So, Osama walks into a bar..........

[Einstein]

on top of this IRAN is funnelling weapons and over 100 million a year to Hezbollah.. which hates Israel.. hmm... it's not just the Iranian pres doing this now is it.. I mean that man is so little I doubt he could even carry a standard size rifle..lol.. There is no way that little man is soley responsible for all of the rockets being shipped to lebanon through syria..

[Einstein]

I'm sorry for pointing out that to use arguments which, in essence, come down to "anyone who disagrees with what I have just said mentally deranged" might suggest something wrong with the arguer's logic.

Should I point out that you seem to be confusing governments, states, and persons? Iran did not say it wanted to wipe Israel off the map; the president of Iran did. Iran does not hate, Israel does not love, and the United States does not support. People do. Governments do. Countries don't. Using words like "they" and "you" personalizes the issues to a degree that is bound to cause some irrationality to emerge. It simplifies, and it makes for overgeneralizations.

Is this now a valid criticism of your arguments?

Please, go back to watching your marathon simpsons video tapes that you love so much instead of attempting to be the devils advocate here.. It would be time spent more wisely... Just a tip

First you mention Ralph Wiggum
Then you use a slang word for the simpsons..cromulent

Who does that?

[Freak]

I must have missed the post where you coherently, logically and elegantly equated 'rogue' with 'who want to kill you'.

That major of yours on LSN which you state as "eng", pray tell, is it engineering? It would explain the cromulent grammar and pervasive absolutism of your 'reasoning'.

I'm tired of your Ad Hoministic attacks, this does not help anything... why even say something like that.. are you trying to discredit me so therefore discrediting what I say?
 Just wrong..

LOL.  Didn't you just sling "tards" in your last post?  Whatever.  This is a really silly argument, and it doesn't really relate to the Palast piece very well.

You're funny, ionlyknow, but she's right you use them too.

[Einstein]

I must have missed the post where you coherently, logically and elegantly equated 'rogue' with 'who want to kill you'.

That major of yours on LSN which you state as "eng", pray tell, is it engineering? It would explain the cromulent grammar and pervasive absolutism of your 'reasoning'.

I'm tired of your Ad Hoministic attacks, this does not help anything... why even say something like that.. are you trying to discredit me so therefore discrediting what I say?
 Just wrong..

LOL.  Didn't you just sling "tards" in your last post?  Whatever.  This is a really silly argument, and it doesn't really relate to the Palast piece very well.

You're funny, ionlyknow, but she's right you use them too.

Yea but it was more descriptive, tell who I was talking about, not meant to discredit what any of his arguements..

I wouldn't be so quick to call it an Ad hominem

[Freak]

I must have missed the post where you coherently, logically and elegantly equated 'rogue' with 'who want to kill you'.

That major of yours on LSN which you state as "eng", pray tell, is it engineering? It would explain the cromulent grammar and pervasive absolutism of your 'reasoning'.

I'm tired of your Ad Hoministic attacks, this does not help anything... why even say something like that.. are you trying to discredit me so therefore discrediting what I say?
 Just wrong..

LOL.  Didn't you just sling "tards" in your last post?  Whatever.  This is a really silly argument, and it doesn't really relate to the Palast piece very well.

You're funny, ionlyknow, but she's right you use them too.

Yea but it was more descriptive, tell who I was talking about, not meant to discredit what any of his arguements..

I wouldn't be so quick to call it an Ad hominem

Of course not, you wrote them. 

[gillesthegreat]

And for the record, cromulent is now accepted by Webster's new millenium dictionary

[Einstein]

I must have missed the post where you coherently, logically and elegantly equated 'rogue' with 'who want to kill you'.

That major of yours on LSN which you state as "eng", pray tell, is it engineering? It would explain the cromulent grammar and pervasive absolutism of your 'reasoning'.

I'm tired of your Ad Hoministic attacks, this does not help anything... why even say something like that.. are you trying to discredit me so therefore discrediting what I say?
 Just wrong..

LOL.  Didn't you just sling "tards" in your last post?  Whatever.  This is a really silly argument, and it doesn't really relate to the Palast piece very well.

You're funny, ionlyknow, but she's right you use them too.

Yea but it was more descriptive, tell who I was talking about, not meant to discredit what any of his arguements..

I wouldn't be so quick to call it an Ad hominem

Of course not, you wrote them. 

I could have exchanged the word "tard" for "people"

It then would have read....

I wrote that statement for the people that didn't get that the rogue nation that I am talking about also wants to kill you.

This doesnt change my point at all.. But his attack does not have the same luxury.  Making it an Ad hominem

[Freak]

And for the record, cromulent is now accepted by Webster's new millenium dictionary

why don't you just use neologism? It's not as caustic.

[Einstein]

And for the record, cromulent is now accepted by Webster's new millenium dictionary

HAHA.. do a google search for "definition cromulent" and tell me what the very first link says.. LOL

[Einstein]

A - And you complained about Ad hominem?
B - If I were to borrow your use of personalization (bordering on animism), I could state verily that the UNITED STATES killed Allende and Lumumba, that the UNITED STATES supported terrorism in El Salvador and Nicaragua, that the UNITED STATES attempted a coup against Hugo Chavez, that the UNITED STATES supported the actions of the Suharto regime. If you agree with all these carecterizations, I think we could agree to disagree on many things.
C - It seems you define rogue nations as "one who wants to kill you" or something of that order. Could you elaborate? It might lead you to the realization that you watch too much Fox news.
D - "By that statement I would have to write a 500 page document explaining exactly what I meant...". Not if you were to use words that actually meant something. It seems you rely an awful lot on truthiness.

A. And what?

B. Unrelated to this entire thread.

C. actually CNN it's like a drug

D. GAWD I was just trying to make a point.. do you have autism or something..     being sarcastic ...hello...