Not going to argue with you about this Mitchell.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Believers against the War
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
If you are going to make accusation (falsely)you need to stay and defend them and you at least need to clarify the personal attack accusation
Last edited by a moderator:
And if you're just going to put words in my mouth, then any defense or clarification would just be a waste of time.
ok lets clear this up. The first instance I misread your post. You corrected that and it was understood. Get over it.
The second time I made reference to your logic not your exact words. That is not putting words in your mouth it is speaking to the logic you used to come to your conclusion. And in debate addressing the logic used is common practice.
And you also accused me of a personal attack. Never happened. And it is now clear you misspoke. Not one time was any of my posts intended to upset you. If you cannot debate without feeling attacked then debate might not be for you.
Revmitchell said:
I agree. My allegedly accusing you of a personal attack never happened. Go back and read my post. Just as I never said that we went into Iraq unilaterally and just as I never said that no situation justifies a declaration of war, anybody can read my post and see that I never accused you of any personal attacks.
I was referring to JohnV who has had several of his posts removed by the moderators due to his personal attacks on me.
The truth is, up until you decided to put words in my mouth to win your little debate and until you started with this current childishness, I thought you were very respectful and even stated that I enjoyed many of your posts. So, obviously, I'm not above being fooled.
And if you cannot debate without making personal attacks and misrepresenting your opponent, then debate might not be for you.
I debate all the time and, frankly, the people I debate with could easily clean your clock if what you've presented here is any example of your "debating" skills.
Funny how none of them ever have to resort to the same kind of childishness you do.
OK. Here's post 75:
"That's right. It's a debate forum, not a "let's all make personal attacks and see if we can defeat our opponent by shoving words in his mouth to build our strawmen" forum."
As you can see, I never said that it was you who was the one who was attacking me. Again, I was referring to JohnV who had several of his posts removed by moderators because of his personal attacks against me.
And, again, in order for that to be "my logic", I would have had to say precisely the opposite of what I said.
Again, here's post 75:
"That's right. It's a debate forum, not a "let's all make personal attacks and see if we can defeat our opponent by shoving words in his mouth to build our strawmen" forum."
As you can see, I never said that it was you who was the one who was attacking me. Again, I was referring to JohnV who had several of his posts removed by moderators because of his personal attacks against me.
Actually, I didn't make reference to anyone. You only assumed it was you.
OK. So then, if it's a "false accusation", then why have several of his posts been removed by the moderators for being personal attacks?
And, again, it was not "my logic". What you repeatedly falsely claim was "my logic" is, in fact, precisely the opposite of what I said.
Personal attacks are against the rules. If you really believe it's a personal attack, then report it. I'm sure the moderators will remove it, if it's really a personal attack.
Which brings up another point: if you're the one I was referring to as being the person making the personal attacks, then why did I report JohnV and not you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Post #75
I already addressed that
And I never said you did. What I said was that the logic you were using taken to its logical conclusion would lead to that.
Post # 75
You only quoted me and made no reference to anyone else.
There it is again another false accusation of a personal attack.
I did no such thing, I showed the flaw in your logic.
Nice personal attack
Al Qaeda had complete run of Afghanistan. They moved recruits & weapons in and out of the country at will. They had free use of the Afghan national airline. They trained an estimated 10,000 - 20,000 radicals in camps spread around Afghanistan. The Afghan (Taliban) government supported them in every way, and refused to give up bin Laden.
>>The constitution does not limit congress on which situations they can authorize use of force.
>You're welcome to your opinion, but I can't find that idea in the Constitution and I certainly don't see it in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
You can't find that idea in the Constitution because it isn't there WHICH IS EXACTLY what "The constitution does not limit congress on which situations they can authorize use of force" means.
We seem to have a reading problem on this list.
What do the writings of the Founding Fathers have to do with the interpretation of words in the Constitution? Don't most of you claim that the Constitution must be interpreted by the original words in it? Your objections to the "living document" concept are a two edged sword. You want the Constitution to be frozen in time, yes? Then pre-Constitution writings are immaterial.
>You're welcome to your opinion, but I can't find that idea in the Constitution and I certainly don't see it in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
You can't find that idea in the Constitution because it isn't there WHICH IS EXACTLY what "The constitution does not limit congress on which situations they can authorize use of force" means.
We seem to have a reading problem on this list.
What do the writings of the Founding Fathers have to do with the interpretation of words in the Constitution? Don't most of you claim that the Constitution must be interpreted by the original words in it? Your objections to the "living document" concept are a two edged sword. You want the Constitution to be frozen in time, yes? Then pre-Constitution writings are immaterial.
billwald said:
Actually, they're not. If we want to understand the intent of the Framers, then it's entirely reasonable to read the Framers' philosophies and opinions.
yea you did. You quoted only me and made no mention of anyone else.
You did nothing to include him in the posted that you accused me of a personal attack. And there was no reason to bring him into the post targeted at me.
Again another false accusation that you say you never made.
You never said it was anyone else but you were careful to quote only me.
I disagree
You quoted me therfore you were talking to me.
The false accusation was made toward me I have no knowledge of what has happened with Johnv. I cannot see hi posts.
Then show how it is false and what you see the outcome as being rather than feign offense over nothing. However, I would point out that what I have done is the same thing you did in post #14 of the Manhattan Declaration thread.
I have not a clue why you do what you do. But along those lines why bring up Johnv in a repsonse to my post. If that is in fact what you did.
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on the situation. If it was similar to Al Quaeda and the Taliban, yes.
Even more reason not to single out our presence in Afghanistan.
Yes and no. My comments were removed because I was inappropriately commenting what I believe to be your preoccupation with Roman Catholics, and this was in another thread. I support the moderators' decision to delete my comments due to them being out of bounds for the topic of the thread. That has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever. You're not exdactly immune from having comments deleted for similar reasons, so I'm surprised that you would go there.
Their actions in the Barbary Coast wars and Quasi war disagree with you.
Nice dodge on words. You lost the "not constitutional" argument, so now your'e dancing around the "Constitutionally justifiable reason" red herring.
That makes you a liberal by yoru own definition, since I cited expressly where the Constitution permits a POTUS to use the military, and there is permits Congress to declare war. You think that's irrelevant, which makes you the liberal.
That sounds amusing, coming from someone who, upon not being able to support his argument, resorts to calling someone a liberal. How infantile.
That's what we call:
KenH
Well-Known Member
I want 100% of our troops brought home from foreign countries.
David Michael Harris
Active Member
I live in the South of France, not sure I could stand the UK now to be honest.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Which is why I supported removing the Taliban from power and running al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Those two goals have been accomplished as the Taliban are no longer in power and there are only about 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan. It is up to the Afghan government to keep the Taliban out of power, not our way overused troops. And the attacks on 9/11/2001 could have been planned anywhere and it doesn't take a whole country to recruit 20 people to carry out such attacks.
saturneptune
New Member
That is the truth. Oh, and JDF, stop embarrassing yourself and others.
Well, I guess you'll have to let me know who wins because I'm putting you on ignore with the others.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Debate is one thing, and personal attacks are another. One must be in rare form to accomplish this on three posters in one thread. I have disagreed with JohnV and Rev Mitchell in the past, which is fine. It is a debate forum. If debating makes you angry to the point of calling names, or, like a child pressing the ignore button, you need to find another hobby.
Last edited by a moderator: