American Politics

[Hardbarg]

You just don't get it. You're not worth the effort.

[Bart9000]

Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.

And here we have documentation that you lack to lack the brainpower to even create a DIFFERENT batch of invalid meaningless crap, and are instead repeating yourself. You really are pathetic. At least next time, pound on the keyboard:


pkjiopjpiojpoijpojpojt43k1popokipok'lk'lkpijpiojp[oj43pojpogpokjpokjgpko0puj3tpoi5poi

Doing so would have exactly the same amount of validity and meaning, but would at least be something different to look at.



Well, I've pretty much definitively proven that you have the reasoning and analytical skills of your average gelatinous dessert. We REALLY need to hear more from people like you about how the world should be run.

But fear not-all isn't lost. Later, if I'm feeling motivated, I will continue to educate you in the mysterious ways of logic and reason. Be warned however if you master them you will have to change your political ideology.
B9k

[Hardbarg]

Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.

[Bart9000]

Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.

And what we have here is yet even another Ad Hominem logical fallacy, attacking me with a charge of implied childishness in leiu of anything even remotely resembling a substantive valid response. You don't seem to be able to do anything except generate these. Perhaps you should study up a bit, and improve your repertoir (sp?) of ignorance...maybe you could move up to say another right wing favorite the "straw man":

From wikipedia

In Logic

"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself (Are you paying attention douchebag?). The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. ............"

Hmmmm....Know what else I don't see here? A FACTUAL justification that I have "sloppy thinking". Am I to assume then that by the rules you play by, again, one only need utter an assertion to have it be fact, without any support in reality? That being the case, having previously uttered said assertion, I must chastize you for your molestation under the pretense of hygeine of prepubescent third world boy's soccer teams. That type of behavior really is reprehensible and despicable. I understand that it is the "in" thing among the regressives in the GOP this year, but c'mon. I thought you people believed in "traditional values"....why don't you just let those "boys be boys".

B9k

[Hardbarg]

I want to hear one of three things out of you. Anything else that you post has exactly as much validity as pounding on the keyboard:

oijtpoihpiouh26q26w4625jn25wpokpjop2j5k2k5k54ypok2pokypok

1. A relevant valid response to my points below. You can spew logical fallacies, things you "know" (but can't intellectually justify----those are called "feelings", and they matter for nothing), and insults all day long...they prove noting but your idiocy.

2. You not acting like a fucking pussy, manning up, finding some testicles, and admitting you are wrong.

3. Shut the fuck up and go back to giving Rush Limbaugh a rimjob.

So which one is it going to be?


B9k

Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.

[Bart9000]

Bart9000

Don't waste your breathe on these Ditto-Heads. They are too stupid to realize their news sources are being manipulated.

Digitalcurry

I know that it is an exercise in futility, but I feel a certain obligation to try drag these mouth breathing, ass backwards REGRESSIVE (lets stop using the euphemism "conservative" and call it for what it is) dipshits into at least the twentieth century. Besides, it's kind of fun demonstrating to the world how these schmuck can't think logically, and that their worldview is based in "feelings" (They refer to them as things that they KNOW, or "common sense") and kneejerk reactionalism.


Obviously, I'm going to have to educate this fucktard:
__________________________________________________________________
Lesson #1

Hey Douchebag,

Do you or do you not understand that you saying something does not make it a factual statement? For example, you have stated several times that I have "sloppy thinking". In what way is my thinking sloppy? Does you saying that I do make it a factual truth? If no further standard is applied than for something to be uttered from the lips, then I will make a statement that you like to give tongue baths to Bangladeshi pre-pubescent boys after they finish their soccer games. THERE!!!! See, I said it, so it's a factual truthful statement. That is exactly the standard that you want to be held to. So.........sweaty little Bangladeshi boys it is.

___________________________________________________________________'


Just watch too......I bet he is getting ready to start crying about (due to my usage of profanity) the "assault on traditional American Values" and "war on our culture" ...................on the fucking ISG....Generally speaking, I just LOOOVE that one.....These fucking pricks brag all day long about the Constitution and all of the freedom that the Bill of Rights guarantees............until someone says something they don't like.....then it's time to find a pretense to shut them up.


B9k

[Digital Curry]

I've often wondered what the result would have been if we DIDN'T fund the Mujahadeen and just stayed out. I feel that one scenario is that the Soviets would have had their hand buried inside a hornets nest while we sat back and watched the result with amused interest. Bin Laden may now have been solely THEIR problem (in Afghanistan AND possibly Chechnya) instead of ours.

American adventurism has always resulted in awful unintended consequences.

[Sinanju Master]

Let's not forget that Carter was responsible for funding and arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Some say that support started earlier, and actually caused (provoked) the Soviet invasion. Reagan continued the policy. The Mujahideen, of course, morphed into the Taliban, and somewhat less directly, into Al Qaeda. A classic case of blowback.

I've often wondered what the result would have been if we DIDN'T fund the Mujahadeen and just stayed out. I feel that one scenario is that the Soviets would have had their hand buried inside a hornets nest while we sat back and watched the result with amused interest. Bin Laden may now have been solely THEIR problem (in Afghanistan AND possibly Chechnya) instead of ours.

[Digital Curry]

Bart9000

Don't waste your breathe on these Ditto-Heads. They are too stupid to realize their news sources are being manipulated.

Digitalcurry

[Hardbarg]

I don't know if I'm "more schooled" in these events - one thing I think is interesting about Carter is the "Carter Doctine" which basically was the first time the US stated in had vital interests in the Persian Gulf and would use military force if those interests were assaulted.

I remember reading an article during the Gulf War in the Wall Street Journal about relationship between the Carter Doctrine and it's impact on the US ability to project force in the Persian Gulf. Basically, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan kicked off an effort toward projecting American force into the Gulf. The first time that ability was tested was when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So, I guess I see a bit of irony in Carter scoring a peace prize since I think basically there is not a lot of difference between Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush when it comes to US interests in the Persian Gulf.

Let's not forget that Carter was responsible for funding and arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Some say that support started earlier, and actually caused (provoked) the Soviet invasion. Reagan continued the policy. The Mujahideen, of course, morphed into the Taliban, and somewhat less directly, into Al Qaeda. A classic case of blowback.

The sad fact is that we have been blundering around this part of the world, Republican and Democrat, pretty much whenever we get involved. We better start learning how to be effective.

[Bart9000]

So, you disagree with me. There's a shock. Just a second.

Yeah - I don't care. Actually, it makes me proud.


You just don't get it. You're not worth the effort. Once you get past the profanity, insults, personal attacks, and self-serving bs - "a little bim tried to get me fired (she got caught flirting with me...)" - all that's left is pointless blather. And you DO like to hear yourself talk.

Guys like Dodger are willing to go to the trouble of pointing out and correcting your sloppy thinking. I don't have to.

I want to hear one of three things out of you. Anything else that you post has exactly as much validity as pounding on the keyboard:

oijtpoihpiouh26q26w4625jn25wpokpjop2j5k2k5k54ypok2pokypok

1. A relevant valid response to my points below. You can spew logical fallacies, things you "know" (but can't intellectually justify----those are called "feelings", and they matter for nothing), and insults all day long...they prove noting but your idiocy.

2. You not acting like a fucking pussy, manning up, finding some testicles, and admitting you are wrong.

3. Shut the fuck up and go back to giving Rush Limbaugh a rimjob.

So which one is it going to be?


B9k

[Jelly Donut]

CARTER may have had something to do with the withering of the intelligence agencies effectiveness in preventing 9/11.

Anyone more schooled in such events is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know if I'm "more schooled" in these events - one thing I think is interesting about Carter is the "Carter Doctine" which basically was the first time the US stated in had vital interests in the Persian Gulf and would use military force if those interests were assaulted.

I remember reading an article during the Gulf War in the Wall Street Journal about relationship between the Carter Doctrine and it's impact on the US ability to project force in the Persian Gulf. Basically, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan kicked off an effort toward projecting American force into the Gulf. The first time that ability was tested was when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So, I guess I see a bit of irony in Carter scoring a peace prize since I think basically there is not a lot of difference between Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush when it comes to US interests in the Persian Gulf.

[Hardbarg]

This is a preposterous assertion

So, you disagree with me. There's a shock. Just a second.

Yeah - I don't care. Actually, it makes me proud.

trying to discretely sneak away

You just don't get it. You're not worth the effort. Once you get past the profanity, insults, personal attacks, and self-serving bs - "a little bim tried to get me fired (she got caught flirting with me...)" - all that's left is pointless blather. And you DO like to hear yourself talk.

Guys like Dodger are willing to go to the trouble of pointing out and correcting your sloppy thinking. I don't have to.

[Sasha Coffee]

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.

You poor guy. Sounds to me like the woman who complained needs a decent shag to bring her back to reality.

[Dodger Bulldog]

i am a liberal and i am a feminist, as it is very important to me that my daughters to have equal rights and opportunities in their lives. but i hate all the pc bullshit too!

don't think for a minute this is a conservative vs. liberal issue. it's certainly not.

the fact that i think tort reform is just a scam designed to allow corporations to act with impunity, or that i oppose sending my tax dollars to private schools through school vouchers, does not mean that i support political correctness.

free speech is not a liberal or conservative issue.

the problem with current sexual harassment law based on the supreme court decision is not the ban against "quid pro quo" (if you do this for me, i'll do that for you). most of us would agree that is wrong.

rather, it is the concept of the "hostile working environment."

now i can certainly understand why women would be uncomfortable if they had put up with seeing a nudie calendar at their workplace. that is a reasonable complaint.

however, the "hostile environment" clause goes so far to state that sexual harassment is not caused by the actions of the accused, but rather it is determined by how the supposed victim feels "impacted."

thus, if you do or say something that 99 people out of 100 think is fine, that 100th person can nonetheless legitimately accuse you of sexual harassment under the law.

case in point. recently my secretary agreed to call and make hotel reservations for my next trip to south america, because she is a native spanish speaker. we do each other favors all of the time, and it was no big deal to her.

during the phone call two women wandered in to our office and overhead me telling my secretary that i wanted a double bed, not a single. i also told her that i wanted the package that allows up to four people, so that i did not have to pay an extra fee if i brought any guests over.

the next day one of these buttinski's, who did not even have any business being in the room let alone eavesdropping on our conversation, proceeded to go to my supervisor and complain that i had made her feel uncomfortable and she felt sexually harrassed.

i was not even informed which one had complained about me, in order to "protect her." (i don't think that part was legal.)

but believe it or not, under the law she can correctly claim that she was sexually harassed. hell, i could do something as innocent as swat a fly, and if someone claims to be "impacted" in such a way that she feels sexually harrassed, then by definition, i'm guilty.

i was let off with a verbal warning and told that had i opened myself up to be fired if anyone else complains about me in the future.

and in sex prison, that's the law, folks!

db