Request

[Cap]

You

are

fuuucking


wrong.

Caught a mighty red herring on this last one.  See how dumb that sounds?

Anthrax arrived on the day before they were to debate the Partiot Act for a televised national audience.  At the exact building.  Also mailed to the media heads, and dem senators, who were most opposed. 

The FBI destroyed their own samples immediately so there could be no comparison.  Identifying anthrax strains is easy, and they would have found the source quickly. 

Who said anything about a consipracy?

Did you even know that anthrax was the sole reason the patriot act (planned and completed right BEFORE 9/11 mind you), even passed?

The Act was so intrusive that even after 9/11, it was going to get demolished on the senate floor.  But, conveniently, anthrax shut down the building and they had to vote without debating it, or even READING all of it. 

Please tell me what facts I have wrong here.  Because if my facts are all correct, then I have a reality.  YOU would be the one with some crazy conspiracy here.  I'm just repeating facts. 

Do you have concrete proof that any of these things would have happened?  If they were set against it, why not vote against it, even if they hadn't read it?

[240 is Back]

are you challenging my contention that the FBI destroyed their strains which would have identified the strains used?

Or that many in congress were against it?

And, does that mean you accept the rest of the statement as fact? 

[Straw Man]

You

are

fuuucking


wrong.



Anthrax was mailed to the capitol bldg where patriot act was to be debated, on the day it was to be debated.

Anthrax was mailed to daschle and other top dem leaders who were agains tthe act.

Anthrax was mailed to top media heads.
Anthrax was mailed to an editor who had taken pics of Bush's daughters.

THese are ALL FACTS, cap.  I'm not asserting ANY CT whatsoever.  I"m just stating facts.  These are all true things, bro.


Where's the CT?  which facts are incorrect?  You're way off here.

and has yet to be "solved"

Dashel and Leahy (both Democrats) were the only ones targeted.  I believe (and I could be wrong - just going from memory) that these two were the key Democrats that could slow down the Patriot Act, prevent it from leaving committee, prevent or delay a vote.

[240 is Back]

and has yet to be "solved"

Dashel and Leahy (both Democrats) were the only ones targeted.  I believe (and I could be wrong - just going from memory) that these two were the key Democrats that could slow down the Patriot Act, prevent it from leaving committee, prevent or delay a vote.

Also, scores of FBI agents were pulled from ground zero to track the anthrax.  Just 4 weeks after 911 attacks

[Cap]

are you challenging my contention that the FBI destroyed their strains which would have identified the strains used?

Or that many in congress were against it?

And, does that mean you accept the rest of the statement as fact? 

1.) Good deflection
2.) I agree with very little you have to say
3.) You need to back up your claims.  Would you write a paper like this and have no evidentiary support?  Aside from actual actions, can you support your claims as to why things happened without it being based on opinion?

BTW, this wasn't intended to be a debate but you opened the door.  I'm not going to hijack this any further though.

[240 is Back]

1.) Good deflection
2.) I agree with very little you have to say
3.) You need to back up your claims.  Would you write a paper like this and have no evidentiary support?  Aside from actual actions, can you support your claims as to why things happened without it being based on opinion?

Okay.  Don't you watch the news?

Please WIKI the anthrax attacks, spend 5 min reading, then come back here and apologize, then challenge what you'd like.  You're questioning common facts reported on the news, cap.  Embarassing yourself here.

[OzmO]

You have a moderator who openly insults people for sharing facts.

I posted the FACTS surrounding the anthrax attacks, and he insulted me.


I guess facts aren't welcome on this board?

No offense, but you have stated/posted facts in a slanted way in the past that are in accurate.

[240 is Back]

No offense, but you have stated/posted facts in a slanted way in the past that are in accurate.

But these facts, you're cool with?

[OzmO]

lemme research.  But at face value they look ok.

[Hedgehog]

Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?

I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.

I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like.  But it's really watering down the quality of thread here.  We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.

I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced.  Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'.  It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate.  And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.

It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179435.0

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179433.0

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179437.0

Do you want some tips on how to conduct yourself on this board?