Decaf wrote:
Wren wrote:
I have used Decaf's material in my classes from time to time to expose shameless pandering, demagoguery, and lack of critical thinking.

Some of my more conservative students have stated to me that they share some of Decaf's goals but are horrified to be identied with kooks like him.

I tell them how to research critically and objectively, and then how to make their case to the 4th level of analysis without personalzing the debate and demeaning their opponent.

I also counsel them to never try to exclude such as Decaf from the public forum. For such as those who believe like him, through their darkness illustrate the light of truth.

I've often imagined the looks of horror Wren's students would get if they read how their beloved professor is nothing more than an atheistic hypocrite, who attempts to belittle certain Herald forum members with equal disdain.

Ah, the words of your mouth condemn you, friend.

May God bless you, and I will pray for you.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
If it were a fact that Clinton was, as you say, "negligent" on terrorism for 8 years, you should be able to prove it, in your next post. Show how Clinton missed warnings, say like the one Bush missed a month before 9/11, i.e. "al Qaeda is up to something involving hijacked planes."
It took Clinton 2 years after the WTC bombings to finally issue a directive declaring terrorism "a potential threat to national securiy" he also pledged to "deter and pre-empt" would be terrorists. Since that time, your beloved adulterer proved ineffective in combating the following attacks:
Your assignment was to show where Clinton had missed obvious warnings, like the one Bush got a month before 9/11, as I specifically noted above. Are you not competent enough to understand simple instructions? Sorry...none of the examples you gave fit that criteria. You failed...again.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings. Deal with it.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Decaf wrote:
OK Professor, why has liberal scrutiny always been on Bush, and never on Hussein?
Because Bush started a war against a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, screwed it up royally, started a class war inside Iraq, let bin Laden get away, let bin Laden and the Taliban get stronger again, and let Iran become more powerful? Yeah, that's it.
Thus making Saddam Hussein an innocent bystander after all, yes?
Innocent of being a tyrant? No, he was definitely guilty of that and, sadly, the world is full of those. So how many of those countries with tyrants do we have troops in right now?

Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. He was indeed innocent of that. Even Bush later admitted (after the fact, of course) Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Got proof otherwise? While you are at it, post some proof of those elusive WMD's he supposedly had.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Let those delusions continue, zippy. BTW, why have you become so obsessed with me that you have created the following screen names to issue smites to me?

Adonis2, ArmyStrong, Gray_Mosel, and K. P. Downing. Yes, I know all about them. I have known for some time. Whenever I get you really flustered (like since yesterday), you set them loose an a smite attack. How juvenile.
Actually, it's because of your intense love for this forum, and for karma points. If I take five of your points away, no problem -- they are replenished shortly after you log back in. You identify some of my monikers? No surprise on this side -- you're on here practically every day, of every week, month after month, year after year. How can you not be attuned to every ripple in this forum? You're a cyber freak Hurts an obsessive through and through, and THAT is entertainment!!!
Well, at least you admitted your obsession with me. There is something horribly wrong with someone who would create multiple monikers for the sole purpose of smiting people. Shows a mean, vindictive nature, don't you think? But have you seen the psychologist yet, that's what everyone wants to know??? As for karma points, I have a few friends (and some enemies) in this forum, where, alas, you have only the latter. Too bad. Well, I guess you might be able to count Dubbs, Raymond, and woody as friends.

Speaking of those additional screen names of yours that I unveiled and you have now admitted to, forget the psychologist...you had better consult a psychiatrist. For example, a psychiatrist could have a field day with the "ArmyStrong" and "Adonis2" monikers. Adonis is a term for a handsome young man, and ArmyStrong would suggest that you find yourself some kind of warrior. So, it would appear you fancy yourself as some kind of handsome warrior. A "strippling warrior", perhaps? What a hoot. Forgive me while I get up......I just fell out of my chair from laughing so hard. Like I said, a psychiatrist could have a field day with your choice of those monikers. Please see one....soon. Very, very soon.

ArmyStrong. Imagine that. A coward like you having that as a moniker. Was "BushBrownNose" not available?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Funny, I don't remember anyone saying in Sunday School that Joseph Smith had thirty some odd wives, including numerous ones that were already married to other men. All they ever told me about was Emma.

Maybe your Ward was different.
Well, that stands to reason -- you never had a testimony of the restored gospel in the first place, so where else could you have turned but to Jerald Tanner and his ranks of apostasy?
Hmmm. Avoiding my statement, but since you brought up the word testimony, isn't that when you decide something is true based on belief and other people thinking the same thing (it's easier to fool a group than an individual) and then stick to it no matter what evidence to the contrary emerges? No wonder you still think Bush has a clue....you have a testimony of his decisions. Well isn't that special? A testimony that Saddam really had WMD's. A testimony that Saddam really was involved in 9/11. A testimony that Iraq will become a beacon of democracy, sell us cheap oil, and let us have military bases. A testimony that, as Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic adviser (oops, make that ex-chief economic adviser) said, we are a nation of economic whiners and the current recession is all in our minds. A "mental recession", as he called it. A testimony that it is OK to torture to get information. A testimony that budget deficits don't matter, because the rich need those tax breaks more than we need revenues to equal expenditures. Yes, Decaf, I've seen your testimonies. I call them delusions. Great big stinking ones.

Actually, I'm not the one who perceives George Bush as an equal threat to America, if not the primary threat.
Nor am I, but speaking of our dimwit-in-chief, I'd say a President who starts trying to subvert the Constitution in the guise of "protecting us" is quite a threat. Long term Bush has done a hell of a lot of damage to our country. Checked the economy lately? Record deficit, dollar in the dumper, bank foreclosures, mortgage crisis, gas at four bucks a gallon, inflation going up, the list goes on and on. All on Bush's watch. The Decider and his policies at work.

Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper. The truth is, bin Laden does not even need to attack us ever again...we are financially destroying ourselves, and he is not doubt watching and laughing.

As far as Islam's crusade, it comes straight from the Qur'an. Here, put your mirror down for a moment and scribble these verses on your Karl Marx stationery.

The Qur'an, Sura 5, verse 82; Surah 8, verse 39; Surah 9, verse 5; Sura 9:29; Qur'an 9:123; 48:29; Hadith, 4633; Hadith Sahih 4366.

When you're ready to discuss these verses, we'll talk more
Naw, I'm going to make you work for it. Post them, along with your personal analysis, verse by verse. This outghta be fun. A modern day Danite nutcake trying to analyze the Koran.

So, based on your comment above, do you have a "testimony" that all of Islam, not just the radical fringe but the whole religion, is out to get us.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
And that opinion is indeed comical, as I said earlier, because Iran is stronger and the new government in Iraq has and is aligning with them.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter WHERE the turbaned bomb aligns itself. If Iran wants to organize and assemble, then that opens the way for a conventional war, which is good news for us. Let them gather all the wacky jihadists they can find -- it'll make the target that much bigger.
Conventional war? Good news for us? What a fool you are! We quickly disperse of foes wearing uniforms and organizing in units. Guerilla warfare, which is what any incursion into Iran would quickly become, is a whole other ball game, and not a game we are very good at. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq? Evidently not. You have apparently forgotten the picture below. May 1, 2003. Over five years ago. The so called end of the "conventional war" in Iraq, as Bush said it was the end of "major combat operations" in Irag. Approximately 600 dead US soldiers at the time.



How many dead US soldiers in Iraq now? Over 4,100 and no end in sight. And speaking of our military, just what troops would you be using for this proposed looney tunes incursion into Iran when our troops in Iraq are taxed to the limit and we are presently understaffed in Afghanistan? Will you be joining, Mr."ArmyStrong"?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Now, if the goal is "preventing Islam's radical crusade to subjugate, or destroy, "infidels" everywhere", then Bush sure made a hell of a mess of it. Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan, to name just a few. Dimwit-in-chief. That just about covers it.
Actually, the real goal is to shut radical liberals up and keep you as far away from the war as possible. You heathens generate enough threat WITHIN our borders; better to just localize the problem and manage it at the domestic level
So you agree Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, and bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan. You sure did not deny it in your little diatribe above, did you?

Oh, by-the-way, don't you worry about Roger Dodger Wilco -- I'm already answering some of his idiot questions via yours.
LOL. Tell that to Roger....he's the one you are ignoring in your paranoid obsession with me. I'm flattered, to be sure.

I'll finish that Bush hating Marxist off when I'm done with you.
LOL. Seems you used to mumble the same incoherent things back in your Dapto86 days, before you got your butt drop kicked all over the forum, tried to turn over a new leaf, failed miserably at it; then deleted your account and ran away with your tail between your legs only to come back later as Decaf, internet Danite and perceived defender of nutcake neo-conservative crapola. Same old Dappy. Doing your best to preserve lies, innuendo, and the Rush Limbaugh way

Well, at least you believe in recycling.

This almost makes one feel sorry for Defenseless Decaf. But not quite.

But Decaf (Dapto86) is merely recycling the same old autocratic capitalistic and neoconservative shit. But from his manure we can fertilize the fields of truth.

One, Bush and his term was a failure.

Two, no defender of neoconservatism and autocratic capitalisism will be elected again in our lifetime.

Three, by 2025, Bush will be ranked with Harding, Johnson, and Grant as the four worst presidents of the U.S; by 2050, the worst.

truthhurts wrote:
Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
If it were a fact that Clinton was, as you say, "negligent" on terrorism for 8 years, you should be able to prove it, in your next post. Show how Clinton missed warnings, say like the one Bush missed a month before 9/11, i.e. "al Qaeda is up to something involving hijacked planes."
It took Clinton 2 years after the WTC bombings to finally issue a directive declaring terrorism "a potential threat to national securiy" he also pledged to "deter and pre-empt" would be terrorists. Since that time, your beloved adulterer proved ineffective in combating the following attacks:
Your assignment was to show where Clinton had missed obvious warnings, like the one Bush got a month before 9/11, as I specifically noted above. Are you not competent enough to understand simple instructions? Sorry...none of the examples you gave fit that criteria. You failed...again.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings. Deal with it.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Decaf wrote:
OK Professor, why has liberal scrutiny always been on Bush, and never on Hussein?
Because Bush started a war against a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, screwed it up royally, started a class war inside Iraq, let bin Laden get away, let bin Laden and the Taliban get stronger again, and let Iran become more powerful? Yeah, that's it.
Thus making Saddam Hussein an innocent bystander after all, yes?
Innocent of being a tyrant? No, he was definitely guilty of that and, sadly, the world is full of those. So how many of those countries with tyrants do we have troops in right now?

Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. He was indeed innocent of that. Even Bush later admitted (after the fact, of course) Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Got proof otherwise? While you are at it, post some proof of those elusive WMD's he supposedly had.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Let those delusions continue, zippy. BTW, why have you become so obsessed with me that you have created the following screen names to issue smites to me?

Adonis2, ArmyStrong, Gray_Mosel, and K. P. Downing. Yes, I know all about them. I have known for some time. Whenever I get you really flustered (like since yesterday), you set them loose an a smite attack. How juvenile.
Actually, it's because of your intense love for this forum, and for karma points. If I take five of your points away, no problem -- they are replenished shortly after you log back in. You identify some of my monikers? No surprise on this side -- you're on here practically every day, of every week, month after month, year after year. How can you not be attuned to every ripple in this forum? You're a cyber freak Hurts an obsessive through and through, and THAT is entertainment!!!
Well, at least you admitted your obsession with me. There is something horribly wrong with someone who would create multiple monikers for the sole purpose of smiting people. Shows a mean, vindictive nature, don't you think? But have you seen the psychologist yet, that's what everyone wants to know??? As for karma points, I have a few friends (and some enemies) in this forum, where, alas, you have only the latter. Too bad. Well, I guess you might be able to count Dubbs, Raymond, and woody as friends.

Speaking of those additional screen names of yours that I unveiled and you have now admitted to, forget the psychologist...you had better consult a psychiatrist. For example, a psychiatrist could have a field day with the "ArmyStrong" and "Adonis2" monikers. Adonis is a term for a handsome young man, and ArmyStrong would suggest that you find yourself some kind of warrior. So, it would appear you fancy yourself as some kind of handsome warrior. A "strippling warrior", perhaps? What a hoot. Forgive me while I get up......I just fell out of my chair from laughing so hard. Like I said, a psychiatrist could have a field day with your choice of those monikers. Please see one....soon. Very, very soon.

ArmyStrong. Imagine that. A coward like you having that as a moniker. Was "BushBrownNose" not available?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Funny, I don't remember anyone saying in Sunday School that Joseph Smith had thirty some odd wives, including numerous ones that were already married to other men. All they ever told me about was Emma.

Maybe your Ward was different.
Well, that stands to reason -- you never had a testimony of the restored gospel in the first place, so where else could you have turned but to Jerald Tanner and his ranks of apostasy?
Hmmm. Avoiding my statement, but since you brought up the word testimony, isn't that when you decide something is true based on belief and other people thinking the same thing (it's easier to fool a group than an individual) and then stick to it no matter what evidence to the contrary emerges? No wonder you still think Bush has a clue....you have a testimony of his decisions. Well isn't that special? A testimony that Saddam really had WMD's. A testimony that Saddam really was involved in 9/11. A testimony that Iraq will become a beacon of democracy, sell us cheap oil, and let us have military bases. A testimony that, as Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic adviser (oops, make that ex-chief economic adviser) said, we are a nation of economic whiners and the current recession is all in our minds. A "mental recession", as he called it. A testimony that it is OK to torture to get information. A testimony that budget deficits don't matter, because the rich need those tax breaks more than we need revenues to equal expenditures. Yes, Decaf, I've seen your testimonies. I call them delusions. Great big stinking ones.

Actually, I'm not the one who perceives George Bush as an equal threat to America, if not the primary threat.
Nor am I, but speaking of our dimwit-in-chief, I'd say a President who starts trying to subvert the Constitution in the guise of "protecting us" is quite a threat. Long term Bush has done a hell of a lot of damage to our country. Checked the economy lately? Record deficit, dollar in the dumper, bank foreclosures, mortgage crisis, gas at four bucks a gallon, inflation going up, the list goes on and on. All on Bush's watch. The Decider and his policies at work.

Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper. The truth is, bin Laden does not even need to attack us ever again...we are financially destroying ourselves, and he is not doubt watching and laughing.

As far as Islam's crusade, it comes straight from the Qur'an. Here, put your mirror down for a moment and scribble these verses on your Karl Marx stationery.

The Qur'an, Sura 5, verse 82; Surah 8, verse 39; Surah 9, verse 5; Sura 9:29; Qur'an 9:123; 48:29; Hadith, 4633; Hadith Sahih 4366.

When you're ready to discuss these verses, we'll talk more
Naw, I'm going to make you work for it. Post them, along with your personal analysis, verse by verse. This outghta be fun. A modern day Danite nutcake trying to analyze the Koran.

So, based on your comment above, do you have a "testimony" that all of Islam, not just the radical fringe but the whole religion, is out to get us.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
And that opinion is indeed comical, as I said earlier, because Iran is stronger and the new government in Iraq has and is aligning with them.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter WHERE the turbaned bomb aligns itself. If Iran wants to organize and assemble, then that opens the way for a conventional war, which is good news for us. Let them gather all the wacky jihadists they can find -- it'll make the target that much bigger.
Conventional war? Good news for us? What a fool you are! We quickly disperse of foes wearing uniforms and organizing in units. Guerilla warfare, which is what any incursion into Iran would quickly become, is a whole other ball game, and not a game we are very good at. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq? Evidently not. You have apparently forgotten the picture below. May 1, 2003. Over five years ago. The so called end of the "conventional war" in Iraq, as Bush said it was the end of "major combat operations" in Irag. Approximately 600 dead US soldiers at the time.



How many dead US soldiers in Iraq now? Over 4,100 and no end in sight. And speaking of our military, just what troops would you be using for this proposed looney tunes incursion into Iran when our troops in Iraq are taxed to the limit and we are presently understaffed in Afghanistan? Will you be joining, Mr."ArmyStrong"?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Now, if the goal is "preventing Islam's radical crusade to subjugate, or destroy, "infidels" everywhere", then Bush sure made a hell of a mess of it. Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan, to name just a few. Dimwit-in-chief. That just about covers it.
Actually, the real goal is to shut radical liberals up and keep you as far away from the war as possible. You heathens generate enough threat WITHIN our borders; better to just localize the problem and manage it at the domestic level
So you agree Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, and bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan. You sure did not deny it in your little diatribe above, did you?

Oh, by-the-way, don't you worry about Roger Dodger Wilco -- I'm already answering some of his idiot questions via yours.
LOL. Tell that to Roger....he's the one you are ignoring in your paranoid obsession with me. I'm flattered, to be sure.

I'll finish that Bush hating Marxist off when I'm done with you.
LOL. Seems you used to mumble the same incoherent things back in your Dapto86 days, before you got your butt drop kicked all over the forum, tried to turn over a new leaf, failed miserably at it; then deleted your account and ran away with your tail between your legs only to come back later as Decaf, internet Danite and perceived defender of nutcake neo-conservative crapola. Same old Dappy. Doing your best to preserve lies, innuendo, and the Rush Limbaugh way

Well, at least you believe in recycling.

Karma points? Is that what is happening? Every time I click on them it says, yup Truth is right again or decaf is still an idiot. How strange but true.

utocoman wrote:
Karma points? Is that what is happening? Every time I click on them it says, yup Tuth is right again or decaf is still an idiot. How strange but true.
That's just a smokescreen. I believe Decaf's primary motive is his subconscious desire to be dominated and subjugated.

Why else would he keep coming back? Stupidity?