Actually, I didn't say defending yourself is 'ok', but I said I would do it. Do you dislike death? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Do you dislike being poor? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Violence is not violence, things are not black and white.Des.Kmal wrote:
but war is bad? defending yourself is ok? hypocrite. violence is violence.jonsimon wrote:
Beat the shit out of you, but I don't have to enjoy it, and I know full well it is only after you've thrown the first punch and intend to keep swinging. Besides, in my opinion 911 was a false flag op anyway.Des.Kmal wrote:
yeah? well im going to come to ur house, beat the shit out of you and take all of your possesions. what are you going to do about it?
You just named a part of life and human nature.......and war is a part of that cycle.jonsimon wrote:
And that proves what? Without disease, famine, death, and destruction you probably wouldn't have ever been born, does that make any of those things better? No.usmarine2007 wrote:
What is your nationality? Why do I ask? Because without war, you would not be where you are today.jonsimon wrote:
Because no war is a good war? The only winning move is not to play. I think that alone makes me more intelligent than any warmonger.
.....? wtf is the death thing and me being a hypocrite?jonsimon wrote:
Actually, I didn't say defending yourself is 'ok', but I said I would do it. Do you dislike death? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Do you dislike being poor? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Violence is not violence, things are not black and white.Des.Kmal wrote:
but war is bad? defending yourself is ok? hypocrite. violence is violence.jonsimon wrote:
Beat the shit out of you, but I don't have to enjoy it, and I know full well it is only after you've thrown the first punch and intend to keep swinging. Besides, in my opinion 911 was a false flag op anyway.
anyway, defending urself isnt ok, but u still do it? hmm....... i only do things i think are right... but thats just me.
ur a failure at logic... with the whole hypocrite thing....
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Doesn't have to be. There are many other forms of conflict that could easily replace it, like political diplomacy. Conflict is an inherent part of humanity, war is not. A wise man can find the distinction.usmarine2007 wrote:
You just named a part of life and human nature.......and war is a part of that cycle.jonsimon wrote:
And that proves what? Without disease, famine, death, and destruction you probably wouldn't have ever been born, does that make any of those things better? No.usmarine2007 wrote:
What is your nationality? Why do I ask? Because without war, you would not be where you are today.
Good luck in your Utopia.jonsimon wrote:
Doesn't have to be. There are many other forms of conflict that could easily replace it, like political diplomacy. Conflict is an inherent part of humanity, war is not. A wise man can find the distinction.usmarine2007 wrote:
You just named a part of life and human nature.......and war is a part of that cycle.jonsimon wrote:
And that proves what? Without disease, famine, death, and destruction you probably wouldn't have ever been born, does that make any of those things better? No.
You're advocating war, which means you are pro-death, so if you don't like death or don't want to die, you're a hypocrit. Likewise, if you don't enjoy poverty, but don't support the poor, you're a hypocrit.Des.Kmal wrote:
.....? wtf is the death thing and me being a hypocrite?jonsimon wrote:
Actually, I didn't say defending yourself is 'ok', but I said I would do it. Do you dislike death? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Do you dislike being poor? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Violence is not violence, things are not black and white.Des.Kmal wrote:
but war is bad? defending yourself is ok? hypocrite. violence is violence.
anyway, defending urself isnt ok, but u still do it? hmm....... i only do things i think are right... but thats just me.
ur a failure at logic... with the whole hypocrite thing....
And defending yourself non-lethally is the right thing to do under certain conditions, but that is different from killing. Your attempt to draw an analogy between a non-lethal situation and a lethal one fails because of the differences in violence.
You say that like it doesn't exist, but I would show you switzerland and call you a fool.usmarine2007 wrote:
Good luck in your Utopia.jonsimon wrote:
Doesn't have to be. There are many other forms of conflict that could easily replace it, like political diplomacy. Conflict is an inherent part of humanity, war is not. A wise man can find the distinction.usmarine2007 wrote:
You just named a part of life and human nature.......and war is a part of that cycle.
wowjonsimon wrote:
You say that like it doesn't exist, but I would show you switzerland and call you a fool.usmarine2007 wrote:
Good luck in your Utopia.jonsimon wrote:
Doesn't have to be. There are many other forms of conflict that could easily replace it, like political diplomacy. Conflict is an inherent part of humanity, war is not. A wise man can find the distinction.
1. pro-fucking death? put some more words in my mouth. i said war is not bad, for fucks sake, im going to defend myself as are you. ergo hypocrite. not that i like death, but i sure as hell dont like being taken over by some other country.jonsimon wrote:
1. You're advocating war, which means you are pro-death, so if you don't like death or don't want to die, you're a hypocrit. 2. Likewise, if you don't enjoy poverty, but don't support the poor, you're a hypocrit.Des.Kmal wrote:
.....? wtf is the death thing and me being a hypocrite?jonsimon wrote:
Actually, I didn't say defending yourself is 'ok', but I said I would do it. Do you dislike death? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Do you dislike being poor? Yes? Oh, you're a hypocrit! Violence is not violence, things are not black and white.
anyway, defending urself isnt ok, but u still do it? hmm....... i only do things i think are right... but thats just me.
ur a failure at logic... with the whole hypocrite thing....
3. And defending yourself non-lethally is the right thing to do under certain conditions, but that is different from killing. 4. Your attempt to draw an analogy between a non-lethal situation and a lethal one fails because of the differences in violence.
2. ...... i still dont see that one, but ok.
3. yes, it is. always. and defending yourself from someone who is trying to kill you.... i would kill them, im sorry. i would. only the strong survive.
4. no, your logic fails.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
While this is true, I have to play devil's advocate a bit and make people think...lowing wrote:
and yet no terror attacks in the US since 911, NOT because they haven't tried either. Who exactly are you going to give credit for that to? OR do you choose to just ignore that inconvenient FACT??!!stef10 wrote:
Bush is such a noob of war.
So many people bring up the point of "There haven't been any terror attacks since 9/11 yay!" which is fantastic and thank God for that. But....exactly how many terror attacks have there been against the U.S. in the last 200+ years? A handful? And actually, most of the "Terrorism" that goes on in this country is done by suburban white kids shooting up their schools, or disgruntled people living in log cabins sending bombs and anthrax through the mail, or rednecks blowing up buildings with fertilizer bombs.
So far there have been 2 attacks in my lifetime on the US. Both on the WTC's, the first of which many people don't seem to even remember since it wasn't so successful.
*shrugs* Bush is an idiot, and a lot of his supporters are idiots. It's really that simple.
Now, I'm not saying all of his supporters are morons, but there are certainly a lot of them that indulge in some serious wishful thinking. The people who thought we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq have changed their tune to reflect some chest-pounding patriotic bullshit that unfortunately even mesmerizes some Democrats. No one wants to be seen as someone that "cuts and runs," even if that has become our best logical option.
The stubbornness of American culture is perfectly embodied by Bush, which is why he resonates so well with some people in this country. He's essentially all the negative aspects of conservatism with very few of the positives.
More rational conservatives (like Scarborough) would understand that this war has sucked dry a lot of our funds with very little in returns. To sum things up, Iraq has been a horrible investment.
Now, we're left with the choices of either withdrawing right now (which seems more logical) or becoming as brutal as Saddam was, in order to maintain some sense of stability. More troops will not likely improve things because the policies will remain the same.
We could put a few million soldiers in Iraq if we decided to implement a draft, but even then, I don't think things would improve much. Our enemies are so dedicated to killing themselves over this, that it's really not worth our money, time, effort, or the lives of our soldiers to try and make something out of this hellhole of a country.
Creating 3 nations divided by ethnicity might be the best nation-building move we could make, but even this is still likely to dissolve back into war after enough time. Simply put, Iraq has very little potential. Iran is comparatively much more progressive, and I'd rather they duke things out with their crazy Shiite brothers than have us there.
As many others have said, Bush is mostly incapable of admitting fault, which is why he still chooses to defy logic with the idea of adding more soldiers to the region.
Now, I'm not saying all of his supporters are morons, but there are certainly a lot of them that indulge in some serious wishful thinking. The people who thought we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq have changed their tune to reflect some chest-pounding patriotic bullshit that unfortunately even mesmerizes some Democrats. No one wants to be seen as someone that "cuts and runs," even if that has become our best logical option.
The stubbornness of American culture is perfectly embodied by Bush, which is why he resonates so well with some people in this country. He's essentially all the negative aspects of conservatism with very few of the positives.
More rational conservatives (like Scarborough) would understand that this war has sucked dry a lot of our funds with very little in returns. To sum things up, Iraq has been a horrible investment.
Now, we're left with the choices of either withdrawing right now (which seems more logical) or becoming as brutal as Saddam was, in order to maintain some sense of stability. More troops will not likely improve things because the policies will remain the same.
We could put a few million soldiers in Iraq if we decided to implement a draft, but even then, I don't think things would improve much. Our enemies are so dedicated to killing themselves over this, that it's really not worth our money, time, effort, or the lives of our soldiers to try and make something out of this hellhole of a country.
Creating 3 nations divided by ethnicity might be the best nation-building move we could make, but even this is still likely to dissolve back into war after enough time. Simply put, Iraq has very little potential. Iran is comparatively much more progressive, and I'd rather they duke things out with their crazy Shiite brothers than have us there.
As many others have said, Bush is mostly incapable of admitting fault, which is why he still chooses to defy logic with the idea of adding more soldiers to the region.
+1 for carpet bombing
So, BOTH of you are going to REALLY REALLY maintain that you have NEVER, NOT ONCE, READ ANYTHING about terror attacks being uncovered to take place in the US since 911??.......You go ahead and admit that, as truth, and I will post some links for you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
What is the matter? The NEWS doesn't air in your hometown or a newspapaper ever get delivered to it???Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Give us some links or something man. I'd love details on Bush thwarting Al Qaeda plans.
Why should we back up any contention we ever make, when we can just assign the burden of proof to everyone else?
Great, so no terror attacks, no big deal. Washington was successful in holding down radical Islamic terrorism as well since there was no attacks by such groups during his administration. Great logicNot wrote:
While this is true, I have to play devil's advocate a bit and make people think...lowing wrote:
and yet no terror attacks in the US since 911, NOT because they haven't tried either. Who exactly are you going to give credit for that to? OR do you choose to just ignore that inconvenient FACT??!!stef10 wrote:
Bush is such a noob of war.
So many people bring up the point of "There haven't been any terror attacks since 9/11 yay!" which is fantastic and thank God for that. But....exactly how many terror attacks have there been against the U.S. in the last 200+ years? A handful? And actually, most of the "Terrorism" that goes on in this country is done by suburban white kids shooting up their schools, or disgruntled people living in log cabins sending bombs and anthrax through the mail, or rednecks blowing up buildings with fertilizer bombs.
So far there have been 2 attacks in my lifetime on the US. Both on the WTC's, the first of which many people don't seem to even remember since it wasn't so successful.
Now, I wonder what shipbuilder, bubbalo, and the rest of the liberal think tank would be saying now if there had actually BEEN another attack like 911 in the US...........No attacks, means nothing....another attack and this forum would explode with hate and criticism for Bush.......You guys would make someone a great wife, with your line of thinking.
maybe posts like this................ THE PATRIOT ACT DOESN'T WORK SEE, ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL PROVES IT........
BUSH IS A MORON ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL PROVES HIS POLICIES IS A FAILURE.
ONCE AGAIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FAILED BECAUSE OF BUSH, WE HAVE GOT TO LEARN YOU CAN'T STOP TERRORISM, WE MUST NEGOTIATE AND APPEASE THEM.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Very frustrating to read such non-sense.
only a true appeasing liberal would look at an appeasing country like Switzerland and claim to have found Nirvana.usmarine2007 wrote:
wowjonsimon wrote:
You say that like it doesn't exist, but I would show you Switzerland and call you a fool.usmarine2007 wrote:
Good luck in your Utopia.
Shake your fist at Switzerland and they will back you 100% in whatever you want as long as you don't hurt them.
Now I remember why I took a break from these forums. Just a waste of my time with idiots like yourself. Sick of dipshits like you who look for any fuckig reason to hate on people you don't agree with. Take any fucking fact you can find and somehow try to spin it to your fucking cause. Can never look at a topic objectively. Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it. 12% of people doesn't fucking matter. It's not a good point, it never will be, it doesn't tell us anything other than you are a biased idiot who's too fucking polarized to realize it. You probably still won't get this so I'll be even more simple. You don't ask a chef to teach you how to be a pilot and you don't ask common citizens tell you how to take care of Iraq. Here you are, trying to say Bush is an idiot, because 88% of people from some stupid survey are telling him how to do his job. I'd say Bush would be an idiot if he did listen to these people.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
snore...Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Wrong.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Most people from LA are liberal and don't support the war at all. Let alone the fact that nearly 100% of those surveyed are not, nor have ever been military officers. Please don't try to argue with me on part. We all know it's true.
Your other points however look valid. This one it not.
The fact that the poll was conducted by the LA Times has nothing to do with the findings. No newspaper would be stupid enough to conduct such a poll within a single metropolitan area. How do you think they conduct these polls... standing on the corner of Hollywood and Vine, polling passers-by?The first thing you did was to nitpick that the poll was based in Los Angeles, when common sense would tell you that it did not. I point that out, and now you're getting all excited ("damn" "fucking" "hell" "there for") because I didn't listen to your point that the American people are not experts about military tactics?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.
What you seem to misunderstand about my posting of the poll numbers was that it was to illustrate my point that Bush is not listening to nor pandering to ANYONE - not to his employees (ie the generals fighting the war) nor to his employers (ie the American people). If you yourself don't trust polls and don't want to listen to them, fine. You argue that I make "worthless points" and that I "fail at proper debate"? Sorry mate - once you demonstrate an ability to understand my points, I'll start listening to your critique of my style of argumentation.
Aparently I was wrong in accusing the L.A. times of only surveying people from their area. I'll admit that. It doesn't matter. You still chose to ignore the main point of my arguement and focus mainly on this insignificant mistake. Once again, lacking objectivity.
Again, adding "snore" shows how much of an arogant prick you really are. If you ever want to be taken seriously politcally you should listen when someone is giving you advice. Don't gather only the facts and evidence to try to support your cause. Gather all evidence, from both sides, and then form an opinion. You clearly demonstrate that you can't handle this or you don't want to do this.
I'm confused....
In what way is being disappointed in a mere 12% of the American peoples' opinion being polarized? It was a random poll of that many people from all over, blind to region race and creed, and only 12% of them agreed with Bush on this one. Speaking of biased idiots, lets examine your last paragraph shall wel?
"If you ever want to be taken seriously politcally(sic) you should listen when someone is giving you advice. Don't gather only the facts and evidence to try to support your cause."
You mean like our president? The way he constantly ignores his generals, and the people of his country? And only gathers the facts that help his failing war? Keep in mind, this survey was done to see how many people SUPPORTED what he's doing. It's not as if they were asked what they'd do in his shoes, they were only asked if they supported it. Now also, if you've been paying ANY attention at all you'd know how many of the Joint Chiefs and generals are in disagreement with Bush right now. Please pay attention! It's not just the people who disagree, it's the same experts you're ranting about getting opinions from! They've already chimed in, and they're resigning because Bush won't listen!
Don't jump on people for lacking objectivity when you so severely lack it yourself. It's very easy to see for anyone who can sit back and think "Exactly what have we accomplished there, really, and was it worth the billions of dollars we spent on it?" that we've failed.
I'm not saying it's time to pack up and leave tomorrow, but it sure has to happen soon. Nobody but the conservative radio pundits and hardline neocons support this clown anymore, and trust me, up until just a few months ago, I supported GWB without faltering. Not anymore, it's too obvious that he's inept, and it's painful to watch. Right now I'd vote for Hilary, sadly.
As far as "gathering all the facts" goes, why don't you grab some evidence to support your claim that this entire debacle is going really well, and that a majority of the people of this nation (which, if you've forgotten in some kind of fascist rage, this government is supposed to be all about) support our actions? I'd love to see the poll that shows Bush's approval rating over 50%. Can't come up with that? It must be because every polling method has an enormous liberal slant, and everyone polled goes hippy just to answer those questions, then settles back down into a war loving Bush supporter. Yeah. That's logical.
Regarding my post about terror attacks. They've been stopped? Good! They were also stopped before 9/11 too. Again, in US history, there are about 3 or 4 terror attacks that anyone can name since the country was sovereign. 9/11 was an atrocity but I'm not about to give up more civil liberties to this regime, and yes it's a regime, to some [i]currently[/] non-existant threat. The threat is out there, of course, and we should be watching for it. But some of these neocons seem to think that everyone with a tan is carrying C4 across their chest and should all be locked up and tortured until they admit being a terrorist whether they are or not. Sorry, but I like the United States of America much more than North Korea, so let's try to not emulate them as much as we can ok?
In what way is being disappointed in a mere 12% of the American peoples' opinion being polarized? It was a random poll of that many people from all over, blind to region race and creed, and only 12% of them agreed with Bush on this one. Speaking of biased idiots, lets examine your last paragraph shall wel?
"If you ever want to be taken seriously politcally(sic) you should listen when someone is giving you advice. Don't gather only the facts and evidence to try to support your cause."
You mean like our president? The way he constantly ignores his generals, and the people of his country? And only gathers the facts that help his failing war? Keep in mind, this survey was done to see how many people SUPPORTED what he's doing. It's not as if they were asked what they'd do in his shoes, they were only asked if they supported it. Now also, if you've been paying ANY attention at all you'd know how many of the Joint Chiefs and generals are in disagreement with Bush right now. Please pay attention! It's not just the people who disagree, it's the same experts you're ranting about getting opinions from! They've already chimed in, and they're resigning because Bush won't listen!
Don't jump on people for lacking objectivity when you so severely lack it yourself. It's very easy to see for anyone who can sit back and think "Exactly what have we accomplished there, really, and was it worth the billions of dollars we spent on it?" that we've failed.
I'm not saying it's time to pack up and leave tomorrow, but it sure has to happen soon. Nobody but the conservative radio pundits and hardline neocons support this clown anymore, and trust me, up until just a few months ago, I supported GWB without faltering. Not anymore, it's too obvious that he's inept, and it's painful to watch. Right now I'd vote for Hilary, sadly.
As far as "gathering all the facts" goes, why don't you grab some evidence to support your claim that this entire debacle is going really well, and that a majority of the people of this nation (which, if you've forgotten in some kind of fascist rage, this government is supposed to be all about) support our actions? I'd love to see the poll that shows Bush's approval rating over 50%. Can't come up with that? It must be because every polling method has an enormous liberal slant, and everyone polled goes hippy just to answer those questions, then settles back down into a war loving Bush supporter. Yeah. That's logical.
Regarding my post about terror attacks. They've been stopped? Good! They were also stopped before 9/11 too. Again, in US history, there are about 3 or 4 terror attacks that anyone can name since the country was sovereign. 9/11 was an atrocity but I'm not about to give up more civil liberties to this regime, and yes it's a regime, to some [i]currently[/] non-existant threat. The threat is out there, of course, and we should be watching for it. But some of these neocons seem to think that everyone with a tan is carrying C4 across their chest and should all be locked up and tortured until they admit being a terrorist whether they are or not. Sorry, but I like the United States of America much more than North Korea, so let's try to not emulate them as much as we can ok?
Last edited by Not (2006-12-22 08:45:13)
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd on with the personal attacks. Well it WAS fun. /endAjax_the_Great1 wrote:
Now I remember why I took a break from these forums. Just a waste of my time with idiots like yourself. Sick of dipshits like you who look for any fuckig reason to hate on people you don't agree with. Take any fucking fact you can find and somehow try to spin it to your fucking cause. Can never look at a topic objectively. Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it. 12% of people doesn't fucking matter. It's not a good point, it never will be, it doesn't tell us anything other than you are a biased idiot who's too fucking polarized to realize it. You probably still won't get this so I'll be even more simple. You don't ask a chef to teach you how to be a pilot and you don't ask common citizens tell you how to take care of Iraq. Here you are, trying to say Bush is an idiot, because 88% of people from some stupid survey are telling him how to do his job. I'd say Bush would be an idiot if he did listen to these people.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
snore...Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.The first thing you did was to nitpick that the poll was based in Los Angeles, when common sense would tell you that it did not. I point that out, and now you're getting all excited ("damn" "fucking" "hell" "there for") because I didn't listen to your point that the American people are not experts about military tactics?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.
What you seem to misunderstand about my posting of the poll numbers was that it was to illustrate my point that Bush is not listening to nor pandering to ANYONE - not to his employees (ie the generals fighting the war) nor to his employers (ie the American people). If you yourself don't trust polls and don't want to listen to them, fine. You argue that I make "worthless points" and that I "fail at proper debate"? Sorry mate - once you demonstrate an ability to understand my points, I'll start listening to your critique of my style of argumentation.
Aparently I was wrong in accusing the L.A. times of only surveying people from their area. I'll admit that. It doesn't matter. You still chose to ignore the main point of my arguement and focus mainly on this insignificant mistake. Once again, lacking objectivity.
Again, adding "snore" shows how much of an arogant prick you really are. If you ever want to be taken seriously politcally you should listen when someone is giving you advice. Don't gather only the facts and evidence to try to support your cause. Gather all evidence, from both sides, and then form an opinion. You clearly demonstrate that you can't handle this or you don't want to do this.
edit: And your first two lines sound like Bush invading Iraq.
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2006-12-22 08:46:18)
I'm really not sure where Ajax got the idea that Shipbuilder was "hating" on anyone. To me it seems like the person slinging around the personal attacks would be the one "hating". And the one who's simply providing his side of the argument would be the one debating effectively. Maybe Ajax needs to grow some thicker skin along with reading comprehension skills.
Shipbuilder said:
The first thing you did was to nitpick that the poll was based in Los Angeles, when common sense would tell you that it did not. I point that out, and now you're getting all excited ("damn" "fucking" "hell" "there for") because I didn't listen to your point that the American people are not experts about military tactics?
What you seem to misunderstand about my posting of the poll numbers was that it was to illustrate my point that Bush is not listening to nor pandering to ANYONE - not to his employees (ie the generals fighting the war) nor to his employers (ie the American people). If you yourself don't trust polls and don't want to listen to them, fine. You argue that I make "worthless points" and that I "fail at proper debate"? Sorry mate - once you demonstrate an ability to understand my points, I'll start listening to your critique of my style of argumentation.
Show me where that's hate
Then Ajax posts:
Now I remember why I took a break from these forums. Just a waste of my time with idiots like yourself. Sick of dipshits like you who look for any fuckig reason to hate on people you don't agree with. Take any fucking fact you can find and somehow try to spin it to your fucking cause. Can never look at a topic objectively. Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it. 12% of people doesn't fucking matter. It's not a good point, it never will be, it doesn't tell us anything other than you are a biased idiot who's too fucking polarized to realize it. You probably still won't get this so I'll be even more simple. You don't ask a chef to teach you how to be a pilot and you don't ask common citizens tell you how to take care of Iraq. Here you are, trying to say Bush is an idiot, because 88% of people from some stupid survey are telling him how to do his job. I'd say Bush would be an idiot if he did listen to these people.
Looks to me like baby can't get his bottle from Shipbuilder so he has a tantrum.
Shipbuilder said:
The first thing you did was to nitpick that the poll was based in Los Angeles, when common sense would tell you that it did not. I point that out, and now you're getting all excited ("damn" "fucking" "hell" "there for") because I didn't listen to your point that the American people are not experts about military tactics?
What you seem to misunderstand about my posting of the poll numbers was that it was to illustrate my point that Bush is not listening to nor pandering to ANYONE - not to his employees (ie the generals fighting the war) nor to his employers (ie the American people). If you yourself don't trust polls and don't want to listen to them, fine. You argue that I make "worthless points" and that I "fail at proper debate"? Sorry mate - once you demonstrate an ability to understand my points, I'll start listening to your critique of my style of argumentation.
Show me where that's hate
Then Ajax posts:
Now I remember why I took a break from these forums. Just a waste of my time with idiots like yourself. Sick of dipshits like you who look for any fuckig reason to hate on people you don't agree with. Take any fucking fact you can find and somehow try to spin it to your fucking cause. Can never look at a topic objectively. Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it. 12% of people doesn't fucking matter. It's not a good point, it never will be, it doesn't tell us anything other than you are a biased idiot who's too fucking polarized to realize it. You probably still won't get this so I'll be even more simple. You don't ask a chef to teach you how to be a pilot and you don't ask common citizens tell you how to take care of Iraq. Here you are, trying to say Bush is an idiot, because 88% of people from some stupid survey are telling him how to do his job. I'd say Bush would be an idiot if he did listen to these people.
Looks to me like baby can't get his bottle from Shipbuilder so he has a tantrum.
I'm curious to find out exactly how you'd stop Islamic terrorism then, apart from making some compromise? Kill every last muslim person in the world just in case? Good luck with that.lowing wrote:
[Great, so no terror attacks, no big deal. Washington was successful in holding down radical Islamic terrorism as well since there was no attacks by such groups during his administration. Great logic
Now, I wonder what shipbuilder, bubbalo, and the rest of the liberal think tank would be saying now if there had actually BEEN another attack like 911 in the US...........No attacks, means nothing....another attack and this forum would explode with hate and criticism for Bush.......You guys would make someone a great wife, with your line of thinking.
maybe posts like this................ THE PATRIOT ACT DOESN'T WORK SEE, ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL PROVES IT........
BUSH IS A MORON ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL PROVES HIS POLICIES IS A FAILURE.
ONCE AGAIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FAILED BECAUSE OF BUSH, WE HAVE GOT TO LEARN YOU CAN'T STOP TERRORISM, WE MUST NEGOTIATE AND APPEASE THEM.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Very frustrating to read such non-sense.
In terms of terrorism, I'm not just talking about Jihad here. I'm talking about any terrorism on US soil, which I pointed out has historically been executed more frequently by US citizens themselves than a foreign attacker.
I agree, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It's really not fair to him, but he put himself in this position. Do you recall a clear mission statement at any time in Iraq since the start? I mean, other than finding the stockpiles of WMD's that we didn't get our hands on. I know I know, there will be a post showing a couple weapons found, but that's hardly reason to occupy a country for three years. What we went there for was not there, so what are we still doing there. Apparently only Bush knows, since everyone around him is distancing themselves from his lunacy.
Lowing, my good friend, both of us know that I never said such a thing.lowing wrote:
So, BOTH of you are going to REALLY REALLY maintain that you have NEVER, NOT ONCE, READ ANYTHING about terror attacks being uncovered to take place in the US since 911??.......You go ahead and admit that, as truth, and I will post some links for you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
What is the matter? The NEWS doesn't air in your hometown or a newspapaper ever get delivered to it???
Why should we back up any contention we ever make, when we can just assign the burden of proof to everyone else?
I suggest putting away your indignation, your all-caps, your triple question-marks, and your "gotcha" games and instead just posting some evidence when people ask for it.
And for the record, he's requesting links showing Bush's actions leading to the thwarting of Al Qaeda plans. Exempli gratia: the London foiling, as uncovered by (if I remember right) London's finest with help from some Pakistanis, is something that could not be considered a victory of Bush's.
The point of my OP was to say that Bush isn't listening to his generals. Then I said, verbatim, "This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq." Then I went on to talk at length about the generals thing. Quoting the poll was an aside. The point in bringing it up being that if Bush isn't listening to his generals, who is he listening to... clearly not the American public. Is he listening to his generals? No. Is he listening to the American public? No. Well who's he listening to? Voices in his head? Jesus talking to him in his dreams?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Sick of dipshits like you who look for any fuckig reason to hate on people you don't agree with. Take any fucking fact you can find and somehow try to spin it to your fucking cause. Can never look at a topic objectively. Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it. 12% of people doesn't fucking matter. It's not a good point, it never will be, it doesn't tell us anything other than you are a biased idiot who's too fucking polarized to realize it.
Please respond to the above paragraph. How am I "spinning" the poll results "to my fucking cause"? Is there another way to read this poll? And you say that I "Always grab the facts that look to your cause and run with it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with it". Please tell me - what am I ignoring that doesn't support my observation that Bush listens to no one but himself? To whose counsel is he adhering these days?
I did not suggest that the American people should dictate the minutia of our foreign policy. If you read my post again, you'll find that I just said that Bush listens to no one but himself.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Here you are, trying to say Bush is an idiot, because 88% of people from some stupid survey are telling him how to do his job. I'd say Bush would be an idiot if he did listen to these people.
And by the way, give some credit to the American people. No they do not all have intricate knowledge on the ins and outs of the Iraq War - but what they can do is read and hear that Bush is defying the recommendations of the generals and the experts, and base their opinions on that simple fact.
Really! What was it that I was responding to, again?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Again, adding "snore" shows how much of an arogant prick you really are.
I responded to two sentences that were, to me, shining examples of condescending, arrogant prick-titude, by explicitly showing you that I was going to ignore them. Your response? More sanctimonious indignation, more condescension, more bad spelling, more name-calling, more cussing.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
snore...Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.
Yet I'm the one that "fails at proper debate".
French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Nice post.
We should have listened to France.
* Villepin: “Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
* Villepin: “In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Were they using the doctored brittish intelligence for those comments? I remember reading that whole document that Britain (Tony Blair) concocted (which we're now learning was totally conjured) back in 2003 (or was it 2002?) and seeing everyone jump on that bandwagon. I'm guessing France figured that out too.Kmarion wrote:
French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Nice post.
We should have listened to France.
* Villepin: “Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
* Villepin: “In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
If France figured it out, why wouldn't they come out and share it with the world prior to an invasion? (Expose the document as fake)
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-22 11:01:47)
Xbone Stormsurgezz