disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
First 100 days sets the agenda. We are approaching that. How much longer do you need?
I would. Why provoke unnecessarily? What will that accomplish?Yes... because we'd hate to further provoke the people that already hate us enough that they are willing to blow themslevses up in an effort to kill as many of us as they can.
I've never been a follower of the "100 day" rule for any President. That's just media hype to offer a critique of how things are going. I think especially in the realm of foreign policy that first "100 days" is pretty irrelevant. Think about it...if we were to have judged GWB on this first 100 days...his foreign policy would have looked quite good instead of the mess it became.
The point is that you cannot provoke these poeple further.I would. Why provoke unnecessarily? What will that accomplish?
Really? Because we haven't been attacked in 8 years. I'm sure we could provoke these people MUCH further.The point is that you cannot provoke these poeple further.
How does that in any way affect anything I said?Really? Because we haven't been attacked in 8 years.
You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years. If we provoke enough, they respond.How does that in any way affect anything I said?
You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years. If we provoke enough, they respond.
Yes. And this is a non-sequitur.You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years.
So you have your opinion and I have mine. What are you failing to grasp?Yes. And this is a non-sequitur.
So...?
How your non-sequitur facilitates a sound opinion.So you have your opinion and I have mine. What are you failing to grasp?
I could care less if you think my opinion is sound.How your non-sequitur facilitates a sound opinion.
So in Obama's brave new world, there are no terrorist attacks but "man-caused disasters" and now the GWoT is now called 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. What purpose does this silly newspeak do? Is this to placate the enemy? To soften our stance of defense of our people. What is the point?
First, its 'couldn't care less'.I could care less if you think my opinion is sound.
World Wide Words: I could care lessFirst, its 'couldn't care less'.
In these cases people have tried to apply logic, and it has failed them. Attempts to be logical about I could care less also fail. Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic — the speaker is really saying, “As if there was something in the world that I care less about”.
Okay, chiefSecond, its not a matter of me thinking its sound or not -- you have based your opinion on a logical fallacy. That, not my thoughts, makes it unsound.
I said that I did not care what you thought of my opinion. I do not cater to the hyper partisan, so it's completely expected that you would disagree.Third, your statement that you do not care if your opinion is sound or not is telling.
Basic English:
However much the truth may hurt, you should admit, to yourself at least, that it is the truth. Yours is a non-sequitur as there is no necessary relationship between the two tenets you presented.Okay, chief
Yes. And I have explained how -my- opinion of your opinion isnt the issue.I said that I did not care what you thought of my opinion
We can only Hope and Pray.
A pilot from Tunisia who paused to (hope and) pray rather than follow emergency procedures when his plane was crashing has been sentenced to 10 years in jail, Reuters reported Wednesday.
So in Obama's brave new world, there are no terrorist attacks but "man-caused disasters" and now the GWoT is now called 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. What purpose does this silly newspeak do? Is this to placate the enemy? To soften our stance of defense of our people. What is the point?
The "Global War on Terror" has always been a misnomer. There have been far more innocent civilians killed than terrorists.
I know this will be like garlic to a vampire..... but.....
By whom?
Iraqi.....innocent civilians.....killed by.....American troops and private contractors.
You hadn't heard?
rl]
So are you calling us Troops Murderers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?