a mind that the U.S. not only has has no business in the U.N., but should get out ASAP. Yet now you apparently believe the U.S. rightfully does the bidding of the U.N., legitmately hands over its sovereignty to it? Well. If the U.N. ever passes a resolution that declares the U.S. needs to be disarmed, like many other countries are, I would then expect you to be among the first to support it and to relinguish whatever firearms you may possess, Ghost.

As for the firing on American troops in the no fly zone, bear in mind first that Rice and Powell both declared, in February 2001, that Saddam was no threat to America and that he was completely contained. Then consider that your argument depends on the legitimacy of the U.N. resolutions that carved out the no-fly-zones in the first place -- see previous paragraph. And then there's the little matter that the no fly zones were actually IN IRAQ: The U.N. decreed that Iraqi jets couldn't fly over their own country, but U.N. jets could. Be careful what you wish for, Ghost. If the U.N. declared parts of America no fly zones, should we respect that? Would we consider ourselves not justified in trying to shoot down the interlopers over our (othewise) sovereign land? Even dictators would previously signed on to certain provisions in treaties can change their mind. Bush did, unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Don't you think the U.S. and Iraq have every right to protect their sovereignty from those who'd violate their airspace? Thanks to our military superiority, the U.N. enjoys an ability to enforce its resolutions from time to time. But it's beyond dispute that might doesn't make right.

[3] Your disingenuous first sentence suggests that I'd agreed I was "stalking" you. There being no such case, there was no such agreement. Nice spin, though. Your second sentence is no less incredible, as I was not "harassing" you by my devasting rebuke of your wildly mal-informed statements on the law, and thusly never had occasion to say that I'd steer clear of such.

What I'd said, in a post published the same minute as ALIPAC posted his message was that I'd try to ignore you -- and ALIPAC counseled that you and I cool our jets and not respond to each other for a while.

I was not "clearly" stalking you. And because you are not in fact being "attacked" by me, I never said I'd avoid any such thing as you so histrionically perceive, "in the future." You must post nearly 25 times a day. It's not difficult to find your misstatements all over this board. You want a rebuttal free no-fly-zone -- which is understandable, given the utter untenability, the outright fiction, of so many of your statements.

And you're quite the crybaby.

Originally Posted by cassie

Yahooo !!!
Bama is back !!
I thought you were banned.

crocket is naive, he replied to my posts so many times after I told him I'm not responding to him anymore, and 2ndamendmis, I kept my word. Crocket replied to me more than 7 times after my announcement i'm not talking to him anymore, and he still replies. very naive. He hurt my feelings this is the reason I ignore him and his posts. Just read it, that's all

I'm back posting, but was never truly gone and I logged on here most everyday. Ghost posts just one falsehood after another -- and yet is quite capable of interlarding such posts with a few solid ones. I can't account for the glaring inconsistency, but I had to bite my typing fingers from responding to so many of his oh so multitudinously wrong ones so many times.

The matter I discovered to be mostly of interest to me was the proposed boycott of Wal-Mart. With a steady claim to fully 2% of this nation's GDP, Wal-Mart is beyond boycotting.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Yahooo !!!
Bama is back !!
I thought you were banned.

crocket is naive, he replied to my posts so many times after I told him I'm not responding to him anymore, and 2ndamendmis, I kept my word. Crocket replied to me more than 7 times after my announcement i'm not talking to him anymore, and he still replies. very naive. He hurt my feelings this is the reason I ignore him and his posts. Just read it, that's all

You said that you were not responding to me, as did Bama (presumably to "prove" that he is no troll), yet interestingly enough you both decided to make comments about my post at the same time. What a coincidence.

So I am a troll if I respond to any of your 25+ posts per day?

And I am a troll if I don't respond, because such abstention is somehow evidence of my troll coverup?

You're driving yourself crazy, Ghost.

And you find it "interesting" that Cassie and I responded to your post "at the same time"? I'm not sufficiently interested myself to go back and check whether our posts were simultaneous as ALIPAC and mine once were, (but given your woeful record of stating facts, I would not be surprised if you were off base yet again). Why do you marvel at the "coincidence"?

I am not Cassie. Cassie is not me.

And if we truly posted at the same time, wouldn't that be evidence enough for you that we are not the same person? Probably not, sad to to say.

Bama,

I thought you had promised to stop stalking me...

I remember that as well.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Bama,

I thought you had promised to stop stalking me...

I remember that as well.

Dixie

duplicate post, deleted.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by Dixie

Bama,

I thought you had promised to stop stalking me...

I remember that as well.

Dixie

You must be sympathetic to Libby's defense of "mis-remembering".

Perhaps you can find where I said something other than that I'd try to ignore Ghost's posts.