Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#902 Jan 20 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're **** is not homosexual.


They're not discharged for being homosexual. They're only discharged if their homosexuality is discovered, ostensibly because it damages cohesion or whatever the opposition's basis for discharging them is. They're allowed to be ****-- they're not allowed to be seen as ****.

Quote:
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts.


Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.

Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.

[quote]Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?


You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily. So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.

So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


President Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


Before moving on, all of your confusion on DADT may clear up by addressing this quote and my question. If President Obama made that statement, then why are we still in Iraq?



He said Combat mission. As far as I know American troops are still in the process of training Iraqi police/army to take on the major security roles. Of course once the US does leave the major security issues will likely stop anyway.

Its not like he declared mission accomplished and then left the army there for another 5 years or anything.


Edited, Jan 20th 2011 10:24pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#903 Jan 20 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,955 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The first 3 words in the post you quoted were the most important. You just chose to ignore them.


You're right.. that wasn't intentional..

So, then back to the topic. It is not statistically possible to be wrong 90%+ of the time on subjective topics. I listed like 4 previous debates in this very thread that hardly anyone would disagree with NOW that they were disagreeing with THEN only because that was the topic at hand and it was my argument. If I took more time, I could probably bring up more.

How about this, since I'm sooooo wrong all of the time, name some previous debates, as I did earlier, with my positions that were wrong. You can use the same ones that I just brought up if you don't remember of feel like doing research.

Quote:

It is not statistically possible to be wrong 90%+ of the time on subjective topics.


My statistics sense is tingling...

All of my rage and all of my anger could not express how wrong you are.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#904 Jan 20 2011 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,955 posts
Quote:
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.


Because active war and peacekeeping/nation-building are different things. As you are someone who is actively in the military it disturbs me that you don't know the difference.

Edited, Jan 20th 2011 11:04pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#905 Jan 20 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Before moving on, all of your confusion on DADT may clear up by addressing this quote and my question. If President Obama made that statement, then why are we still in Iraq?

I'm waiting....


It's funny that you think I would bother to talk about this, seeing that you're the one that brought Obama in to this several posts ago, which I disagreed with then. I don't know or care if you're trying to draw an analogy or what, but right out of the gate it's too ridiculous to listen to. I would guess you're trying to say that sometimes an authority on a subject is wrong? But we're not going down that avenue, because it just allows you to shift to a new discussion with a whole new bag of absurd arguments.

Try something else. I'm just not even going to go there. If you can't state your case without an analogy, then you aren't capable of adequately defending it. Political analogies depend upon too many suppositions and preconceptions that we're probably going to disagree on anyway, so bringing them to the discussion really adds nothing at all. That is assuming that you were making an analogy and not trying ridiculously to connect Obama to DADT policy.

Also, I'm not "confused" about DADT. You're retarded.

Edited, Jan 20th 2011 8:28pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#906 Jan 21 2011 at 12:17 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Allegory wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Dunning-Kruger Effect

Thank you for mentioning that. I'd never heard of it. Quite an apt description of Alma!

Dammit. I don't expect anyone to read through this entire thread, but can't a sister get a little cred?


Sorry. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#907 Jan 21 2011 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:


The Commander and Chief
It's Commander-in-Chief, **** It means roughly 'person in charge' in simple terms for you. Commander and Chief is somewhat similar, but the president isn't leading the Apache nation into war.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#908 Jan 21 2011 at 5:39 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.


Because active war and peacekeeping/nation-building are different things. As you are someone who is actively in the military it disturbs me that you don't know the difference.

Edited, Jan 20th 2011 11:04pm by Timelordwho


Your ignorance isn't my fault.I know the difference and I actually said the difference numerous times already .You just haven't been paying attention. I'm asking Kachi to tell me the difference. That was my point, if you don't know what is really going on, you will take that statement as "The war in Iraq is over", but it isn't, we're in peacekeeping. Guess what? The people against the war are complaining about people dying, none of that will change under "peace keeping". What the President had done was use words that are true, that appears to have the meaning that society wants to hear. These wars have transitioned through many phases and these phases were never televised as such. That was a political stunt to make it seem that the war in Iraq was over.

Kachi wrote:
It's funny that you think I would bother to talk about this, seeing that you're the one that brought Obama in to this several posts ago, which I disagreed with then. I don't know or care if you're trying to draw an analogy or what, but right out of the gate it's too ridiculous to listen to. I would guess you're trying to say that sometimes an authority on a subject is wrong? But we're not going down that avenue, because it just allows you to shift to a new discussion with a whole new bag of absurd arguments.

Try something else. I'm just not even going to go there. If you can't state your case without an analogy, then you aren't capable of adequately defending it. Political analogies depend upon too many suppositions and preconceptions that we're probably going to disagree on anyway, so bringing them to the discussion really adds nothing at all. That is assuming that you were making an analogy and not trying ridiculously to connect Obama to DADT policy.

Also, I'm not "confused" about DADT. You're retarded.


Read above.. Your fellow posters have already answered the question for you since you're scared. This isn't about President Obama being wrong, because he wasn't. He used political talk to something true that appeared to have a meaning that society wanted to hear.

Besides, you're full of BS.. You don't want to answer this, because you have no answer. The only logical answer substantiates my point. We've gone over numerous topics and now all of the sudden you don't want to address a scenario that directly correlates to your main argument? Your whole argument is that the DoD, legislators, etc. all said one thing, so these politicians must be straight forward. If you just understood the concept at first, I wouldn't have to use an analogy.

As stated again, only because I know you don't read my posts, it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation, but that's only true because heterosexuals can be discharged for the same activities. If you actually read the freaking policy, you'll see that it lists every single measurable way of homosexuality. By not asking people their sexuality when joining is just as much "allowing" them to join as allowing child molesters, adulteresses, wife beaters, druglords, etc. to join. So to say that they are "allowed" only because you don't interrogate people on those topics is very misleading, just like saying the combat mission in Iraq is over.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#909 Jan 21 2011 at 5:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#910 Jan 21 2011 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I doubt Obama would use an orange font that no one can read. Dumbass.


Orange stands out well against Blue. What's so hard about reading it?


My background isn't blue.

I understand that we all use different skins. That's why I never use a colored font because what I think might show up well on the skin I use might not look so hot on your crappy FF skin.
#911 Jan 21 2011 at 5:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Also, if Alma's really in the military, so am I.
#912 Jan 21 2011 at 5:58 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.


Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#913 Jan 21 2011 at 6:52 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.


Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.


That is why Obama never claimed the war to be over. He said that combat operations are going to cease. This means that American troops are playing the defensive role. If they are shot at they can shoot back, but they are no longer going to be going to look for a fight on a large scale. They may have some units patrol with the Iraqi security forces, but this is to train them.

Then again I don't trust what the government sticks down my throat anyway, Obama, W or any of them, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Also during a war "peacekeeping" is very subjective. Considering that Iraq was more or less stable before 2003, I would argue that the War in Iraq has made the country worse than it was previously. Unlike say Bosnia, or Kosovo where the country was already destabilized and UN peacekeepers went in and combat resulted in increased stability. I don't think you really know what the U.S. Has done over the past decade, because it certainly hasn't been peacekeeping.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#914 Jan 21 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Also, if Alma's really in the military, so am I.
sounds pretty ****.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#915 Jan 21 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Also, if Alma's really in the military, so am I.
sounds pretty ****.
Everything in this thread is ****.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#916 Jan 21 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Iraq "war" ended in 2003 regardless of how long Bush stretched out the term. We went to war with Iraq. We defeated their armies and deposed their government. By any standard definition of a "War", that was it. We won.

Since then, we've been involved in nation building. Part of that includes fighting off threats from other powers who want to seize control in the power vacuum but these aren't guys trying to restore the Hussein regime or something. Part of that nation building included offensive attacks against these groups. Combat operations.

Since then, we've drawn down the bulk of our forces and changed the mission to training the nascent Iraqi army and providing support as needed although we're no longer taking the initiative in offensive missions. The combat operation has ended. Saying at this point that the "War" has ended is inaccurate but, given that it's been inaccurately described as a war for years and no one wants to say "It's not a war" because then some soldier dies and the other side is all "You said it's not a war but LOOK!", saying that the war has ended at the end of the offensive combat phase of the nation building is fairly reasonable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#917 Jan 21 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Did congress ever make an official declaration of war in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#918 Jan 21 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, our last official declaration of war was World War II. By in large, it doesn't make much practical difference provided you have a Congress willing to go along with the President's decisions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#919 Jan 21 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.


Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.


That is why Obama never claimed the war to be over. He said that combat operations are going to cease. This means that American troops are playing the defensive role. If they are shot at they can shoot back, but they are no longer going to be going to look for a fight on a large scale. They may have some units patrol with the Iraqi security forces, but this is to train them.

Then again I don't trust what the government sticks down my throat anyway, Obama, W or any of them, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Also during a war "peacekeeping" is very subjective. Considering that Iraq was more or less stable before 2003, I would argue that the War in Iraq has made the country worse than it was previously. Unlike say Bosnia, or Kosovo where the country was already destabilized and UN peacekeepers went in and combat resulted in increased stability. I don't think you really know what the U.S. Has done over the past decade, because it certainly hasn't been peacekeeping.


Less talking and more thinking. The first part of your statement is my point, rather how accurate or not your statements are, the point is President Obama's comment is misleading to the public who doesn't know any better.

Your second comment is just amazing. As a Soldier preparing to go to war, I don't feel "privileged" with the knowledge to talk about war, so I'm amazed on how people like you, a civilian who probably barely understands the military, can talk about war as if you know what is going on over there. I'm willing to bet that all of your information comes from the media. So, you don't trust the government, but you trust the media?

Why don't you do a tour over there in a war zone and come back and tell me your view on "peacekeeping".

Edited, Jan 21st 2011 11:15pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#920 Jan 21 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Uhm, RDM is a moocher, not a producer Alma. You're suggesting something impossible.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#921 Jan 21 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.


Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.


That is why Obama never claimed the war to be over. He said that combat operations are going to cease. This means that American troops are playing the defensive role. If they are shot at they can shoot back, but they are no longer going to be going to look for a fight on a large scale. They may have some units patrol with the Iraqi security forces, but this is to train them.

Then again I don't trust what the government sticks down my throat anyway, Obama, W or any of them, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Also during a war "peacekeeping" is very subjective. Considering that Iraq was more or less stable before 2003, I would argue that the War in Iraq has made the country worse than it was previously. Unlike say Bosnia, or Kosovo where the country was already destabilized and UN peacekeepers went in and combat resulted in increased stability. I don't think you really know what the U.S. Has done over the past decade, because it certainly hasn't been peacekeeping.


Less talking and more thinking. The first part of your statement is my point, rather how accurate or not your statements are, the point is President Obama's comment is misleading to the public who doesn't know any better.

Your second comment is just amazing. As a Soldier preparing to go to war, I don't feel "privileged" with the knowledge to talk about war, so I'm amazed on how people like you, a civilian who probably barely understands the military, can talk about war as if you know what is going on over there. I'm willing to bet that all of your information comes from the media. So, you don't trust the government, but you trust the media?

Why don't you do a tour over there in a war zone and come back and tell me your view on "peacekeeping".

Edited, Jan 21st 2011 11:15pm by Almalieque


It is subjective because "peace" is in the eye of the beholder. In my mind Iraq is no more peaceful than it was 10 years ago, same with afghanistan. The people may be more "free" but they are at a greater risk of death or harm than they were entering the 21st century. Now take Kosovo for example. The people there are much more at peace then they were before the 98 campaign. Along with that peace comes freedom. I am quite sure you know nothing of what occurred in Kosovo before the UN peacekeeping mission took place.

The missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are not, nor were they ever peacekeeping missions. The war in Iraq was to remove an unfriendly leader in a country that posed a threat to an ally. It became a Liberation occupation after 2003. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11 and was a retaliation on those who funded/harbored members of the force who "claimed" responsibility. Currently it is a guerrilla war and no peace movements have been made.

Neither of these wars are peacekeeping efforts, they may be helping liberation and freedoms, but they have destabilized both respective countries, which is the opposite of what peacekeeping conflicts are all about.

You obviously do not know what peacekeeping is if you think bombing innocent peoples homes obtains it.

Bombing for peace is like **** for virginity.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#922 Jan 21 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't think you understand the difference between peacekeeping and war, Alma. That may not be your fault though, seeing as the US typically continues to operate in war mode even when it's in peacekeeping mode.


Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.


That is why Obama never claimed the war to be over. He said that combat operations are going to cease. This means that American troops are playing the defensive role. If they are shot at they can shoot back, but they are no longer going to be going to look for a fight on a large scale. They may have some units patrol with the Iraqi security forces, but this is to train them.

Then again I don't trust what the government sticks down my throat anyway, Obama, W or any of them, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Also during a war "peacekeeping" is very subjective. Considering that Iraq was more or less stable before 2003, I would argue that the War in Iraq has made the country worse than it was previously. Unlike say Bosnia, or Kosovo where the country was already destabilized and UN peacekeepers went in and combat resulted in increased stability. I don't think you really know what the U.S. Has done over the past decade, because it certainly hasn't been peacekeeping.


Less talking and more thinking. The first part of your statement is my point, rather how accurate or not your statements are, the point is President Obama's comment is misleading to the public who doesn't know any better.

Your second comment is just amazing. As a Soldier preparing to go to war, I don't feel "privileged" with the knowledge to talk about war, so I'm amazed on how people like you, a civilian who probably barely understands the military, can talk about war as if you know what is going on over there. I'm willing to bet that all of your information comes from the media. So, you don't trust the government, but you trust the media?

Why don't you do a tour over there in a war zone and come back and tell me your view on "peacekeeping".

Edited, Jan 21st 2011 11:15pm by Almalieque


It is subjective because "peace" is in the eye of the beholder. In my mind Iraq is no more peaceful than it was 10 years ago, same with afghanistan. The people may be more "free" but they are at a greater risk of death or harm than they were entering the 21st century. Now take Kosovo for example. The people there are much more at peace then they were before the 98 campaign. Along with that peace comes freedom. I am quite sure you know nothing of what occurred in Kosovo before the UN peacekeeping mission took place.

The missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are not, nor were they ever peacekeeping missions. The war in Iraq was to remove an unfriendly leader in a country that posed a threat to an ally. It became a Liberation occupation after 2003. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11 and was a retaliation on those who funded/harbored members of the force who "claimed" responsibility. Currently it is a guerrilla war and no peace movements have been made.

Neither of these wars are peacekeeping efforts, they may be helping liberation and freedoms, but they have destabilized both respective countries, which is the opposite of what peacekeeping conflicts are all about.

You obviously do not know what peacekeeping is if you think bombing innocent peoples homes obtains it.

Bombing for peace is like @#%^ing for virginity.


As I just said, you haven't been over there, so you don't really have the sources to claim that "nothing" has changed or people are more or less safer. You are literally basing this off of stuff you created and things you have heard from the media.

I didn't claim that those entire wars motives were ever "peacekeeping", hence the President's statement of the end of the combat mission, my point was that there were peacekeeping missions going on throughout the wars. This is because war is dynamic and not static.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#923 Jan 21 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The Iraq "war" ended in 2003 regardless of how long Bush stretched out the term. We went to war with Iraq. We defeated their armies and deposed their government. By any standard definition of a "War", that was it. We won.


So. Mission Accomplished?


Sorry. Couldn't help myself! ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#924 Jan 21 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So. Mission Accomplished?

Had Bush said "That's it, we won. We're coming home!", sure. Instead he continued to call it a "war" for the rest of his administration so he & the Republicans could play up the "But we're AT WAR!!!" rhetoric and keep our forces kicking around Iraq which made "Mission Accomplished" seem hollow and naive.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#925 Jan 21 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Sounds more like that "Political Talk" that I was referencing to earlier..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#926 Jan 21 2011 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So. Mission Accomplished?

Had Bush said "That's it, we won. We're coming home!", sure.


So since Obama didn't say "That's it, we won. We're coming home!" either, then you would argue that we are still "at war" in Iraq?

Welcome to the point I was making.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#927 Jan 22 2011 at 12:35 AM Rating: Good
.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 1:37am by Lubriderm
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#928 Jan 22 2011 at 2:41 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation


Glad to hear you finally say it. Especially in light of the part you say after this being the exact same thing I've been saying all along. It brings me hope to know that even you can learn.

Quote:
I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.


Honestly, I can't even be asked to read the point you were trying to make out of morbid curiosity NOW, so whatever "pointing out" you were trying to do was completely in vain. It's extremely amusing to me that you've kept talking on and on about this subject to yourself. I told you very plainly that whatever crazy tangent you were going off on, I wasn't going to touch it. My eyes rolled right past it to the parts where you were at least on the topic.

When someone says they aren't going to talk to you about something, maybe you should just accept it at face value rather than pretending like they're avoiding the question. Not everything you say is even remotely interesting enough to acknowledge, which I realize may be a foreign concept to you seeing that you're the center of so much (negative) attention.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you've accepted the point I was trying to make and have moved on to having this other boring conversation that you so desperately wanted to have with people that actually want to have it with you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#929 Jan 22 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Kachi the Confused wrote:

Almalieque for like the fourth time wrote:
it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation
Glad to hear you finally say it. Especially in light of the part you say after this being the exact same thing I've been saying all along. It brings me hope to know that even you can learn.

[...]

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you've accepted the point I was trying to make and have moved on to having this other boring conversation that you so desperately wanted to have with people that actually want to have it with you.


So we finally agree? Homosexuality isn't authorized in the military regardless if you're a homosexual or a heterosexual? It's about time you realized this.

Kachi wrote:
Honestly, I can't even be asked to read the point you were trying to make out of morbid curiosity NOW, so whatever "pointing out" you were trying to do was completely in vain. It's extremely amusing to me that you've kept talking on and on about this subject to yourself. I told you very plainly that whatever crazy tangent you were going off on, I wasn't going to touch it. My eyes rolled right past it to the parts where you were at least on the topic.

When someone says they aren't going to talk to you about something, maybe you should just accept it at face value rather than pretending like they're avoiding the question. Not everything you say is even remotely interesting enough to acknowledge, which I realize may be a foreign concept to you seeing that you're the center of so much (negative) attention.



You're spending more effort telling me that you aren't going to address that scenario then actually responding to it, especially given that the other posters already answered it for you. So this is clearly about you realizing that you were wrong.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#930 Jan 22 2011 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Whoops.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 8:34am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#931 Jan 22 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So since Obama didn't say "That's it, we won. We're coming home!" either, then you would argue that we are still "at war" in Iraq?

You mean something like this versus the current levels of 50,000? Or the couple thousand expected to remain by the end of 2011? Following Bush's "Mission Accomplished", we often had more troops in Iraq than we did for the "war".
gbaji wrote:
Welcome to the point I was making.

Huh. Well, when you get mine (which you obviously completely missed) I suppose this will be a conversation worth having. Let me know how that works out for you.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 8:45am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#932 Jan 22 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
Last.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#933 Jan 22 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,955 posts
Quote:
As stated again, only because I know you don't read my posts, it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation, but that's only true because heterosexuals can be discharged for the same activities. If you actually read the freaking policy, you'll see that it lists every single measurable way of homosexuality. By not asking people their sexuality when joining is just as much "allowing" them to join as allowing child molesters, adulteresses, wife beaters, druglords, etc. to join. So to say that they are "allowed" only because you don't interrogate people on those topics is very misleading, just like saying the combat mission in Iraq is over.


So you're comparing someone's sexuality to being a drug-lord or wife-beater?

Classy.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 1:46pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#934 Jan 22 2011 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
As stated again, only because I know you don't read my posts, it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation, but that's only true because heterosexuals can be discharged for the same activities. If you actually read the freaking policy, you'll see that it lists every single measurable way of homosexuality. By not asking people their sexuality when joining is just as much "allowing" them to join as allowing child molesters, adulteresses, wife beaters, druglords, etc. to join. So to say that they are "allowed" only because you don't interrogate people on those topics is very misleading, just like saying the combat mission in Iraq is over.


So you're comparing someone's sexuality to being a drug-lord or wife-beater?

Classy.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 1:46pm by Timelordwho


No, I'm comparing something not authorized in the military that isn't questioned and is viewed as not being done to other things not authorized in the military that aren't questioned and are viewed as not being done. So, if those examples offend you, just choose something else that fits in those categories.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2011 12:37am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#935 Jan 22 2011 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
As stated again, only because I know you don't read my posts, it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation, but that's only true because heterosexuals can be discharged for the same activities. If you actually read the freaking policy, you'll see that it lists every single measurable way of homosexuality. By not asking people their sexuality when joining is just as much "allowing" them to join as allowing child molesters, adulteresses, wife beaters, druglords, etc. to join. So to say that they are "allowed" only because you don't interrogate people on those topics is very misleading, just like saying the combat mission in Iraq is over.


So you're comparing someone's sexuality to being a drug-lord or wife-beater?

Classy.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 1:46pm by Timelordwho


No, I'm comparing something not authorized in the military that isn't questioned and is viewed as not being done to other things not authorized in the military that aren't questioned and are viewed as not being done. So, if those examples offend you, just choose something else that fits in those categories.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2011 12:37am by Almalieque
This! If the military code condemned both human sacrifice, and petting kittens then it's perfectly safe to assume that we should leave the military code as it is, in this argument of semantics.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#936 Jan 22 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
So we finally agree? Homosexuality isn't authorized in the military regardless if you're a homosexual or a heterosexual? It's about time you realized this.


Whoops, I guess not. The military allows gays, though I could be wrong, since your statement really didn't make much sense. Homosexuality isn't authorized even if you're a heterosexual?

Well, whatever you meant to say, my point remains that the military's policy, which many people more qualified than you have already explained, is that while open homosexuality is not allowed, homosexuals are allowed in the military.

Quote:
You're spending more effort telling me that you aren't going to address that scenario then actually responding to it, especially given that the other posters already answered it for you. So this is clearly about you realizing that you were wrong.


The difference is that I enjoyed it. I can spend more money on a prostitute than a trip to the dentist, too. If I haven't made it abundantly clear, I'm not here to engage in a productive discourse with you-- that's essentially impossible anyway.

This is about me not finding everything you say amusing enough to warrant my response.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#937 Jan 22 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Kachi wrote:
Whoops, I guess not. The military allows gays, though I could be wrong, since your statement really didn't make much sense. Homosexuality isn't authorized even if you're a heterosexual?


Funny.. You know, if you actually read the policy or not skim my posts, it would make sense to you..

Kachi wrote:

Well, whatever you meant to say, my point remains that the military's policy, which many people more qualified than you have already explained, is that while open homosexuality is not allowed, homosexuals are allowed in the military.


Also funny. You keep referencing the policy, but actually haven't read it...

Kcahi wrote:
The difference is that I enjoyed it. I can spend more money on a prostitute than a trip to the dentist, too. If I haven't made it abundantly clear, I'm not here to engage in a productive discourse with you-- that's essentially impossible anyway.

This is about me not finding everything you say amusing enough to warrant my response.


Well, my point wasn't really to get an answer out of you. It was blatantly obvious from past questions that you don't answer any question that may contradict your point. My goal for this was for you to realize that there is a such thing as "Political Talk" and that you were a victim of it.

Kachi wrote:
Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.


Funny that you say that yet you respond to the same quotes that I've stated numerous times before as your first time reading them. That tells me that you find some value in responding to those statements, you just didn't read them the first time, which makes you look very silly.

Kachi wrote:
Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.


Well, I'm glad that you don't you realize how silly you look with your reference that you can no longer find because it disappeared from the Internetz!!

Kachi wrote:
You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily


How can I find a source that doesn't exist?

Let's think about it for a second... the topic is DADT... what could the key words possibly be? Hmmmm. how about DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Repeal, homosexuality and military... I'm sure your string consisted of those words and you did not go past the first page of results, so it really shouldn't be that hard to find again.

Here's a better idea, how about imagining that you're trying to prove me wrong, what would you search?... hint: It's probably the same words you used the first time.

Kachi wrote:
So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.

So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


I'm "ignoring" the other sources because I'm arguing the policy, not what Colonel/Mr. Smith thinks of the policy. If you want to use those sources to support your claim from the policy, then so be it. Else, you're just wasting time.

So, in the meantime, it's much more enjoyable questioning your credibility. You may very well be telling the truth, but at this point, it sure doesn't look like it.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#938 Jan 22 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Funny that you say that yet you respond to the same quotes that I've stated numerous times before as your first time reading them. That tells me that you find some value in responding to those statements, you just didn't read them the first time, which makes you look very silly.


Oooor, it's like I already told you, and I don't actually read your posts in their entirety. If you're going to repeat yourself over and over, then yes, I'm probably going to respond to it at some time. But let's be clear here: just because it amuses me now doesn't mean it would amuse me then, and that is really the full extent of any "value" in responding to you.

Quote:
How can I find a source that doesn't exist? ...
You may very well be telling the truth, but at this point, it sure doesn't look like it.


I am so incredibly sad for you that you think I would waste my time forging a quote. Really, I think that looks worse on you than me. You're the only one that is stupid enough to actually believe that it's more likely that I made up a quote than that I just can't find it again (or probably could, just don't care enough to try beyond the two minutes I already did). So yes, I could possibly spend a little time to find it, but really that would only satisfy you. I actually find it much more amusing to use that time entertaining your pathetic ad hominem attacks.

Quote:
I'm "ignoring" the other sources because I'm arguing the policy, not what Colonel/Mr. Smith thinks of the policy. If you want to use those sources to support your claim from the policy, then so be it. Else, you're just wasting time.


Oh ok... so the fact that what "Mr. Smith" says is presented as the official position on the DoD webpage doesn't matter. Instead, you expect me to believe your interpretation of the policy. You don't realize how incredibly stupid that sounds?

Of course you don't. Realization isn't the forte of the stupid.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#939 Jan 22 2011 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
In the immortal words of Sarda, this is some amateur hour ****
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#940 Jan 23 2011 at 1:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Kachi wrote:
Oooor, it's like I already told you, and I don't actually read your posts in their entirety. If you're going to repeat yourself over and over, then yes, I'm probably going to respond to it at some time. But let's be clear here: just because it amuses me now doesn't mean it would amuse me then, and that is really the full extent of any "value" in responding to you.


That doesn't even make any sense.... You were good at not responding to certain questions on purpose when you were actually reading my posts, so if you decided to respond to them at a later post (because you didn't see it before) that means it was worth value to you. Else, you would have just ignored it like you did that one question for like 4 pages.


Kachi wrote:
I am so incredibly sad for you that you think I would waste my time forging a quote. Really, I think that looks worse on you than me. You're the only one that is stupid enough to actually believe that it's more likely that I made up a quote than that I just can't find it again (or probably could, just don't care enough to try beyond the two minutes I already did). So yes, I could possibly spend a little time to find it, but really that would only satisfy you. I actually find it much more amusing to use that time entertaining your pathetic ad hominem attacks.


You're actually satisfying me by not responding, because it makes you appear more like a liar. You gave what you believed to be a "thread ending" quote that would supposedly counter my argument, WTF would you not reference it? Answer: A) Incredibly stupid, B) Made it up C) Came from a dumb source D) A combination of the three. Those are the only logical answers. So, you can live in denial and pretend as if this is making me look sad, but you're the one who can't google a phrase that you already googled after a few days have passed. Really, who's the idiot? I would rather post the quote under the belief of "satisfying" my oponent rather than admitting that I don't know how Google works.

Kachi wrote:

Oh ok... so the fact that what "Mr. Smith" says is presented as the official position on the DoD webpage doesn't matter. Instead, you expect me to believe your interpretation of the policy. You don't realize how incredibly stupid that sounds?

Of course you don't. Realization isn't the forte of the stupid.


President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


This.....

This isn't about my interpretation or "Mr. Smith's" interpretation, but what the actual policy says, you know the governing document that you keep avoiding. You can't have a logical interpretation of something you haven't read. You're trying to pretend that I'm arguing against what others are saying. I'm doing exactly the opposite, I'm strictly going off what the policy says. If it so happens to agree or disagree with your sources, then so be it. That's why I'm not wasting time with your sources and focusing on the Policy . So, whenever you want to talk about the policy, then we can actually start the debate.

The simple fact that you didn't understand my quote "Homosexuality isn't authorized in the military regardless if you're a homosexual or a heterosexual" tells me that you're lost. If you understood that quote, you would realize how the military can say that they don't discharge based on sexual orientation and still not authorize homosexuality. This all goes back to that quote from President Obama.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#941 Jan 23 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

That doesn't even make any sense.... You were good at not responding to certain questions on purpose when you were actually reading my posts, so if you decided to respond to them at a later post (because you didn't see it before) that means it was worth value to you. Else, you would have just ignored it like you did that one question for like 4 pages.


You realize that for the last few pages, we've just been trolling eachother, right? I thought we had already established that. So what part doesn't make sense? If I decide I don't want to troll you for something, and then later I do, that's a matter of whim, not value.

Quote:

I'm strictly going off what the policy says


Oh, I already know that you're going off of your interpretation of the policy. I'm giving you the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the policy and enforce the policy, and you're trying to say that their interpretation doesn't matter because you're going off of what's ACTUALLY in the policy-- trying to play off the fact that it's actually your interpretation versus theirs, not what's in the policy versus their interpretation.

This isn't an actual debate, because -nobody- reading this thread agrees with you. So let's not pretend like legitimate arguments even matter, but if we're keeping score, you're way down.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#942 Jan 23 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Kachi wrote:


You realize that for the last few pages, we've just been trolling eachother, right? I thought we had already established that. So what part doesn't make sense? If I decide I don't want to troll you for something, and then later I do, that's a matter of whim, not value.


You're not fooling anyone, including yourself.

You specifically choose to avoid certain questions and statements as you stated with President Obama's quote. You only addressed the other questions later because you overlooked it the first 2,3,4 times I stated them. If that isn't true, you look real silly responding to statement claiming that I finally agree with you when I had already said that numerous times before.

Kachi wrote:
Oh, I already know that you're going off of your interpretation of the policy. I'm giving you the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the policy and enforce the policy, and you're trying to say that their interpretation doesn't matter because you're going off of what's ACTUALLY in the policy-- trying to play off the fact that it's actually your interpretation versus theirs, not what's in the policy versus their interpretation.

This isn't an actual debate, because -nobody- reading this thread agrees with you. So let's not pretend like legitimate arguments even matter, but if we're keeping score, you're way down.


I just want you to present something in the policy so we CAN discuss our interpretations.


Kachi wrote:
I'm giving you the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the policy and enforce the policy, and you're trying to say that their interpretation doesn't matter because you're going off of what's ACTUALLY in the policy-


The Commander-in-Chief wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#943 Jan 24 2011 at 1:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I just want you to present something in the policy so we CAN discuss our interpretations.


The thing is, no one cares what your interpretation is. They don't care what mine is, either. The legislators' and the military's are the only ones that matter, and they've been very public about it. If you'll take a look back a few pages, you'll notice that the part where I linked those things was the end of that discussion for everyone else, and the start of me trolling you.

Quote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


Again, I literally haven't read a word of your argument that brings Obama in to this. Right off the bat, comparing a public declaration from a speech to actual legislation is asinine on more levels than I care to explore, and that's why I refuse to delve into that discussion with you. And it seems like you already conceded that your point wasn't a good one before, but you just wanted to hear an answer from me, the guy who doesn't want to talk about it? And I should entertain this notion because?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#944 Jan 24 2011 at 5:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
*sigh*
#945 Jan 24 2011 at 6:11 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,970 posts
Kachi wrote:
The thing is, no one cares what your interpretation is. They don't care what mine is, either.


No one? We wouldn't be at 19 pages if no one cared. You're only creating excuses not to reference the policy because you're lazy and probably fear being wrong. As Belkira some-what mentioned earlier, this is the Internet where common people talk about stuff. If you don't want be a part of the conversation, then STFU.


Kachi wrote:
The legislators' and the military's are the only ones that matter, and they've been very public about it. If you'll take a look back a few pages, you'll notice that the part where I linked those things was the end of that discussion for everyone else, and the start of me trolling you.


Mr. Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


You act like the legislators didn't reference the Homosexual Policy. If they didn't reference the policy, then their interpretation is just as valid as ours. I already said that there's nothing wrong with using their interpretation to support your claim.

So, just find the specific parts in your sources where they referenced the policy and present them to me. That way you're using what the legislators say, but through the policy. I don't want to hear what Mr. Smith thinks about it unless there's a direct quote from the policy where he's referencing it. If your source is as good as you claim, then you'll be able to counter my policy references with your source policy references. I mean seriously, it would take like 3 posts to end this one way or the other.

Kachi wrote:
Again, I literally haven't read a word of your argument that brings Obama in to this. Right off the bat, comparing a public declaration from a speech to actual legislation is asinine on more levels than I care to explore, and that's why I refuse to delve into that discussion with you. And it seems like you already conceded that your point wasn't a good one before, but you just wanted to hear an answer from me, the guy who doesn't want to talk about it? And I should entertain this notion because?


You read everything that I wanted you to read. The other information was just extra. I'm just referencing "Political Talk", which you fail to grasp. If you did understand, then you wouldn't have tried to make a distinction.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#946 Jan 24 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've no idea what continually quoting Obama re: Iraq is supposed to mean.

The combat mission ended. We've since been withdrawing troops. We went from ~120,000 in early 2009 to 50,000 by August 2010 and are expected to be down to a couple thousand by the end of 2011 for security and training purposes. Which is keeping with the timetable the administration set up.

Is that supposed to help your argument?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#947 Jan 24 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No one? We wouldn't be at 19 pages if no one cared.
I'm pretty sure that's not how the internet works.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#948 Jan 24 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've no idea what continually quoting Obama re: Iraq is supposed to mean.

The combat mission ended. We've since been withdrawing troops. We went from ~120,000 in early 2009 to 50,000 by August 2010 and are expected to be down to a couple thousand by the end of 2011 for security and training purposes. Which is keeping with the timetable the administration set up.

Is that supposed to help your argument?


It's somehow meant to show that taking a quote from a speech isn't the same as the actual wording of a bill or piece of legislation. Alma thinks that we are all stupid, and we all think that "combat has ended in Iraq" means all of the troops are home and nothing further is going on in the Middle East.

Therefore, Kachi using a quote from a speech to support his argument isn't effective because everyone making a speech is deliberately putting a spin on their words to make the general public (those of us not enlisted and therefore not super super intelligent like Alma) believe something that isn't true... like that the military is suddenly allowing homosexuals to enlist in the military.
#949 Jan 24 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#950 Jan 24 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's somehow meant to show that taking a quote from a speech isn't the same as the actual wording of a bill or piece of legislation.

But... troop movement isn't legislated :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#951 Jan 24 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's somehow meant to show that taking a quote from a speech isn't the same as the actual wording of a bill or piece of legislation.

But... troop movement isn't legislated :(


The analogy obviously isn't perfect, Joph. This is Alma we're talking about here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (35)