Posted on 05/29/2008 4:34:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The purpose of the ad hominen is to end discussion, which you have done.
You are such a freakin’ coward.
If you had the courage of your convictions, you would be able to demonstrate why Bolton is not only wrong, but why *you* are right. You are intellectually incapable of that.
But you *were* desperately searching for a way to slink off from this thread because you got called on your absurd and baseless statements, and since it appears that you finally figured out how to spell “ad hominem”, it is clear to one and all that you did find a way to escape.
C’mon back and play anytime. I’ve not had this much fun since a friendly game of Whack-A-Mole. Next time, bring a spine and some arguments to support your view.
Cat got your tongue eh?
Wrong — the President can wage unrestricted warfare for 60 days.
Show me proof of that, please.
It’s called the War Powers Act, look it up: Google is your friend.
“After November sounds good.”
~~~
JMHO: The day after the election will be best,,,
Nothing to lose at that point in time,,,
(1)Refineries will have already changed over from gasoline
to home heating oil,,,(no price spike)
(2)Hurricane season will be over by then,,,
(3)The SPR will be as full as it’s gunna get,,,
(4)Under the WPA the POTUS will have 60 days before the
dems/rinos/etc. could do anything about it,,,
Qods must be taken out before there will any peace in Iraq.
Actually, the War Powers Act provides for 90 days for the President to wage war before any Congressional action pro or con can be taken.
This means that if our President decides to pull the trigger on the Iranian Islamofascists, he would have more than enough time from Election night in November to Inauguration Day in January to neuter the little Nazis.
And if we’re going to do that, we should (as Jerry Reed might say) “make it count son!” and wipe their ass out once and for all. Give the the Jimmy Carters of the world something to really whine and weep about.
Tehran, Tabriz, Qom.
Nuke ‘em like we did the Japs in ‘45. Make an example of Iran that will scare the bejesus out of any other aspiring wannabe nuclear players and/or terrorists.
And just to be sure the record shows it properly, when poster ‘RightWhale’ asserted that “Bolton is wrong”, I challenged that assertion, and after a whole series of evasions and refusals to back up that assertion, Bolton’s statements continue to stand on their own in the absence of any rebuttal.
The following is the back-and-forth for reference:
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Unnecessary. Bolton is wrong.
4 posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:36:58 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale
Oh really?
I think most of us know Bolton’s credentials, and the fact is, he’s right and has the courage of his convictions to take issue with the Bush Administration over not only their failure to deal effectively with Iran, but their surrender to Comrade Chia Pet in North Korea.
Now what are YOUR credentials that qualify you to pop up and say “Bolton is wrong”?
14 posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:13:46 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
He is a private citizen and can say whatgever he wants even if he is wrong.
15 posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:15:10 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale
Prove he’s wrong. And state YOUR credentials that make your opinion more worthy than his.
It’s put up or shut up time pal.
Let’s hear it.
24 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 6:12:32 AM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
No, it’s not. Nice ad hominen, though, if not subtle.
25 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 10:55:06 AM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale
There was, and is *nothing* “ad hominen” about challenging someone to back up what they’re saying about someone who clearly has the superior credentials, experience and knowledge to speak on whatever the subject might be.
You come into this thread just making blanket pronouncements about “Bolton is wrong” and you have no basis for it, you offer nothing to back up your statements, you won’t even discuss your own credentials (or lack thereof) on a subject that Bolton is more than well versed in.
I’m not surprised that you would call being challenged on your empty statements as “ad hominen”, you’ve painted yourself into a corner and you have no way out except to whine about it.
You need to put something into that empty suit of yours.
32 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 1:56:03 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
There is no emergency. Nothing need be done.
That ad hominen is very much the dominant factor in your recent post and your latest post.
33 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:00:29 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale; All
OK, you say there is “no emergency”, tell us what in your view would constitute an emergency as it relates to Iran’s efforts to obtain a nuclear capability?
As for “ad hominen”, you’ve never been the subject of an a-h attack from me, because if you had been, you would know it.
Now: let’s hear about what would get a certain Alaskan Whale off it’s duff to take action when faced with what it considers an emergency, eh?
35 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:07:46 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
Your ad hominems continue. Have you ever criticized an elected official such as the Pres?
36 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:09:31 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale
All the time. Now answer the damn question and quit trying to weasel your way out of it.
37 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:10:26 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
How can you do that unless you have a superior position to that of the Pres?
38 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:12:26 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale; All
You’re evading the question. And it isn’t about having a “superior” position, it’s all about stating the basis for what my position is, if I think the President is wrong (for example on border security), I will point out WHY he is wrong, with examples, data, and demonstrations of why his border policies have been an abject failure. If I take issue with the President’s appeasement of North Korea, I will post detailed facts about WHY his policies are a failure, and I won’t just post some weak childish whining statement about “the president is wrong”, and then expect anyone to give such an absurd assertion, an assertion based on NOTHING, any credence whatsoever.
Now that I’ve explained all that basic stuff to you, tell us why you think Bolton is wrong, tell us why there is no “emergency” (in fact the word “emergency” isn’t even used in the referenced article, that was your inclusion), and explain what you base your position(s) on.
Or, you can do some more whining about “ad hominems”, and continue to evade giving any substantive answer.
Back to you Sparky.
39 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:20:59 PM by mkjessup
To: RightWhale
And in the interest of fairness, I’m going to give you plenty of time to answer, as I’ve got business to attend to. So don’t feel pressured to respond immediately, I’ll check back later for your substantive and detailed response as to why you know better than Bolton does.
‘Til then...
40 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:22:25 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
The purpose of the ad hominen is to end discussion, which you have done.
41 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 2:26:10 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale; All
You are such a freakin’ coward.
If you had the courage of your convictions, you would be able to demonstrate why Bolton is not only wrong, but why *you* are right. You are intellectually incapable of that.
But you *were* desperately searching for a way to slink off from this thread because you got called on your absurd and baseless statements, and since it appears that you finally figured out how to spell “ad hominem”, it is clear to one and all that you did find a way to escape.
C’mon back and play anytime. I’ve not had this much fun since a friendly game of Whack-A-Mole. Next time, bring a spine and some arguments to support your view.
42 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 4:20:37 PM by mkjessup
To: mkjessup
43 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 4:23:38 PM by RightWhale
To: RightWhale
Cat got your tongue eh?
44 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 4:28:37 PM by mkjessup
I wish your province would join the United States. We’ll give Canada their choice of states in trade.
LOL,,,ooops,,,My Baad,,,TANKS for the correction,,,
I don’t think their “navy” will last over an hour or so,,,
Same with their ADA,,,
That will keep the Straits of Hormuz open,,,and,,,
Take out their drinking water plants! MUUhahahahaha!...;0)
GAME OVER!...;0)
Iran's been harboring them since 2001 if not before- and aiding them as well.
Even the Pentagon doesn’t say that - and you know Cheney, who has wet dreams about attacking Iran, would be the first to be screaming that out if it was true. But hey, if it is true, you should have no trouble convincing Congress to declare war, right?
AND Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9-11 either, BTW. 9-11 came from the Taliban and Afghanistan - you remember, the war that got booted aside so the neocons could invade Iraq.
(I hope you aren't in denial about Iran and Hezbollah, too. We have reason enough to go after Iran for what they did through the late Imad Mugniyeh.)
...But intelligence officials have been most alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade al-Qa'eda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership. The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.
Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.... ----- Iran plotting to groom bin Laden's successor The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | November 14, 2006 | By Con Coughlin and George Jones, Political Editor
* Saif al Adel : al-Qaida leader who's wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and may now be the terrorist group's third-ranking official. Believed to have found refuge in Iran, where he remains active. U.S. officials, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there was evidence that members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard were sheltering Saif al Adel. The Iranian government has expelled more than 500 lower-ranking al-Qaida members and denies harboring any of the group's senior leaders. The suspicions of a link between Iran and the bombings are focused largely on Saif al Adel, who some U.S. officials think is now the head of al-Qaida operations in the Persian Gulf. U.S. intelligence officials said that Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the extremist group that counted Saif al Adel and bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al Zawahri, among its members and later merged with al-Qaida, had closer ties to Tehran. Saif al Adel himself, the officials said, got help from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah after a suicide boat attack against the U.S. Navy destroyer The Sullivans went awry in Yemen in January 2000. Armed with new plastic explosives and a better bomb design, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in Yemen that October, killing 17 Americans.- "U.S. checking whether Saudi bombings were planned in Iran," By JOHN WALCOTT, Knight Ridder Newspapers via The Mercury News, Posted on Wed, May. 14, 2003, http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5861884.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.