[eDebate] finally, gerbil admits to whitewashing the CIA

Old Strega oldstrega
Tue Jul 7 23:47:52 CDT 2009

gerbil is a fucking liar and a piece of shit prick.  he says he's not defending the CIA but then spends the rest of his post defending the CIA.   why?   why do you love playing the anti-debate liar?    if you're not defending the CIA, then what the fuck are you doing, moron?    your position is the CIA was not involved.   you are proving you're flagrant undebate-ability.    why do you remain on edebate if your job is to confuse and frustrate debating?  

j.s.: "after listening to you on iran, you don't even get the sense that you 
are defending the CIA..." 

there's a reason for that, jack - because i'm not. why concoct some gerbil- bashing 'hermeneutics of suspicion' when the fact is i'm not defending the enemy? " endquote

apparently, mr. confusion's new position is that he doesn't have to defend the CIA because the CIA wasn't involved.  that's a circular argument, lil kid.   i refuse to allow you to obfuscate the argument ground which was the basis of the discussion with hester.  the original argument was that the election was not stolen and that the media hoax that it was stolen most likely originated with the CIA.  you have agreed that the election was not stolen from mousavi but presented no counter-version of how the hoax was perpetrated.     good job, guppy, thanks for helping on plausibility.   you're the best.  
your defenses of the CIA, in your own words, that lead up to your conclusion that the protests were 100% unmanipulated by the CIA:
"of course it's possible. it's also possible that china tried to orchestrate a soft coup, or that the election was stolen, or that mousavi is a martian. ...the practical question is, what knowledge from reliable sources can help us move from the possible to the plausible, and from there to the likely or even the actual? you're now teetering between possible and plausible; you're nowhere near likely or what actually happened."
"you mean would i assume u.s. state-planners are behind all power plays in world affairs without any evidence? you're right, i wouldn't. obviously, we've got different criteria of adequacy here. and if an instance arose where there was no evidence of interference, but the u.s. did interfere," then i'd be wrong."

"i've never once heard of a candidate declaring they'd won before the election results were in, unless there was a c.i.a. coup in the works. got me there."endquote
that's called defending the CIA against allegations of a soft coup, dipshit...you really were a loser debater weren't you?
if you're last post was not more of the CIA-esque confusion you are accused of then what the fuck is it?
just admit it, your job is to wash the CIA hands clean of any "plausible" involvement in the stolen election hoax despite millions of dollars of CIA funding specifically earmarked for iran as part of an official policy to destabilize the iranian government and despite mousavi's links to the CIA through the iran-contra scandal.   nice try, asshole.   seems like you're not only whitewashing what you call the "enemy" but trying to totally rewrite their history eliminating the massive funding the "enemy" has received in recent years for iran in order to confuse the issue of "plausibility".   what a fucking prick.   you're so into deploying confusion you've confused yourself about what the words "enemy" and "defend" mean.

it's pretty clear what you're up to.   you're going to need much better confusion than "i'm not defending the CIA" to get out of this one.  no wonder it took you over 2 days to respond.  you're running out of options.
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/8cfef5b5/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list