No. That's Fanta's humor. There are too many smileys to be taken seriously.

Oh yes, ontop of all the other personal insults in multiple threads and the fact that he has no editted the post. It isn't humor, it is bigotry.

It was psychological warfare on the American people. No matter what really brought those buildings down, 9/11 was exploited for the purpose of war on Iraq.

don't no about fanta. but for me I'm to old to fight. i live buy one rule shoot first. worry about it later.

Bigotry? Fanta is not a bigot.

First, look up the definition of a bigot.

Then, look at his insults, personal attacks, threats, and language towards those who have differing opinions and there is enough evidence to argue he is.

i guess if i look at you hard. that would be a threat to.

That makes no sense. I feel bad for having allowed people to ruin the thread starters original intent of the points he put forth for discussion. I put my own opinion in a lengthy arguments of opinion, based off of my studies, it was others who hijacked this for either tirades of a personal nature or defending highly improper before both as a human being and debater.

I don't need to look it up. It is a prejudiced person.

He gets wild. He plays with people. There a few Repubs on here that make him look like an angel. They are downright mean.
He just gets rude.

hey star BOO.

Oh, so there are Republicans that are far worse than him, make him 'look like an angel', and so it isn't that bad that he ruins debates by resorting to solely based personal attacks against individuals of this forum or whole groups of people. It's all okay. They are mean, he's just rude, there is nothing mean behind it.

Give me a break. If he was a nice Republican, though I don't think you think there is such a thing, you'd be calling him an evil and mean person.

I'm here for debate. I want to solely debate the issues with concise arguments based on studies from outside sources and personal opinions backed by some experience or education. However, there are too many that choose to do anything but that, they will target individuals for personal attacks within the group or attack a whole group of people outside this group. It is childish, rude, and demeaning to what should be a friendly forum for agreeing and opposing minds to discuss issues of the day.

When people continue to deter such processes it really ticks me off that we can't act like educated grownups and debate the issues rather than target the individuals putting them forth for discussion.

Now, don't you think that you are being rude to me?

I don't care if someone is Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Communist as long as they debate without being mean.

You don't know me to say such a thing as if I would call Repubs evil and mean. I have friends and relatives that are Repubs as well as Democrats. A friend of mine even invited me to her Repub fundraiser. I did not attend. It was for Bush.

I said that there were a few Repub. on here that are mean. Not all of them, for goodness sakes.

I apologize for my outburst to you sailor!

I was agitated a little, and a little was a distasteful sense of humor!

Get real now.
I'll argue you out of your socks, but you have a nasty attitude when your shown wrong and ignore the facts if they dont agree with your way of thinking!

I think you just described your own tactics and those of a couple More. Not mine, I just get tired of your tactics from time to time.

Now, I just apologized for my actions tonight, are you man enough to do the same or do you plan on continuing with your insults?

Here you go sweetie, can I call you that? :) Let's debate the "war on terror". Many of see it as the fear mongering vice it is.

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.



I don't even think we know who or where the real danger is anymore. Terrorist cannot even be identified. Why not call them freedom fighters?

oh don't do that the neocons will call you antiamerican. their terrorist our the worlds freedom fighters.

Insults are different than direct personal attacks. Insults when someone says "NeoCons rule the world and Bush put you on a terror list" and I respond calling that an "ignorant statement" could be considered an insult, but it has warranted stances with the definition of ignorant. They cannot base it on any evidence and thus fill the definition. It is not politically correct, but it is not a direct personal attack on the individual.

MY attacks, counterarguments, NEVER go after the individual person. You attack my age, my education, experience. People ask me if I'm a Jew. People insult my social status making claims. And, just general insults and assumptions they do not have reason to use, labelling me into groups centered around the very harsh opinions they have for them.

I don't agree ideologically with socialists, communists, liberals, but I never hold the same connotations as others do when they call people a NeoCon or Zionist. They consider those people the most evil, cruel, dangerous, murderers and so on. It is an offensive, very bigotted connotation to say "You're a Zionist, You're a NeoCon." My saying "You're a liberal" or "You're a socialist" doesn't even have a slightly close same level of negativity for I view the ideology as flawed though sane, legitimate and so forth, no harsh opinion of the morality or being of that person that people use with the other rightwing labelling.

I have never had a "nasty" attitude. I have never, like yourself, gone off on a pure personal attack in result to someones presentation of argument or sources. Unlike yourself, who is never wrong and believes they are far superior intellectually than myself, STEVE COLL AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, a thread you disappeared from when you called the Pulitzer Prize pretty much an illegitimate award by likely republican neocons. You hold yourself on a platform of superiority among all others of this forum and anyone who differs from your opinion quickly gets a label (usually NeoCon, a label that does not stick) and attacked personally.

I do not accept your apology for you have not done this once, twice, just tonight either. You've been doing this for weeks and longer now. Calling people sheeple, NeoCons, robots, Zionists, propangandized fools and so forth over and over again. You will NOT see the same from me. The only direction of label upon yourself I have given is following your attacks first, or when I call you a "shill" for Obama. If you look up the definition and the fact that Progressive sites linked lobbyists to Obama you huffed and puffed, pretty much said they were lies (from Progressives mind you, Obama's own side of the spectrum), and outright left the thread after further insults. If you look up the definition of a shill it is a label that befit your stance, and isn't exactly negative, but shows that there is obvious unwavering bias based on extreme loyalty.

There is so much more that is all wrong with you're attempt to say "hey you're as bad as me" or "I'm a victim too". I don't buy your apology one bit. It doesn't add up. You suddenly apologize after you not only personally attacked me and threatened a joy of violence, but you did it excessively so in a short span. I truly believe you are playing the card that you want to cover your butt from the punishment for breaking a whole series of forum rules tonight. You can prove me wrong by a new direction in your responses by choosing not to continue the one-liners where you insult with the sheeple, robot, NeoCon, or other usual jargon than my opinion of your intentions will change as well. But, till then, unless you post at length (which your post about oil is the first one in a long time you posted at length based on your own opinion, suspicious for timing when surrounded by tonight's events) on topics I will not expect a change in your tactics and so forth.

Now, I'm really off to bed.

LMAO,
I didnt think so!!