Skip to main content

View Diary: A Democratic Karl Rove (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You contradict your self (2.50)
    Your first wrote this:

    So What SHOULD Our Goal for Iraq Be? (3.00 / 3)

    Armando says that it should be to get more Democrats elected in 2006.

    That was a lie. I said Dems can do nothing on Iraq UNLESS elected in 2006. compeltely different. You know it is and you chose to lie. Despicable.

    Then you lied again in this last comment:

    I said that you believe that the Democrats' policy on Iraq should be to do whatever they can to gain power in 2006. You claimed I was lying. I quoted you saying exactly that.

    The same lie. And you know it is a lie. Despicable.

    Then you repeat the lie one more time:

    Now you're claiming that I said that the Dems only goal on Iraq is to gain more power in 2006. Neither I nor you said that.  You're advising the Democrats to take that position. I'm disagreeing.

    A serial liar. Despicable.

    One last time in case you really don't understand it. My view is that Dems can do nothing on Iraq UNLESS they gain power in the 2006 election.

    Apparently you disagree with that. Many in the thread so.

    But you are the only person who lies and says that my advice for Dems on Iraq is ONLY to win elections in 2006. My conclusion is that ONLY when Dems win in 2006 can they act on Iraq.

    Do you have some advice of what Dems can do NOW to end the Iraq Debacle? Of course you do not.

    You are a potshotting liar.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 06:43:51 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  How Is It A Lie? (none)
      Here you say that "My view is that Dems can do nothing on Iraq UNLESS they gain power in the 2006 election."  In your original post you wrote something slightly different, "So what are Dems left to do? Very simple. They have to plan and act in ways designed to allow them to regain power in 2006." What's changed is emphasis.

      You repeatedly quote what I have to say. I won't say it again, since you seem to have gotten the point ;-).  I continue to feel it is a fair representation of what you've written.

      I know you feel that the Dems can do nothing else. But that's an argument in favor of your position. It doesn't change that position, which is that, for the Democrats, the politics of Iraq can be nothing but the politics of the 2006 election.  Is this all about the difference between "should" and "can be nothing but"?

      Finally, I have proposed in my second comment on this thread, other things the Dems could do if they united against this war.  You have announced that since I'm "lying," you won't pay any attention to anything else I write. Fine. But that doesn't make your final accusation against me any more true: "Do you have some advice of what Dems can do NOW to end the Iraq Debacle? Of course you do not."

      Look, I gotta go to work. This has turned into a Monty Python style "argument", with shouts of "liar" substituting for simple contradiction. And since you're now lying about me (actually I think you're simply ignoring what I'm saying, but this is a lot closer to lying than what I'm doing re: you), I'm calling it even.

      Have a great day, New Armando!

      Preserving the old ways from being abused/Protecting the new ways for me and for you/What more can we do

      by GreenSooner on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 06:58:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Emphasis? (none)
        How about question of telling the fucking truth. Your whole approch is BushCo. Here is what I wrote:

        For those in power who have the ability to formulate and implement Iraq policy this is surely true. That is the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. Neither is listening to a damn thing Democrats say about Iraq except with regard to how to respond to it politically. The Democrats have no say whatsoever in Iraq policy. And BushCo has decided that this be so.

        So what are Dems left to do? Very simple. They have to plan and act in ways designed to allow them to regain power in 2006. So they can try and deal with the Iraq Debacle given us by Bush and the Republicans. This requires offering plans for Iraq when voters can choose between Republicans and Democrats. The 2006 election campaign.

        It is the only principled thing to do.

        That is not a question of emphasis. That is the whole fucking point!

        And your point is to lie about me. You wrote:

        It doesn't change that position, which is that, for the Democrats, the politics of Iraq can be nothing but the politics of the 2006 election.  Is this all about the difference between "should" and "can be nothing but"?

        Again you lie. The point is UNTIL. Not nothing but. You are either an idiot, which I do not believe, or a liar. Which I am convinced of.

        I question your character. I think you are a lying weasel.

        Old and New Armando agree on that.

        Neither of us tolerate liars.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 07:05:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site