Facts Are Stubborn Things

[Cancel 2018. 3]

once again...you're changing the facts...i said according to MW and then i asked if you had "another" definition...before that, you conceded MW was correct....upon giving you the idea to seek further definitions, you did come up with one. as i said, neither of us incorrect according to the definitions.

but do go ahead and be an bedwetter and prance around....it only makes you look like a someone who obsesses over minutia and loves to split hairs

 

[maineman]

like some liberals claiming that under bush we lived in a reign of terror

WE didn't live under Bush's reign of terror. Would you suggest that the citizens of Baghdad who endured Bush's "shock and awe" did NOT?

you're confusing war with a "reign".....and bush never reigned over iraq
and you have the nerve to question my intelligence and professional abilities....thanks for the laugh

are you suggesting that Bush did not "reign" over Iraq with shock and awe and then, after he invaded, conquered and occupied that country?

morons laugh at anything.

you're just making yourself look stupid....when did bush do any of these:

1 a: royal authority : sovereignty <under the reign of the Stuart kings> b: the dominion, sway, or influence of one resembling a monarch <the reign of the Puritan ministers>
2: the time during which one (as a sovereign) reigns

are you suggesting that when we invaded and conquered and occupied Iraq, that Bush was not the de facto ruler of that nation?

really?

who WAS ruling Iraq in those days after Saddam was deposed and Al Makiki was elected? Putin??? The Pope???? WHO???? [NEVER answered, by the way.... only avoided by focusing on....on.... dictionary MINUTIA!]

answer my question...when did bush do any of those things listed in the definition....

are you suggesting that your definition is the ONLY possible meaning for the word reign?

Bush did NOT do any of the things listed in YOUR definition.

Now...grow a set of balls and answer mine, girlieman.

it is M-W definition, not "mine"

and unless you have a different definition, which you have not offered, then my point stands..... bush did not reign as you claim....thank you for answering that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reign

funny you should ask

from freedictionary.com:

reign (rn)
n.
1. Exercise of sovereign power, as by a monarch.
2. The period during which a monarch rules.
3. Dominance or widespread influence

so yes...Bush did, in fact, reign as I suggested. Thanks for playing.

well....two different sources....MW is obviously more respected than free dictionary....so i was not wrong in my understanding or definition. you have another....ok. but i wouldn't act like a child and go around prancing like you won something....you already clearly admitted that according to MW, bush did not reign.

this historical and accurate definition is MW's....the word has modernly taken on a broader meaning....however, you were referring specifically to a president and i thought it appropriate to stay with historical and accurate meaning as relating to a monarch.

I wasn't referring to George Washington, but a MODERN president, so using the modernly taken word is more appropriate.

So...do YOU now clearly admit that, according to the modern meaning of the word, that Bush DID reign? I would hope so.

and you have the nerve to continually whine that i focus on minutia and split hairs....

good lord, i already said "ok" to your definition....neither of us is wrong regarding our definitions, but you seem to think that you're the only one who is right and remain insistent on prancing around like a four year old who just woke up for the first time and realized he didn't wet his bed....

hey asshole...YOU are the one who broke out the dictionary to PROVE that Bush did not reign over anything in Iraq. Hoist by your own petard.

um...bedwetter....giving you a definition is not the same thing as you acting like a child nor is giving a definition splitting hairs or focusing on minutia...but now that i know that is what you think....i will forever laugh when you accuse me of such....and think that wow....i must actually be doing something good, like giving a definition

it isn't just breaking out the definition, yurtie...it is breaking it out and suggesting that your definition PROVES that I was incorrect in my statement.

THAT is the sort of bullshit you pull and it is what I rammed right back down your throat...

and awwww....you don't seem to LIKE that now, do you?

tough shit.

and "bedwetter"???? can you possibly BE any more adolescent?

that's almost as gay as "meadowmuffins"

once again...you're changing the facts...i said according to MW and then i asked if you had "another" definition...before that, you conceded MW was correct....upon giving you the idea to seek further definitions, you did come up with one. as i said, neither of us incorrect according to the definitions.

but do go ahead and be an bedwetter and prance around....it only makes you look like a someone who obsesses over minutia and loves to split hairs

the record is pretty clear yurt. You said that Bush did not reign in Iraq and you only LATER found one source that had a definition that suited your needs.

You are the one who dove into minutia.... you are the one who could not just admit that Bush certainly DID reign over Iraq and, for many innocent Iraqis, that reign was, at times, a reign of terror.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

wow....obsess much....

and no, according to MW's definition and the one i believe applies here, he did not reign in the traditional sense of monarchs or now we call them presidents...i see your definition and understand why you believe he reigned, but MW's definition is still valid and as YOU said:

bush did none of the things under MW's definition....no amount of large fonts or screaming at the top of your lungs like a lunatic is going to change MW's definition

you need anger management therapy, i suggest pastoral help, since you seem keen on telling others they need it

 

[maineman]

wow....obsess much....

and no, according to MW's definition and the one i believe applies here, he did not reign in the traditional sense of monarchs or now we call them presidents...i see your definition and understand why you believe he reigned, but MW's definition is still valid and as YOU said:

bush did none of the things under MW's definition....no amount of large fonts or screaming at the top of your lungs like a lunatic is going to change MW's definition

you need anger management therapy, i suggest pastoral help, since you seem keen on telling others they need it

to suggest that the "traditional sense of monarchs" is what ANYONE meant by suggesting that Bush had presided over a reign of terror in Iraq is just plain silly or intentionally obtuse - or both.

I don't need any anger management yurtie... I'm not mad at anyone.... certainly not someone as disappointingly insignificant as YOU.

again... who do you think DID reign over Iraq in between the fall of the Saddam regime and the election of the Maliki government?

and again... you are the one who could not just admit that Bush certainly DID reign over Iraq and, for many innocent Iraqis, that reign was, at times, a reign of terror.

but then, you rarely admit when you are wrong concerning anything of any consequence.

 

[zappasguitar]

You know, you really do a great disservice to the billions of people who have actually had to live under oppressive regimes throughout history when you say paranoid BS like this...

That's just how ol Blabba/Tutu rolls...she's been that way for YEARS.