Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Reply To Thread

osama bin laden deadFollow

#502 May 10 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because what if the next interviewer asks a question that isn't so obvious and easy? What if he follows up with a question like "Ok. What if you had actionable intelligence that OBL was hiding in the UK?", or "What if he's hiding in China?". Now what does he do? Say that he wouldn't order an attack? Does the interviewer then get to go through the entire list of nations of the world and force the president to tell us all which countries he'd be willing to invade to kill a top Al-queda member and which he wouldn't?
So, your entire argument is based on a hypothetical situation that didn't exist?

Really convincing. No, seriously. Just making up scenarios and saying "but what if!!" is really solid debating.



Edited, May 10th 2011 5:15pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#503 May 10 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
paulsol wrote:
What if he was being hidden by the Saudis?
What if he was being hidden by the Smurfs?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#504 May 10 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
paulsol wrote:
What if he was being hidden by the Saudis?
What if he was being hidden by the Smurfs?
It'd be dangerous. The Smurfs are communists, everyone knows that.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#505 May 10 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
****
4,150 posts
Serious question. Idiot answer.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#506 May 10 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
paulsol wrote:
What if he was being hidden by the Saudis?
What if he was being hidden by the Smurfs?

This

Edited, May 10th 2011 5:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#507 May 10 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
paulsol wrote:
Serious question. Idiot answer.
I'm guessing it'd work much like the operation in Pakistan did?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#508 May 10 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,768 posts
Part of the problem is that Pakistan's information agencies are severely compromised by the Taliban anyway. So there was no way they would have "found" him, even if the central gov't had wanted to.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#509gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 5:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Remember that this is in the context of conservative criticism of Obama's statement about being willing to invade Pakistan to get to terrorists. Notice that the primary criticism is not about doing it, but saying that you'd do it. That is the "I'm not going there" response from McCain. He's showing an awareness that if he answers with a clear positive, it'll only **** off an already annoyed Pakistan over this same issue.
#510 May 10 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,768 posts
"I'm not going to go there, and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."

Meaning, "I'm not going to invade Pakistan in order to take OBL because it would be violating the sovereignty of their nation."
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#511 May 10 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
paulsol wrote:
Serious question. Idiot answer.
I thought it was serious the first time you asked it. Were you expecting a different answer for asking it again?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#512 May 10 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So he says he wont answer, and then says that he'd get bin Laden "no matter what it takes". That's the correct political answer because...

...it's absolutely meaningless and doesn't commit him to anything and tools can read it as "He'd totally do whatever I think he should do!" without him having to agree to doing that.

Understood.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#513gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 7:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. It's "I'm not going to say what I'd do because Pakistan is a sovereign nation and it's freaking impolite to publicly state that you'll just run right over them and launch a military attack in their country".
#514 May 10 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So he says he wont answer, and then says that he'd get bin Laden "no matter what it takes". That's the correct political answer because...

...it's absolutely meaningless and doesn't commit him to anything and tools can read it as "He'd totally do whatever I think he should do!" without him having to agree to doing that.


And it also doesn't publicly embarrass a country we're trying to work with. What part of that is hard for any of you to understand?

Quote:
Understood.


Apparently not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#515 May 10 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And it also doesn't publicly embarrass a country we're trying to work with. What part of that is hard for any of you to understand?

I suppose the part where you **** yourself in fear while coddling an "ally" who was, frankly, a complete embarrassment until Obama came into office and changed the administration's tone towards their bullshit.

Quote:
Quote:
Understood.
Apparently not.

No, trust me. It was understood.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#516 May 10 2011 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,768 posts
Quote:
No. It's "I'm not going to say what I'd do because Pakistan is a sovereign nation and it's freaking impolite to publicly state that you'll just run right over them and launch a military attack in their country".

I know it's more fun for the left to spin this differently, but that is absolutely what he meant. Conservatives did not criticize Obama because he *would* go into Pakistan to get OBL. They criticized him for being dumb enough to actually say he'd do so ahead of time. You really have to buy a line of BS to think otherwise.


So you'd actually prefer a president who refuses to tell the people what he is and is not willing to do. You like ones who refuse to comment, so the people have no clue what direction the country is taking, until he just goes ahead and surprises everyone by making an aggressive intervention in a foreign, sovereign nation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
gbaji, Sircyrus, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (46)