Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

Topic closed

2006-06-08 16:33:13
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

If you're feeling especially disingenuous, I suppose you could.
Nope not me, I said this to show how ridiculous the point YOU were trying to make is
Let me see if I've got your completely consistent and non-ridiculous points straight...

1. The poll question "Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?" employs the word "war" in a misleading and unnecessarily emotive way and therefore is biased.
2. There has been a continuous "war" in Korea for the last 50 years, resulting in practically no casualties.
2006-06-08 16:38:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

If you're feeling especially disingenuous, I suppose you could.
Nope not me, I said this to show how ridiculous the point YOU were trying to make is
Let me see if I've got your completely consistent and non-ridiculous points straight...

1. The poll question "Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?" employs the word "war" in a misleading and unnecessarily emotive way and therefore is biased.
2. There has been a continuous "war" in Korea for the last 50 years, resulting in practically no casualties.
1. Making a question suggesting that the US started a war with Iraq is biased......yes

2. The Korean conflict has NEVER been resolved or a peace treaty signed.....It has been a cease fire for 55 years........yes

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-08 16:52:29)

2006-06-08 16:49:38
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
Wait, wasn't this about a blonde chick or something?
2006-06-08 16:50:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

kr@cker wrote:

Wait, wasn't this about a blonde chick or something?
yeah, but know how it gets at times
2006-06-08 18:17:39
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope not me, I said this to show how ridiculous the point YOU were trying to make is
Let me see if I've got your completely consistent and non-ridiculous points straight...

1. The poll question "Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?" employs the word "war" in a misleading and unnecessarily emotive way and therefore is biased.
2. There has been a continuous "war" in Korea for the last 50 years, resulting in practically no casualties.
1. Making a question suggesting that the US started a war with Iraq is biased......yes

2. The Korean conflict has NEVER been resolved or a peace treaty signed.....It has been a cease fire for 55 years........yes
I respect minority views -- however tiny and arguably negligible -- but I'll ask again: Do you really believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?  Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and casualties as constituting a "war"?  And if so, is it anything other than disingenuous shite for the same person to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?

Conservatives generally prefer to associate such semantic relativism with liberals.
2006-06-08 18:23:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Let me see if I've got your completely consistent and non-ridiculous points straight...

1. The poll question "Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?" employs the word "war" in a misleading and unnecessarily emotive way and therefore is biased.
2. There has been a continuous "war" in Korea for the last 50 years, resulting in practically no casualties.
1. Making a question suggesting that the US started a war with Iraq is biased......yes

2. The Korean conflict has NEVER been resolved or a peace treaty signed.....It has been a cease fire for 55 years........yes
I respect minority views -- however tiny and arguably negligible -- but I'll ask again: Do you really believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?  Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and casualties as constituting a "war"?  And if so, is it anything other than disingenuous shite for the same person to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?

Conservatives generally prefer to associate such semantic relativism with liberals.
Not really sure how many times I can answer the same damn question.........or are you trying to fish for the answer you WANT me to give??

1.YES the question is biased and I explained why.

2. Just because a cease fire is in effect does not mean a conflict is resolved. If the public is so stupid as to not  know the difference I can't help that.

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-08 18:23:47)

2006-06-08 18:43:04
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812
I think it's good to recognize that the requirements for plain out going to war are exactly the same for ones breaking a cease fire (given that all negotiations are abided by).
2006-06-08 18:51:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

Xietsu wrote:

I think it's good to recognize that the requirements for plain out going to war are exactly the same for ones breaking a cease fire (given that all negotiations are abided by).
Sighhhhhhhh I don't know why I am even trying this but here it goes.........

So you must be suggesting that to defend yourself against a street thug is the same as throwing the first punch as the streetthug, since they both end up in a fight.....
2006-06-08 18:58:07
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many times I can answer the same damn question
Try once.  For my part, I really should be tired of asking the same unanswered questions by now.

Q1. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?
A1. [answer goes here]

Q2a. Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and considerable casualties as constituting a "war"?
A2a. [answer goes here]

Q2b. And if so, is it anything other than disingenuous shite for the same person to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?
A2b. [answer goes here]

In fairness, you've answered Q2a in the affirmative a number of times, but somehow keep dodging the fact that it's actually only one of two parts (see Q2b).  Now, I can't help you if you genuinely can't see how Q2a and Q2b concern the exact same thing (i.e. misleading and/or dishonest use of the word "war" for political purposes) but you seem smarter than that, so I persist.
2006-06-08 18:59:29
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812
What the fuck? Your analogy completely sucks dude. Purely uncomparable. Did you and this street thug every have contact before? Did you ever make negotiations with this street thug regarding future encounters? I think a more relative situation would be: you attack a street thug (say, send him to jail) for his extreme acts of violence, and because of his history, is given a restraining order from contact with you, at the conclusion of this procession. Afterwards, he violates the restraining order. You attack him; but, the point remains that in order to do so, you still need evidence that you felt he was a threat. See what happens when you make good analogies? You support Xietsu. Thanks for your time.

(P.S. I mean, usually, it's good to be prepared before challenging Xietsu. I'm talking like...2000% prepared here.)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 19:00:40)

2006-06-08 19:04:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

"Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?"

I honestly don't see how this could be changed to a more neutral wording -- "war" is everybody's word.  I could see how "illegal war" could be biased.  I'd even say "invading" carries a slight negative slant.  Likewise "liberation" and "regime change", on the rosier side of spin.  But "war" is what everyone calls it.  Even Fox.
It wasn't a US decision. It was Iraq's decision. The war started 15 years ago, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The question is asked in such a way as to lead someone into thinking the US started the damn thing.
lowing, what about China and Taiwan?  If China invades Taiwan, you will want to invade China as well, right?
thats not up to me........I ain't the president with the big picture.....If somehow an invasion of Taiwan is deemed a threat to America. Then yes I would support intervention.

Also, if the UN supported an attack against China, like they did Iraq,then that would say something as well wouldn't it??

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

No, the fact is, she thinks she hot shit at making one smart comment out of 5 ignored questions.
i would lovvvveeeeeeee to see you try and win A SINGLE point against her in a debate. you wouldn't, and that is why ya hate her so much. She has removed the cloak of PC from the issues and lets you be offended if you want, since there is no constitutionaal right against being offended.
Are you fucking kidding?  When asked why Bush had such low ratings, she said "ummmmm, I don't know".  Hmm.  Great debate there.  What she does is dodges around tough questions, answers the ones she knows, which are completely based on her opinion, and acts tough and shit, like she really matters to the country.

The perfect Lewis Prothero.  England prevails.
Well she must matter, you seem to be frothing at the mouth over her writings.

Spearhead wrote:

what would be interesting is a debate between Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart.  Debate of the century right there.
Yes a debate against yet, another comedian, entertainer....Do the liberals have any non-politican that can effectively speak on their behave that ISN"T in show business???
2006-06-08 19:11:43
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7026|AUS, Canberra
lowing : i made it one post. try not to make multiple posts.
2006-06-08 19:21:28
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Just as a side note for those of you who believe that FOX news is a completely right wing propaganda organization, please check the following link out. It is a review on Coulter's new book and was found on their home page.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html
Just because someone shuns a supporter once they've been deemed as too "outwardly" radical, of course you will try and make some crap "debunking". The fact is that Coulter is either phrasing her beliefs (like, possibly, Ahmadenijad [go read the America gives nuclear technology to Iran...or whatever]) in such a barefaced, extreme way as to give them more publicity; which, by the way, has the inherent flaw of being misunderstood through misrepresentation and ignorance. Or, she could be just seeking a claim to fame, a quick buck, if not actually being that ignorant and irrational.
2006-06-08 19:26:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many times I can answer the same damn question
Try once.  For my part, I really should be tired of asking the same unanswered questions by now.

Q1. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?
A1. [answer goes here]

Q2a. Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and considerable casualties as constituting a "war"?
A2a. [answer goes here]

Q2b. And if so, is it anything other than disingenuous shite for the same person to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?
A2b. [answer goes here]

In fairness, you've answered Q2a in the affirmative a number of times, but somehow keep dodging the fact that it's actually only one of two parts (see Q2b).  Now, I can't help you if you genuinely can't see how Q2a and Q2b concern the exact same thing (i.e. misleading and/or dishonest use of the word "war" for political purposes) but you seem smarter than that, so I persist.
I answered your   questions with straight forward yes and yes answers...I am sorry if you do not like it.

What you are trying to do is lead me with this line of questioning......The bottom line is (back to the original "war" question) It is biased and I gave you my answer several times as to why I think it is....

2b...no it is not, the fact is, just because there is nothing going on with the conflict that is "news worthy" and therefore not on the publics radar now does not negate the fact that it is a cease fire only and the conflict has not been resolved. A fact that will be widely known the second the shooting starts again.
2006-06-08 19:28:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

the_heart_attack wrote:

lowing : i made it one post. try not to make multiple posts.
Hey I appreciate that........I didn't take the class on how to forulate a proper post.
2006-06-08 19:31:12
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many times I can answer the same damn question
Try once.  For my part, I really should be tired of asking the same unanswered questions by now.

Q1. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?
A1. [answer goes here]

Q2a. Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and considerable casualties as constituting a "war"?
A2a. [answer goes here]

Q2b. And if so, is it anything other than disingenuous shite for the same person to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?
A2b. [answer goes here]

In fairness, you've answered Q2a in the affirmative a number of times, but somehow keep dodging the fact that it's actually only one of two parts (see Q2b).  Now, I can't help you if you genuinely can't see how Q2a and Q2b concern the exact same thing (i.e. misleading and/or dishonest use of the word "war" for political purposes) but you seem smarter than that, so I persist.
I answered your   questions with straight forward yes and yes answers...I am sorry if you do not like it.

What you are trying to do is lead me with this line of questioning......The bottom line is (back to the original "war" question) It is biased and I gave you my answer several times as to why I think it is....

2b...no it is not, the fact is, just because there is nothing going on with the conflict that is "news worthy" and therefore not on the publics radar now does not negate the fact that it is a cease fire only and the conflict has not been resolved. A fact that will be widely known the second the shooting starts again.
I really ought to point you to my revamped edition of your analogy. It basically sums up why you're wrong if my basic explanation didn't get you far enough.

BTW, a good way of showing appreciation to the_heart_attack is learning. In other words, delete the response of yours noting your appreciation before him and edit into the one you made before. No analogies needed?

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 19:32:36)

2006-06-08 19:33:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

Xietsu wrote:

What the fuck? Your analogy completely sucks dude. Purely uncomparable. Did you and this street thug every have contact before? Did you ever make negotiations with this street thug regarding future encounters? I think a more relative situation would be: you attack a street thug (say, send him to jail) for his extreme acts of violence, and because of his history, is given a restraining order from contact with you, at the conclusion of this procession. Afterwards, he violates the restraining order. You attack him; but, the point remains that in order to do so, you still need evidence that you felt he was a threat. See what happens when you make good analogies? You support Xietsu. Thanks for your time.

(P.S. I mean, usually, it's good to be prepared before challenging Xietsu. I'm talking like...2000% prepared here.)
Ummmmmmm okkkkkk.........by violating the "restraining order" he is posing a threat automatically.....Kinda like an abusive husband under a restraining order for threatening to kill his wife showing up at her front door could be a threatening posture.
2006-06-08 19:34:20
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
now you've gone from using logic to using reason, you dissappoint me lowing
2006-06-08 19:36:12
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812
Right. Thanks for providing such a lucid collection of proof (or rather...haphazardly construed collection of...). Watch yourself die now.

If a person has a 100-foot restraining order, and it can be scientifically proven through the use of a camera at the scene, and you go and kill him, it is no longer a justified attack.

kr@cker, pathetic that you support him. I thought you were better than that--would've thought you to have understood.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 19:37:46)

2006-06-08 19:39:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

Xietsu wrote:

Right. Thanks for providing such a lucid collection of proof (or rather...haphazardly construed collection of...). Watch yourself die now.

If a person has a 100-foot restraining order, and it can be scientifically proven through the use of a camera at the scene, and you go and kill him, it is no longer a justified attack.

kr@cker, pathetic that you support him. I thought you were better than that--would've thought you to have understood.
Wow you can show up at someone's front door 100ft away( as stated in my post)?????....i am impressed

I gotta tell ya, I am more than amused at your enthusiastic self proclaimed attempts to score "cyber kills" in a debate. It says allot as to how pathetic real life must be for you.

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-08 19:42:03)

2006-06-08 19:42:33
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6797|vancouver

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many times I can answer the same damn question
Try once.  For my part, I really should be tired of asking the same unanswered questions by now.

Q1. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?
A1. [answer goes here]

Q2a. Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and considerable casualties as constituting a "war"?
A2a. [answer goes here]

Q2b. And if so, is it not unreasonable to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?
A2b. [answer goes here]

In fairness, you've answered Q2a in the affirmative a number of times, but somehow keep dodging the fact that it's actually only one of two parts (see Q2b).  Now, I can't help you if you genuinely can't see how Q2a and Q2b concern the exact same thing (i.e. misleading and/or dishonest use of the word "war" for political purposes) but you seem smarter than that, so I persist.
I answered your   questions with straight forward yes and yes answers...I am sorry if you do not like it.

What you are trying to do is lead me with this line of questioning......The bottom line is (back to the original "war" question) It is biased and I gave you my answer several times as to why I think it is....

2b...no it is not, the fact is, just because there is nothing going on with the conflict that is "news worthy" and therefore not on the publics radar now does not negate the fact that it is a cease fire only and the conflict has not been resolved. A fact that will be widely known the second the shooting starts again.
Will who starts the shooting have any bearing on who is perceived to have started the shooting?
2006-06-08 19:43:08
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812
LoL. Do you not understand the fact that my analogy is quite directly representative of the type of the description I gave before (required for such circumstancial procession --> of war)? You gave that one, extremely shortsighted facet of my analogy is evidence against it. Come now bubs, take some of that logipear from that tree. It's tastey!

Just in case your assumptions have misled you yet again, I'd like to let you know that, were I talking with you in person (provided you were mature enough to not initiate a physical bout over the truths I dish), the same exact things would be said.

lowing wrote:

I gotta tell ya, I am more than amused at your enthusiastic self proclaimed attempts to score "cyber kills" in a debate. It says allot as to how pathetic real life must be for you.
Anywho, I'd like to know where I've proclaimed I've made attempts to score "cyber-kills". If you're inferring that I'm consistently making you look like a fool, then I guess you would be right.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 19:47:20)

2006-06-08 19:53:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6907|USA

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:


Try once.  For my part, I really should be tired of asking the same unanswered questions by now.

Q1. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the US has no say in where it deploys its military?
A1. [answer goes here]

Q2a. Is it unfair that people will view such deployments, ensuing conflicts and considerable casualties as constituting a "war"?
A2a. [answer goes here]

Q2b. And if so, is it not unreasonable to then claim that the Korean peninsula has been the site of a continuous "war" for the last 50 years?
A2b. [answer goes here]

In fairness, you've answered Q2a in the affirmative a number of times, but somehow keep dodging the fact that it's actually only one of two parts (see Q2b).  Now, I can't help you if you genuinely can't see how Q2a and Q2b concern the exact same thing (i.e. misleading and/or dishonest use of the word "war" for political purposes) but you seem smarter than that, so I persist.
I answered your   questions with straight forward yes and yes answers...I am sorry if you do not like it.

What you are trying to do is lead me with this line of questioning......The bottom line is (back to the original "war" question) It is biased and I gave you my answer several times as to why I think it is....

2b...no it is not, the fact is, just because there is nothing going on with the conflict that is "news worthy" and therefore not on the publics radar now does not negate the fact that it is a cease fire only and the conflict has not been resolved. A fact that will be widely known the second the shooting starts again.
Will who starts the shooting have any bearing on who is perceived to have started the shooting?
Huh???

If I you are asking what I think you are asking.....Yes of course

If North Korea breaks the cease fire and over runs the 38th parallel then your polls will indicate approval for the "war".
If the US does it, then the polls will show disapproval

In the case of Iraq..........Iraq was the one who "over ran the 38th parallel" by breaking the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire. But the question was asked in a way that would lead the pol-lee to assume the US was the instigator of the war, when in fact, it wasn't.
2006-06-08 20:00:03
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7026|AUS, Canberra

lowing wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

lowing : i made it one post. try not to make multiple posts.
Hey I appreciate that........I didn't take the class on how to forulate a proper post.
obviously, but its in the forum rules so maybe you should read them.
2006-06-08 20:01:32
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6812
LoL. He still didn't attach his "appreciation" post to the one he made before it.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard