·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Hero or Villain?
Hero or Villain?Follow
No wonder the Us spends so much on their military if they pay you guys to live in New York.
Clearly the next Alla get together should be in NYC. Everyone can stay at Lolgaxes place.
You get to drive a Hummer around town?
You get to drive a Hummer around town?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
The last time I drove a humvee I got it stuck in a mixture of snow and mud. 
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
The last time I drove a humvee I got it stuck in a mixture of snow and mud.
It was a pile 10ft high, right? Right?
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The last time I drove a humvee I got it stuck in a mixture of snow and mud.
It was a pile 10ft high, right? Right?
Why Mrs. Palin, your points never seemed so intriguing.
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
The phrase "endemic structural corruption" is a cop-out though. It's an excuse. And a lazy one at that.
Is it? Seems more of a trite observation, really; if an organisation's rife with corruption, one might presume its procedures for preventing corruption are defective as a cause and a result.
Keyword is "if". It's a cop out because you can always claim that and defend it with the kind of statement you just made. It's a cop out because it allows you to make a broad claim without having to make sufficient specific claims to support it. And it's lazy because in this case he *could* have narrowed his leaks to just the clear cut examples of the sorts of abuses of power and illegal actions that his claim is presumably based on, but he didn't. It's an excuse to not have to show evidence for your claim by just throwing your hands up and declaring the whole system corrupt so doing so would be pointless.
It assumes your starting position is true while making no attempt to even support it. It's like conspiracy theorists who insist that they have "proof" of their theory, but when asked why they don't go to the media or the authorities or in some way present said proof, they claim it wouldn't matter because the conspiracy is just so vast that "they" would stop it somehow. I just find that sort of thing meaningless and pointless. If you have specific claims to make, and evidence to support them, then do so. What he did was dump every scrap of classified information he had his hands on. Excusing that act by declaring the whole system corrupt or illegal or whatever doesn't work IMO.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
The phrase "endemic structural corruption" is a cop-out though. It's an excuse. And a lazy one at that.
Is it? Seems more of a trite observation, really; if an organisation's rife with corruption, one might presume its procedures for preventing corruption are defective as a cause and a result.
Keyword is "if". It's a cop out because you can always claim that and defend it with the kind of statement you just made. It's a cop out because it allows you to make a broad claim without having to make sufficient specific claims to support it. And it's lazy because in this case he *could* have narrowed his leaks to just the clear cut examples of the sorts of abuses of power and illegal actions that his claim is presumably based on, but he didn't. It's an excuse to not have to show evidence for your claim by just throwing your hands up and declaring the whole system corrupt so doing so would be pointless.
It assumes your starting position is true while making no attempt to even support it. It's like conspiracy theorists who insist that they have "proof" of their theory, but when asked why they don't go to the media or the authorities or in some way present said proof, they claim it wouldn't matter because the conspiracy is just so vast that "they" would stop it somehow. I just find that sort of thing meaningless and pointless. If you have specific claims to make, and evidence to support them, then do so. What he did was dump every scrap of classified information he had his hands on. Excusing that act by declaring the whole system corrupt or illegal or whatever doesn't work IMO.
If the documents he presented actually showed endemic structural corruption, wouldn't that mean that it isn't a baseless broad claim? I mean the evidence is on Wikileaks, so you can go check for yourself.
Just as Planned.
Only read the first paragraph, you're on some runaway train of inference about what my argument is. Yes, 'if'. I used that word because I meant to.
ETA: Not that it's not amusing to see you echo the Laconians.
Edited, Jun 6th 2013 11:50pm by Kavekk
ETA: Not that it's not amusing to see you echo the Laconians.
Edited, Jun 6th 2013 11:50pm by Kavekk
Only gbaji would argue that modus ponens was an irresponsible use of logic. 
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Kavekk wrote:
Only read the first paragraph, you're on some runaway train of inference about what my argument is. Yes, 'if'. I used that word because I meant to.
ETA: Not that it's not amusing to see you echo the Laconians.
Edited, Jun 6th 2013 11:50pm by Kavekk
ETA: Not that it's not amusing to see you echo the Laconians.
Edited, Jun 6th 2013 11:50pm by Kavekk
Well, he is often forced to hold a position while massively outnumbered, so it makes some sense.
Just as Planned.
By forced, you mean chooses to.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
By forced, you mean chooses to.
I don't know, what's his average posting BAC?
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
It was a pile 10ft high, right? Right?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
By forced, you mean chooses to.
If you count choice in the sense that those fending of the Persians had a choice, then yeah but it changes the metaphor little.
Just as Planned.
He chooses to have those positions. He then chooses to post them here.
Unless you truly do beleive he's a lemming and his positions are not his choice, but because he was forced fed by the GOP.
Unless you truly do beleive he's a lemming and his positions are not his choice, but because he was forced fed by the GOP.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I thought the correct answer was "it's NEVER a choice!"...
Something something moral obligation something.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I disagree!!!
No one cares.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Obviously yew due.
How do you do that voodoo that you do so well?
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
How do you do that voodoo that you do so well?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Slime and snails from under puppy dog tails.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Slime and snails from under puppy dog tails.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Kavekk wrote:
Is it? Seems more of a trite observation, really; if an organisation's rife with corruption, one might presume its procedures for preventing corruption are defective as a cause and a result.
There is a lot to be said about military brass sweeping dirt under the rug. Right now military brass is writhing at the thought of sexual assault cases could very well end up going straight to a civilian's desk. For DECADES military brass has at best been negligent and at worst outright dismissive when concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Move past Manning for a moment, what if someone had classified proof of wrong doing, just exactly who would they go to without breaching non-disclosure agreements inherent to classified materials? Who would see the report? Who could stop it?
It is well-documented that military brass has gone to great lengths to cover up or diminish something as trivial (comparatively) as sexual assault, at what lengths would they go to cover up a war crime?
-NW
Edited, Jun 18th 2013 7:04am by NaughtyWord
Recent Visitors: 283
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (283)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Hero or Villain?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC