Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 68 of 68
  1. #51
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Most don't want to yet they vote Netanyahu as PM. Okie dokie.
    Yeah, but for the same reason that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' wins in Egypt even though most Egyptians don't want Sharia Law...all the other political factions can't beat these extremists...but keep generalizing without doing your own research...it is soooooo you....

  2. #52
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    Yeah, but for the same reason that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' wins in Egypt even though most Egyptians don't want Sharia Law...all the other political factions can't beat these extremists...but keep generalizing without doing your own research...it is soooooo you....
    The candidate of the MB is saying that but he has not been elected.

    research

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt...0,627779.story

    CAIRO, May 20 (Reuters) - The Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed
    Mursi has cast himself as a reluctant latecomer to the race for
    the Egyptian presidency who is running to serve the nation and
    God, striking a conservative tone with promises to implement
    Islamic law.
    Also not all MB members support Sharia implementation. There are a significant faction that attempts to appeal to moderates precisely because of the views of the electorate.

    Netanyahu was elected and is quite outspoken about his militancy.

    Try harder.

  3. #53
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    Don't want: War

    Do want: A military that's constantly prepared for it

    I'm not really seeing what the fuss is here.
    IF that is so, then you should be against the draw down. With the decrease in the amount of soldiers, but even more dangerous, and the amount of Brigades-we can't successfully wage any kind of war. Except maybe a shock and awe with no boots on the ground or a "small footprint" for a very small amount of time.

    Then the NCO leadership being withheld from promotions and losing money every year (no pay raises since bush and now having to pay 600% higher insurance premium) I don't see these new soldiers being taught the lessons learned from this past decade, which is what is needed for a war with Iran. This wouldn't be an easy war with low casualties.

  4. #54
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    From my understanding since 9-11, we have been planning on an African war moreso than another Middle East war.

  5. #55
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    None of this matters since another war would be unpopular and there are no real leaders in one of the two future presidents. Plus Romney wouldn't get any money from the House( Tea Party and Dems ) and BHO wouldn't get it (Repubs will have control of both houses.

  6. #56
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.

  7. #57
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.
    False equivalence.

  8. #58
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    How so?

  9. #59
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,945
    The implication was that it was not so much significant as it was moreso mundane. I was talking about one word and while you are trying to fixate on the other as if it wasn't said and dismissed as ordinary it certainly refutes your notion of degree. At that point, why even mention it being significant immediately preceding the denigration?
    Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there. Are you ok?
    Lack of concision is not a positive. Just means you cannot convey your thoughts clearly.
    No, you cannot. I think you've just demonstrated that.

  10. #60
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You guys need to learn more about Israel, most Israeli don't want to go to war with Iran but just like in the U.S., there are a group of Neo-Cons, like Netenyahu who is the Cheney of Israel, which always seems to get the bulk of the M$M attention when it comes to foreign policy matters...these are the guys who also apparently have considerable pull with the American M$M who keep pushing the U.S. through pressure by the media..... to attack Iran ....even though Iran has recently signaled that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon and is open to letting the IAEA inspect its nuclear energy project....
    Do you know any Israeli national?

    I have met and talked with some about the middle east hostilities. They were Engineers from NOVA.

    Yes, Israeli's don't want to go to war, but they will if their country is at risk.

    Don't want to does not mean will not.

  11. #61
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    inconsequential and mundane aren't synonyms.
    Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there.
    Its really not my fault you cannot keep up with what you stated.

    As for me 'exaggerating,' you should look up the meaning of the word.

    Maybe if you keep throwing out something will eventually stick.

  12. #62
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.
    because the MIC/UCA war-profiteers DID take us to a false war in Iraq. 100s of 1000s of lives wasted and $Ts shifted to the MIC. The ONLY gain was US/UK oilcos getting Iraq oil business that Saddam was giving exclusively to France, Russia, China.

    terror-mongering is just the MIC vampire squid sucking in our wealth and raping our freedoms ( freedoms the tea baggers don't give about), but far fewer die and it's a lot cheaper. Cheaper to fly drones around the world and murder lots of people the MIC doesn't like, but it's still not a war.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-21-2012 at 08:43 AM.

  13. #63
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,945
    Its really not my fault you cannot keep up with what you stated.
    so you say, but you've been having a little trouble making your case...
    As for me 'exaggerating,' you should look up the meaning of the word.
    ...even with the help of a dictionary. You mostly deride what you have first caricatured, like every other blockhead around here. Surly!

  14. #64
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,945
    as well as amusing. must say, I've been impressed with what a crankypants you've been of late.

    have you considered changing those wet drawers?

  15. #65
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    so you say, but you've been having a little trouble making your case...
    ...even with the help of a dictionary. You mostly deride what you have first caricatured, like every other blockhead around here. Surly!
    YES!!! THE MARTYR CARD!

    Poor you. All by your non-deriding self. Or is this a case of more hypocrisy on your part?

    As for the proving my case, I was leaving it to you but apparently you are deficient of discerning the nuance. When you are saying two things are not synonymous you are deducing their definition. That was the first instance of arguing definition. As typical you are denying a definition in your passive aggressive way but that is still what is gotten at. I just cut right to the chase.

    Do you need me to post the definition of synonymous too? I posted significant because I thought it funny that the first line had 'of consequence.' I bet that this definition will be so direct as to be amusing as well.

  16. #66
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    as well as amusing. must say, I've been impressed with what a crankypants you've been of late.

    have you considered changing those wet drawers?
    Winehole does blockhead?

  17. #67
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,945
    sometimes you barely make sense, Fuzzy. this is one of those times.

  18. #68
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    you only thought you were agreeing with me. inconsequential and mundane aren't synonyms. calling out Captain Bringdown for overhyping something doesn't mean I think it's inconsequential, just less important.

    subtlety's not really your thing, is it?
    significant
    [sig-nif-i-kuhnt]   Origin
    sig·nif·i·cant
       [sig-nif-i-kuhnt]
    adjective
    1.
    important; of consequence.
    Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there. Are you ok?
    No, you cannot. I think you've just demonstrated that.
    Again introspection is important The above is the temporal order of the posts I ma talking about. Lets enumerate them so it's easier to follow. You apparently need the hand-holding.

    1) You claim that my use of the word inconsequential is incorrect because you misinterpreted the word I was talking about and then pointed out a red herring of false equivalence in definition. This was the first argument about definition.

    2) I give the definition of the word I was talking about.

    3) You claim I started the debate on definition then proceed to deride it.

    It's actually funny watching you becomes that which you abhor. What's not so fun is you projecting it onto me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •