Maher Arar still considered a threat to US!

[Gary Floyd 0]

No, I'd say Jerk is more stubborn. C-Bacon is close though.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I said this to open the thread, and I stil think it's relevant:

 

As Canadians, who are we to tell the U.S. who they should/shouldn't allow into their country? Harper owes Arar an apology for what he's been through on behalf of Canadians, maybe even a couple bucks.

 

Bacon, I'm going to see your perspective and give you the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being, Bacon: Maybe the States have been a little too eager to say "Hey, we caught some more bad guys!". That doesn't mean everything done by the States is either bullying or imperialistic. And it doesn't change the fact that the RCMP was wrong.

[SuperJerk 0]

I suppose none of you were paying attention a week ago when I admitted I had been wrong about Evan Bayh.

 

And no one noticed I joined the board's consensus on Iran, either.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I suppose none of you were paying attention a week ago when I admitted I had been wrong about Evan Bayh.

 

And no one noticed I joined the board's consensus on Iran, either.

Hey, look at these trees, they're gorgeous!

 

... anyone know where this forest is supposed to be?

[SuperJerk 0]

I suppose none of you were paying attention a week ago when I admitted I had been wrong about Evan Bayh.

 

And no one noticed I joined the board's consensus on Iran, either.

Hey, look at these trees, they're gorgeous!

 

... anyone know where this forest is supposed to be?

Well, excuse me for not sucking up to the consensus more often, but I didn't know changing my opinion just so I could fit in was a litmus test for posting in this folder.

 

If you want to change my mind about something, then try presenting an argument backed up with verifiable facts instead of just whining about how much you don't like me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I didn't say it was a conformist/non-conformist deal, but if you want to roll with that go ahead.

[SuperJerk 0]

If you're talking about people on a message board being stubborn, there's not a whole lot else you could mean.

[snuffbox 0]

I think Kotz is refering to your annoying habit of arguing for the sake of arguing. Even when it is the most trivial matters, or topics your clearly out in bizarroland with, you feel the need to argue to the death.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think Kotz is refering to your annoying habit of arguing for the sake of arguing. Even when it is the most trivial matters, or topics your clearly out in bizarroland with, you feel the need to argue to the death.

 

 

I didn't say it was a conformist/non-conformist deal, but if you want to roll with that go ahead.

 

As soon as you two decide exactly what it is you're attacking me for, let me know.

[Art Sandusky 0]

DAYS later! Geez!

[SuperJerk 0]

Some of us have lives, hoss.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The point was that I completely forgot the direction this thread took but you still came back days later to continue the argument. Listen "hoss," someone with a life who doesn't obsessively argue is not what I see here.

[SuperJerk 0]

You hate the fact that I argue so much that you come back day after day to argue about it. Got it. I understand completely. Really.