• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation

I bet you're sitting in your mom's basement banging on the keyboard, with your head blowing up like a red balloon and steam coming out of your ears. :baby1:baby2 Are you pumping your chest making grunting sounds too? psst::: we can't hear you.

Your bullying act doesn't bother everybody here pal.

Clean up your act. :2rofll:

Thanks for giving me something to report.:2wave:

What was that about cleaning up your act?:mrgreen:
 
I bet you're sitting in your mom's basement banging on the keyboard, with your head blowing up like a red balloon and steam coming out of your ears. baby2 Are you pumping your chest making grunting sounds too? we can't hear you. :lol:

Your bullying act doesn't bother everybody here pal. :lol:

Clean up your act. :2rofll:




Actually I'm sitting in a private office at a 50 million a year company, working on packet captures, looking for information on a DOS attack....


I am turning red though I must admit, from holding in all my laughter..... :2wave:
 
Do they know how much time you waste here?




I get paid for my results. And the Good Reverend is smart, he can multitask. In fact his Greatness is so vast, that he usually needs to be doing two or three things at the same time in order to keep intelectual interest up. ;)


If you knew anyting about capturing packets, btw, you really wouldn't be asking me about what I am doing with my time right now. :2wave:
 
Do they know how much time you waste here?
Coming from a poster who averages 50 post a day. Either your employer might wish to check up on you, or Mom and Dad should suggest you get a job.;)
 
You're actually going to sit here and talk about personal attacks? That's just rich.

Isn't that what we're talking about? The issue seems to be the bullying that goes on here. The issue is the personal attacks that don't seem to rise to the level to get your attention unless one particular little bully boy gets a dose of his own medicine.

What was that about personal attacks? And of the lowest sort.

It's realllll funny how NOW you come out of the woodwork. NOW you feel the need to defend someone? Where was your feigned indignity when the attacks came from another direction? Spare me your self-righteous act! We can see right through it.

Did I personally attack anyone? If someone takes any of what I wrote personally, perhaps they're taking a little too much ownership of what I wrote. Ya think? :2wave:
 
Moderator's Warning:
The questioning of manhood, the insults, the baiting, and the off-topic responses need to end and the topic needs to be brought back to the focus of this thread, or people will be escorted out of it.
 
If you have a point to make about Sandy Berger, just make it.
I never would've guessed that I needed to be so explicit.

In the wake of 9/11, a commission was formed to determine went wrong in the US intelligence community.

Members of various administrations were chosen to be on the commission, including Sandy Berger who was National Security Adviser during the Clinton Administration.

Because he was a member of the commission, he was given access to the National Archives so that he could retrieve relevant documents.

He removed documents from the National Archives regarding the way that the Clinton Administration dealt with AQ.

Instead of forwarding those documents to the commission, he destroyed them, preventing the commission from investigating the way the Clinton Administration handled AQ.

I haven't heard anyone silly enough to suggest that he might've done that even if there was no problem with the way the Clinton Administration handled AQ.

All of this was reported by the MSM which makes it quite odd that you would ask me that question.
 
Do you think Cheney and the CIA got the idea to destroy those torture tapes from him. Sorta like a "What's good for the goose" kinda thing? :cool:
 
I never would've guessed that I needed to be so explicit.

I'm not going to go making your points for you.

I haven't heard anyone silly enough to suggest that he might've done that even if there was no problem with the way the Clinton Administration handled AQ.

Ah, so because somebody took some papers, it proves something! :doh

All of this was reported by the MSM which makes it quite odd that you would ask me that question.

I'm fully aware of what happened, son. I wanted to know what ridiculous point you had to make about it. Glad we got that out of the way.
 
I never would've guessed that I needed to be so explicit.

In the wake of 9/11, a commission was formed to determine went wrong in the US intelligence community.

Members of various administrations were chosen to be on the commission, including Sandy Berger who was National Security Adviser during the Clinton Administration.

Because he was a member of the commission, he was given access to the National Archives so that he could retrieve relevant documents.

He removed documents from the National Archives regarding the way that the Clinton Administration dealt with AQ.

Instead of forwarding those documents to the commission, he destroyed them, preventing the commission from investigating the way the Clinton Administration handled AQ.

I haven't heard anyone silly enough to suggest that he might've done that even if there was no problem with the way the Clinton Administration handled AQ.

All of this was reported by the MSM which makes it quite odd that you would ask me that question.
You will find that there are all manner or matters of public record that misterman knows nothing about and needs you to spell out explicitly for him. Until he decides to posture pose strut in another direction. ;)
 
I'm not going to go making your points for you.
I didn't ask you to, but I shouldn't have to spoonfeed something to you that's been widely reported.
Ah, so because somebody took some papers, it proves something! :doh
You don't destroy documents unless you're hiding something, even children understand this.
I'm fully aware of what happened, son. I wanted to know what ridiculous point you had to make about it. Glad we got that out of the way.
You're right, it's ridiculous to think that destroying documents = coverup.:roll:
 
I didn't ask you to, but I shouldn't have to spoonfeed something to you that's been widely reported.

As I said, I didn't ask you to spoonfeed it to me, I knew what happened. I wanted you to make your point about it. So just do it.

You don't destroy documents unless you're hiding something, even children understand this.

But it doesn't prove what you're hiding. See the subtlety there?

You're right, it's ridiculous to think that destroying documents = coverup.:roll:

Of course it was a coverup. Duh. But we don't know of what, because it was successful. Again, duh. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you this.
 
You will find that there are all manner or matters of public record that misterman knows nothing about and needs you to spell out explicitly for him.

It's only common sense that if you want to make a point... you need to... make it. Just throwing a name out there doesn't cut it. :doh
 
As I said, I didn't ask you to spoonfeed it to me, I knew what happened. I wanted you to make your point about it. So just do it.



But it doesn't prove what you're hiding. See the subtlety there?



Of course it was a coverup. Duh. But we don't know of what, because it was successful. Again, duh. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you this.
People don't destroy or coverup good things, only bad things. As I already said, even children understand this.
 
It's only common sense that if you want to make a point... you need to... make it. Just throwing a name out there doesn't cut it. :doh
If we were discussing the pros and cons of the Nixon Administration, and someone mentioned Watergate, it would be silly to ask for an explanation, unless you were unfamiliar with the Watergate coverup. If you already knew the story of Sandy Berger and the National Archives, there's no reason for me to say anything more than "Sandy Berger". Now that I went the extra distance and explained it anyway, none of the Clinton supporters have been willing to address it. You've just been derailing the conversation by talking about spoonfeeding.

Are any Clinton supporters willing to address the Sandy Berger aspect of this discussion?
 
If we were discussing the pros and cons of the Nixon Administration, and someone mentioned Watergate, it would be silly to ask for an explanation, unless you were unfamiliar with the Watergate coverup. If you already knew the story of Sandy Berger and the National Archives, there's no reason for me to say anything more than "Sandy Berger".

Merely dropping a name says nothing about what point you're trying to make. You may be familiar with the issue but, you can't assume those people you're talking to will jump to the exact same point you're thinking of. There aren't many psychics here.

Now that I went the extra distance and explained it anyway,

Extra distance? How kind of you.

You've just been derailing the conversation by talking about spoonfeeding.

Pointing an issue out to you is not derailing.

By the by, I love your signature!
 
Back
Top Bottom