What's new

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

You shouldn't try so hard to read into and pick and chose what you are worried about. As for blanket statement how do you personally feel about Muslims? Or how about Obama? Or our National Health Care Bill?

I like the food my muslim neighbors make. Spicy and earthy. Good stuff.

Obama was fun to play poker with, but once he got drunk, he just got mean and went around mumbling something unintelligible except for the occasional "Michelle yer a klingon slut". Not sure what to read into that.

I like health care. Health care is a good thing. Illness is bad.
 
Actually not a bad idea.

It was a bad idea because it involves sacrificing someone else.

How about you can't vote on war unless you have served yourself.

Not that the chickenhawk president ever served himself or gave congress the chance to vote on it.
 
No seriously, politicians need incentives to end these never ending nation building exercises.

Taking their kids away and docking their pay should help them to consider really the true cost of military action.

I'm all for them having to dedicate a child for the cause (actually in the war. Not on some stupid reserve unit in California). And having their pay docked/stopped for as long as the war lasts.

had we had this type of system in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have ever invaded Iraq without first finishing the job in Afghanistan.

If politicians had risk involved, then perhaps they'd only send us to war when we're truly threatened. Not to secure oil in Iraq/cater to one political party for fear of being called french/coward. Not to bend to weak UN officials (like Libya).

We'd get in and get out. None of this occupying a country because it "helps" us secure other countries. I truly wonder if we've avoided capturing Osama so we can have a stronger presence in the middle east. An excuse to stay there. Thoughts?
 
I truly wonder if we've avoided capturing Osama so we can have a stronger presence in the middle east. An excuse to stay there. Thoughts?

He's probably not even alive anymore. It's easier to play that game when the guy is dead, but it kind of wears off over time. Nobody fears Osama anymore. Anwar al-Awlaki is the guy that the have elevated to lead boogeyman now for though and blame everything on him.
 
When you vouch for an answer, and suggest it aqs being accurate, you taking part in the noissucsid.

Dammit, Big Fundy, just when I thought I had pounded this nail as far into the board as it would go, you come along outdoing me with your future readin'. I tried to politely step out of a discussion I wasn't part of but that wasn't good enough for you. Now, you're getting ex post facto? Future reading is pretty tricky, friend, and unfair too. Hey, you're not one of these future seeing harmonic convergence types, by chance? Cause if you are then I've got to take you to ground zero in Germany. It'll blow your mind... or your third eye wide open anyway.

Now check my sig.
 
Taking their kids away and docking their pay should help them to consider really the true cost of military action.

Which one would you sacrifice?

obama-kids-4-30-09.jpg
 
The one on the right of course. The other one has only been around for a few years and still has some real potential. I am not sure what kind of outside shot she has, but we need to see what she can do with some real PT. Maybe she will do better as a starter than coming off the bench. Pretty sure she will be an all-star some day though. But it is time to move the other one, maybe for a ham sandwich or a 2nd rounder.
 
Look yo, all One Brow's pointing out is that you're claiming that you're trying to "step away from the discussion" at the same that time you're claiming that so-and-so's points are valid. When confronted on your opinion you then try and say you don't have an opinion on the matter... cake and eating it too, contradictions, etc.

You then top it off with a classic "i'm better then you" smarmy demeanor, but that just might be who you are.

Note: I'm not even loosely affiliated with this one brow guy, but since you decided to lump me in with him a few pages ago, well...
 
Look yo, all One Brow's pointing out is that you're claiming that you're trying to "step away from the discussion" at the same that time you're claiming that so-and-so's points are valid. When confronted on your opinion you then try and say you don't have an opinion on the matter... cake and eating it too, contradictions, etc.

You then top it off with a classic "i'm better then you" smarmy demeanor, but that just might be who you are.

Note: I'm not even loosely affiliated with this one brow guy, but since you decided to lump me in with him a few pages ago, well...

Look, bonehead, reread the damn thing before you start pointing out contradictions. I never said **** about Pol Pot or Nero or or or the war of the gods or or or. Go check the record before acting like a *******. I give Big Fundy a pass cause it's obvious he has something going on that's clouding his mind. That's where the banter comes in. It helps him. But I don't really know you. I've been having fun with you, but you're being a dick here, and a stupid dick at that.

Son, next time you really want to call me out on it like Eric was then provide a quote.

-1.5 for being stupid.
 
Lol, this is just such a ridiculous exercise in "who can come up with the next best clever quip!". No one is listening or attempting to change their mind at all.

Oh yeah, well I am!

No wait, I changed my mind. Now I am not.
 
Ok well one thing you have to understand is I was 3 bloody years old during the first Gulf War. I'm not sure how old you are, but my perspective is the one I prefer and the only one I got. And here's how I would break it all down.

I was 10 when Reagan was elected. I was 16 during the whole Iran-Contra affair. Hell I was 3 when Roe v Wade happened. But I was able to dig into the issues by doing research, reading difffering opinions, looking at the facts (even those that happened before I was born or when I was very young) and thereby form an opinion at least somewhat founded on knowledge.

There is a very long history behind the most recent military action in Iraq. It would do you well to read about it. You can get a synopsis from the link I posted from PBS. Actually a pretty good synopsis there. There is also this new google thing that lets you find all kinds of soures, from total wack jobs (Limbaugh, Moore, et al.) all the way to respected publications and everything in between. As long as you don't limit yourself to sources only support what you already think, you can make some real headway.

When Bush pushed us to invade Iraq I was originally in a quandry. I thought like you and others that he was just blowing smoke and using the opportunity presented by 9/11 to advance his personal agenda, whatever that may be. I started to become really interested in it all when my brother-in-law and a friend of mine were sent to Iraq (my BOL was in Tirkit when Saddam was captured...he had some cool stories). My friend was killed in action in Baghdad. This was one of the funerals that got me to join the Patriot Guard Riders. I stood as part of the honor guard at his funeral.

Anyway, I talked to my BOL and others about their thoughts on the war. I wanted to know what really went down so I started digging. I read a ton of stuff on it and thereby my opinion changed. I by no means attribute sainthood to Bush, I think he was a mediocre president at best, but I could see that the issues in Iraq did not by a long shot originate with him, nor did they sprout out of 9/11. He was actually continuing on resolutions that were in effect from the first gulff war and from operations desert fox that Clinton carried out. There is a long history there and learning about it changed my view on the whole thing. It certainly didn't mean I thought he handled it all perfectly either, in fact they made many big mistakes that cost in terms of lives and money. But I believe the media played what they wanted to and spun what was really happening and why we were really there, clouding the issues and the facts. For one thing, Bush never lied. He was wrong, but that is a far cry from lying. And it goes on.

But this doesn't mean it will change your view, it just did mine. But at least I went to find out rather than just saying "hey I was a kid, and so I believe what the media tells me". Time to grow up, make up your own mind.

And if you still come to the same conclusion you have now, great, I support that 100%. But at least then we have something to discuss.
 
Originally Posted by One Brow
When you vouch for an answer, and suggest it aqs being accurate, you taking part in the noissucsid.

Dammit, Big Fundy, just when I thought I had pounded this nail as far into the board as it would go, you come along outdoing me with your future readin'.

I have no idea what you mean here. You endorsed a position, I called you out on it. No future-think, simple action-evaluate-respond. If you forgot you endorsed a view, go back and check. In comment #150 in this thread you say a poster who does not believe the five worst dictators of all time lived in the 20th century would prefer to have been raped than get his Pearling. In #163 you specifically endorse another posters position that the five worst have been in the 20th century, but neither you nor LogGrad98 can mantion any factor other than body-count, a happenstance of history as much as an indication of blood-thirstyness.

Still, since you're emphasizing you're not tryingto be too serious, I suppose I can't hold you too accountable.
 
For one thing, Bush never lied. He was wrong, but that is a far cry from lying.

I agree Bush didn't lie. He acted on his own convictions and interpreted evidence to support the conclusions that he had already made, and disregarded evidence that ran contrary to those conclusions, but he didn't try to present a case he thought was wrong.
 
If you forgot you endorsed a view, go back and check. In comment #150 in this thread you say a poster who does not believe the five worst dictators of all time lived in the 20th century would prefer to have been raped than get his Pearling.

Saying The Pearl would give a Pearling is an endorsement of what again? You sure know how to read things that are there. Your assumptions are continually the cause of your own misunderstanding and resulting board clutter. I have fun playing off of that.

In #163 you specifically endorse another posters position that the five worst have been in the 20th century, but neither you nor LogGrad98 can mantion any factor other than body-count, a happenstance of history as much as an indication of blood-thirstyness.

Yeah, but just to act like an arrogant prick and get you off my back about it. You keep pestering and pestering and pestering based on your faulty insinuations.

Anyway, my only goal was to keep your attention inside this thread so you wouldn't pollute the rest of the board as much. I think I succeeded.

Now check my signature.
 
Saying The Pearl would give a Pearling is an endorsement of what again? You sure know how to read things that are there. Your assumptions are continually the cause of your own misunderstanding and resulting board clutter. I have fun playing off of that.



Yeah, but just to act like an arrogant prick and get you off my back about it. You keep pestering and pestering and pestering based on your faulty insinuations.

Anyway, my only goal was to keep your attention inside this thread so you wouldn't pollute the rest of the board as much. I think I succeeded.

Now check my signature.

Franklin you have done everyone else a service. I salute you.


Oh and I never read Unibrow's comments, but seeing it here I will respond.

If you go back far enough, oh he of the single brow, you will see that I qualified my list clearly stating I was making that list based on body count alone. This is one way to discuss ruthless tyrants and it is the measure I chose since I originated the argument. If you choose to take the argument in another direction, feel free to come up with a standard of your own and argue that. But don't try to argue that my point is invalid since there are other ways to measure it, when I identified in the first place that I chose to measure it in that way for the purposes of this discussion. If you can come up with an objective way to differentiate blood-thirstiness then lay it out there. If not, then it is all purely speculation on your part.

Also the only reason it went there anyway is I was pointing out that the reason given by another poster for attacking Lybia was to oust Ghadaffi due to bloodshed he is causing. That is used as a reason to support this military action. But the poster also made it clear he did NOT support the war in Iraq, ignoring the fact that Saddam was a far bloodier dictator than Ghadaffi ever hoped to be.

So can you argue the original post? Is Ghadaffi so much more ruthless than Saddam that he needs to be ousted for no other reason as he has broken no UN resolutions, and has not developed and used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, etc. Since the acceptable reason is his volume of bloodshed it is valid to compare his ousting to that of Saddam.

You can choose to respond or not. I won't see it unless someone else quotes it. But don't insinuate things about Franklin claiming he is ignoring or misreading other posts when you misread and/or ignored the qualifying statement in the original argument you butted into.
 
Top