American Politics

[QUOTE=Bart9000]This is a preposterous assertion[/QUOTE]
So, you disagree with me. There's a shock. Just a second.

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

[QUOTE=Bart9000] trying to discretely sneak away[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Sinanju Master]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=hardbarg]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]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.[/QUOTE]
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

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

Digitalcurry

[QUOTE=hardbarg]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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Sinanju Master]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.[/QUOTE]

American adventurism has always resulted in awful unintended consequences.

[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Bart9000]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[/QUOTE]
Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.

[QUOTE=hardbarg]Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=hardbarg]Please tell me that you're going to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.[/QUOTE]

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

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

.....pathetic rationalization!!!!!!!!

The substitution of a rational pretext for a real reason, with an implication of self-delusion or hypocrisy; the improvisation of a plausible reason for a human action when one either does not realize the real reason or seeks to keep it secret; the use of a false but reasonable justification or interpretation of an attitude or action, which appears to be unsatisfactory or contrary to accepted reasoning, when one is either ashamed or not aware of his actual motive. HA. 78-79; TH. 280-82.
[url]www.mises.org/easier/R.asp[/url]

Lets have Lesson 2: (Subtitled-"How not to be an irrational ignorant moron")

A "sound argument" generally consists of two things. A conclusion, and factual, valid supporting evidence (I may be using incorrect terminology)

When an argument is put forth, and is sound, it is presumed to be the winner, unless the other side can do one of two things:

1: Prove that the supporting evidence is not factual.

2. Prove that the supporting evidence which MAY in fact BE factual, does not suport the conclusion that is drawn from it as the premise of the argument. .


These are the ONLY things that "knock down" a "sound" argument, and making it "unsound", thus making the holder of the opposing position the winner of the debate.

Included in the list of things that DO NOT make an opposing argument "unsound" are some of the following:

Logical Fallacies (Ad Hominem and others)

Insults-"You are childish" "You are a sloppy thinker"

Rationalizations, such as "You just aren't worth it", "I'm not even going to read that because the formatting is terrible"


Reiterating, until you come up with a way to either prove that my supporting points are non-factual, or do not support my conclusion, you LOSE the argument. End of story. You can protest, rationalize deny and insult all day long, but that is all just basically pointless meaningless "noise".

Later, we'll deconstruct your last pathetic attempt to do this.

B9k

It's bad enough trying to clean up your sloppy thinking, I don't have to deal with your sloppy presentation.