I think we should hold Israel to a higher standard of military decisions
The whole world already does.
Simply imagine if they had done what had just happened to them. Imagine if they invaded somewhere and beheaded folks, raped women, and took folks hostage, etc.
The outcry would be far worse.
The reason is simple: we expect them to be better than that; but we expect the real terrorists to do what they do -- terrorize folks.
This is very straightforward and to not see this is a very biased or very misinformed decision.
@wallstreetcappers
I think we should hold Israel to a higher standard of military decisions
The whole world already does.
Simply imagine if they had done what had just happened to them. Imagine if they invaded somewhere and beheaded folks, raped women, and took folks hostage, etc.
The outcry would be far worse.
The reason is simple: we expect them to be better than that; but we expect the real terrorists to do what they do -- terrorize folks.
This is very straightforward and to not see this is a very biased or very misinformed decision.
@Raiders22 situations...that means what we are dealing with regarding classifying the group as terrorist or not. When we try to play good cop bad cop we get in situations like this. We want to influence their nuclear programs so we play good cop then when they do something we disagree with it is bad cop. We play all sides...
You are not playing good cop at all-- just bad cop. When you want to play good cop is where you go very wrong.
You need to be on one political accord and you are not. You should not 'want' to influence their nuclear programs -- that is not good cop but stupid policy.
You should deny them nuclear programs and not 'influence' it. Because then you are going back to what we have already agreed is wrong -- trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation.
@wallstreetcappers
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 situations...that means what we are dealing with regarding classifying the group as terrorist or not. When we try to play good cop bad cop we get in situations like this. We want to influence their nuclear programs so we play good cop then when they do something we disagree with it is bad cop. We play all sides...
You are not playing good cop at all-- just bad cop. When you want to play good cop is where you go very wrong.
You need to be on one political accord and you are not. You should not 'want' to influence their nuclear programs -- that is not good cop but stupid policy.
You should deny them nuclear programs and not 'influence' it. Because then you are going back to what we have already agreed is wrong -- trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation.
@wallstreetcappers The terrorist topic is too subjective and we are biased in our conclusions. No it isn't. There is a clear definition and many examples of it -- from this group. It is subjective to you because you want to classify being pro-active or running covert operations to obtain intelligence to prevent terrorism as a univocal use of the word 'terrorism'. That is decidedly superficial at best and duplicitous at worst.
Of course we are subjective, how can you say the way we do nothing and in fact SUPPORT Israel who performs covert terrorist acts and has well for multiple centuries and we call them a good friend and in the SAME region there is a group who performs terrorist acts per the definition and they are our enemies and are terrorists?
How do we sit on our hands and allow other countries to perform human rights abuses, things that we would never allow in our country or consider reasonable and yet they are our friends and allies?
Its completely subjective, its all about corporate interests and resources. If we can use your resources or sell you our multi-national goodies then you are not a human rights abuser or a terrorist, if you do not play ball the way we want or do things against us then you are a terrorist and an enemy.
Russia has killed hundreds of thousands of people, millions over the years when you include WWs and cold war invasions and yet we were their best buddies when they did what we wanted them to. Now with Putin not following our narrative they are enemies, invaders, killers.
This is amusing to see you try and separate acts of terrorism and abuse and classify like you are.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers The terrorist topic is too subjective and we are biased in our conclusions. No it isn't. There is a clear definition and many examples of it -- from this group. It is subjective to you because you want to classify being pro-active or running covert operations to obtain intelligence to prevent terrorism as a univocal use of the word 'terrorism'. That is decidedly superficial at best and duplicitous at worst.
Of course we are subjective, how can you say the way we do nothing and in fact SUPPORT Israel who performs covert terrorist acts and has well for multiple centuries and we call them a good friend and in the SAME region there is a group who performs terrorist acts per the definition and they are our enemies and are terrorists?
How do we sit on our hands and allow other countries to perform human rights abuses, things that we would never allow in our country or consider reasonable and yet they are our friends and allies?
Its completely subjective, its all about corporate interests and resources. If we can use your resources or sell you our multi-national goodies then you are not a human rights abuser or a terrorist, if you do not play ball the way we want or do things against us then you are a terrorist and an enemy.
Russia has killed hundreds of thousands of people, millions over the years when you include WWs and cold war invasions and yet we were their best buddies when they did what we wanted them to. Now with Putin not following our narrative they are enemies, invaders, killers.
This is amusing to see you try and separate acts of terrorism and abuse and classify like you are.
If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN, I kinda think this situation would not be as it currently exists. THEY do this to themselves, Israel does not want to co-exist and accept others who are not of their faith and beliefs, how can you think this will go in a good direction when they bring it on themselves like they have and do?
I dont know if you are a Christian or not but Israel is stuck in OT land, they still are now and the OT is a pure document showing their narrative for thousands of years, this approach means either one group wipes the other one off or it never ends.
@Raiders22
If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN, I kinda think this situation would not be as it currently exists. THEY do this to themselves, Israel does not want to co-exist and accept others who are not of their faith and beliefs, how can you think this will go in a good direction when they bring it on themselves like they have and do?
I dont know if you are a Christian or not but Israel is stuck in OT land, they still are now and the OT is a pure document showing their narrative for thousands of years, this approach means either one group wipes the other one off or it never ends.
@wallstreetcappers Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @Raiders22 situations...that means what we are dealing with regarding classifying the group as terrorist or not. When we try to play good cop bad cop we get in situations like this. We want to influence their nuclear programs so we play good cop then when they do something we disagree with it is bad cop. We play all sides... You are not playing good cop at all-- just bad cop. When you want to play good cop is where you go very wrong. You need to be on one political accord and you are not. You should not 'want' to influence their nuclear programs -- that is not good cop but stupid policy. You should deny them nuclear programs and not 'influence' it. Because then you are going back to what we have already agreed is wrong -- trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation.
We cannot do what you are suggesting, no president or military leader thinks we can deny and invade, especially in that region of the world. We cannot invade Iran when our lame threats and sanctions fizzle out and they still go forward with their agenda, so yes pretty much every single president and military leader tries to play good cop when the opportunity presents itself. The LAST thing a US president wants is to push Iran to a breaking point and be forced to take military action against them.
How was it that Iraq and Saddam was considered a terrorist? You completely destroy the definition of subjective when we pulled that carp out of the water. Saddam was not a terrorist and the US had decades of reasonable discord when that country until the narrative switched and the label did too...what a sham that phrase is and how we use it as a tool like we are.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @Raiders22 situations...that means what we are dealing with regarding classifying the group as terrorist or not. When we try to play good cop bad cop we get in situations like this. We want to influence their nuclear programs so we play good cop then when they do something we disagree with it is bad cop. We play all sides... You are not playing good cop at all-- just bad cop. When you want to play good cop is where you go very wrong. You need to be on one political accord and you are not. You should not 'want' to influence their nuclear programs -- that is not good cop but stupid policy. You should deny them nuclear programs and not 'influence' it. Because then you are going back to what we have already agreed is wrong -- trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation.
We cannot do what you are suggesting, no president or military leader thinks we can deny and invade, especially in that region of the world. We cannot invade Iran when our lame threats and sanctions fizzle out and they still go forward with their agenda, so yes pretty much every single president and military leader tries to play good cop when the opportunity presents itself. The LAST thing a US president wants is to push Iran to a breaking point and be forced to take military action against them.
How was it that Iraq and Saddam was considered a terrorist? You completely destroy the definition of subjective when we pulled that carp out of the water. Saddam was not a terrorist and the US had decades of reasonable discord when that country until the narrative switched and the label did too...what a sham that phrase is and how we use it as a tool like we are.
When we’re dead none of this will really matter , too bad that we have to be alive during it though
those that do not promote growth and instead take it away by killing shall be relegated to the deepest , darkest , coldest , and most isolated zone of the universes in the “ afterlife “ , this I can promise you
there’s always a price to pay , they shall bide their time there , while others enjoy the colorful landscape and the vibrant glow of unity till inevitably it crumbles once again .
what a fucking mind bending cycle huh ?
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
When we’re dead none of this will really matter , too bad that we have to be alive during it though
those that do not promote growth and instead take it away by killing shall be relegated to the deepest , darkest , coldest , and most isolated zone of the universes in the “ afterlife “ , this I can promise you
there’s always a price to pay , they shall bide their time there , while others enjoy the colorful landscape and the vibrant glow of unity till inevitably it crumbles once again .
@Raiders22 If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN, I kinda think this situation would not be as it currently exists. THEY do this to themselves, Israel does not want to co-exist and accept others who are not of their faith and beliefs, how can you think this will go in a good direction when they bring it on themselves like they have and do? I dont know if you are a Christian or not but Israel is stuck in OT land, they still are now and the OT is a pure document showing their narrative for thousands of years, this approach means either one group wipes the other one off or it never ends.
I would simply recommend you go back and study the history. They never wanted their own land; they never claimed to be their own nation. They wanted to be Syria then they wanted to be Jordan, etc. Many times have turned down their own portion of the land there. That is NOT their goal. WAY before the UN they were the same way. If you want to take it back to biblical times you can do it and you will see the same thing.
You can take it out of the area -- you can take it to anywhere else in the world. Look anywhere and see the reaction to that group. Take them to the middle of the eskimos and for a reason the eskimos will not even understand, they all of sudden hate this group.
You see this everywhere -- SA, Europe, NA -- you even see it in China. That is the biblical part of it. And no one wants to acknowledge this or try to explain it from this viewpoint. They simply say this stems from biblical times and leave it there. But why does the exact thing happen when they left that area and went to non-biblical areas. Etc., etc.
@wallstreetcappers
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN, I kinda think this situation would not be as it currently exists. THEY do this to themselves, Israel does not want to co-exist and accept others who are not of their faith and beliefs, how can you think this will go in a good direction when they bring it on themselves like they have and do? I dont know if you are a Christian or not but Israel is stuck in OT land, they still are now and the OT is a pure document showing their narrative for thousands of years, this approach means either one group wipes the other one off or it never ends.
I would simply recommend you go back and study the history. They never wanted their own land; they never claimed to be their own nation. They wanted to be Syria then they wanted to be Jordan, etc. Many times have turned down their own portion of the land there. That is NOT their goal. WAY before the UN they were the same way. If you want to take it back to biblical times you can do it and you will see the same thing.
You can take it out of the area -- you can take it to anywhere else in the world. Look anywhere and see the reaction to that group. Take them to the middle of the eskimos and for a reason the eskimos will not even understand, they all of sudden hate this group.
You see this everywhere -- SA, Europe, NA -- you even see it in China. That is the biblical part of it. And no one wants to acknowledge this or try to explain it from this viewpoint. They simply say this stems from biblical times and leave it there. But why does the exact thing happen when they left that area and went to non-biblical areas. Etc., etc.
Sorry but you are speaking with someone who knows the OT and history of the plight of Israel. You are out in left field saying they did not want to have all of the land as theirs and especially where they are now. The entire document is the story of them being promised that EXACT area, trying to take it via war and death, being defeated and taken into captivity and bondage, reorganizing and trying again.
Yeah I need to revisit history...ok you go with that one. They still have the same mindset, they feel entitled to the entire area, it was promised to them from their God and their prophets, this concept is the foundation of their faith and their kingdom.
@Raiders22
Sorry but you are speaking with someone who knows the OT and history of the plight of Israel. You are out in left field saying they did not want to have all of the land as theirs and especially where they are now. The entire document is the story of them being promised that EXACT area, trying to take it via war and death, being defeated and taken into captivity and bondage, reorganizing and trying again.
Yeah I need to revisit history...ok you go with that one. They still have the same mindset, they feel entitled to the entire area, it was promised to them from their God and their prophets, this concept is the foundation of their faith and their kingdom.
We cannot do what you are suggesting, no president or military leader thinks we can deny and invade, especially in that region of the world. We cannot invade Iran when our lame threats and sanctions fizzle out and they still go forward with their agenda, so yes pretty much every single president and military leader tries to play good cop when the opportunity presents itself. The LAST thing a US president wants is to push Iran to a breaking point and be forced to take military action against them.
Correct and that is not a good cop view. That is still a bad cop action. You are doing all you can diplomatically to deny them the weapons. A good cop would be okay with them having the weapons and say to them to be 'reasonable' with them. But you know that would not work. Sure, you want to use invasion as a last resort. But I guarantee you that it would happen if it needed to be done and very easily.
How was it that Iraq and Saddam was considered a terrorist? You completely destroy the definition of subjective when we pulled that carp out of the water. Saddam was not a terrorist and the US had decades of reasonable discord when that country until the narrative switched and the label did too...what a sham that phrase is and how we use it as a tool like we are.
Again, I simply have to recommend you read more into this.
@wallstreetcappers
We cannot do what you are suggesting, no president or military leader thinks we can deny and invade, especially in that region of the world. We cannot invade Iran when our lame threats and sanctions fizzle out and they still go forward with their agenda, so yes pretty much every single president and military leader tries to play good cop when the opportunity presents itself. The LAST thing a US president wants is to push Iran to a breaking point and be forced to take military action against them.
Correct and that is not a good cop view. That is still a bad cop action. You are doing all you can diplomatically to deny them the weapons. A good cop would be okay with them having the weapons and say to them to be 'reasonable' with them. But you know that would not work. Sure, you want to use invasion as a last resort. But I guarantee you that it would happen if it needed to be done and very easily.
How was it that Iraq and Saddam was considered a terrorist? You completely destroy the definition of subjective when we pulled that carp out of the water. Saddam was not a terrorist and the US had decades of reasonable discord when that country until the narrative switched and the label did too...what a sham that phrase is and how we use it as a tool like we are.
Again, I simply have to recommend you read more into this.
@Raiders22 Sorry but you are speaking with someone who knows the OT and history of the plight of Israel. You are out in left field saying they did not want to have all of the land as theirs and especially where they are now. The entire document is the story of them being promised that EXACT area, trying to take it via war and death, being defeated and taken into captivity and bondage, reorganizing and trying again. Yeah I need to revisit history...ok you go with that one. They still have the same mindset, they feel entitled to the entire area, it was promised to them from their God and their prophets, this concept is the foundation of their faith and their kingdom.
@wallstreetcappers
I confused you. I am talking about the supposedly 'Palestinians' not the Israelis. At no point did Israel want to be part of Syria or Jordan. I thought that was self-evident. I guess I should have made it clearer for you.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 Sorry but you are speaking with someone who knows the OT and history of the plight of Israel. You are out in left field saying they did not want to have all of the land as theirs and especially where they are now. The entire document is the story of them being promised that EXACT area, trying to take it via war and death, being defeated and taken into captivity and bondage, reorganizing and trying again. Yeah I need to revisit history...ok you go with that one. They still have the same mindset, they feel entitled to the entire area, it was promised to them from their God and their prophets, this concept is the foundation of their faith and their kingdom.
@wallstreetcappers
I confused you. I am talking about the supposedly 'Palestinians' not the Israelis. At no point did Israel want to be part of Syria or Jordan. I thought that was self-evident. I guess I should have made it clearer for you.
@wallstreetcappers My point in posting this was that Biden done a number of things with no understanding of why he was doing it, other than to spite Trump. He has no concept of "Chesterton's Fence"........he has placed party over country.
You nailed it and that's why you got the response you did.
If Trump didn't like Nordstream, OK IT!
If Trump called Houthis terrorists, he's a racist zenophope, remove that designation.
If Trump was hard on Iran, give Iran what they want.
If Trump refused to fund UNRWA, give them $700 million despite the fact they support Hamas.
Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:
@wallstreetcappers My point in posting this was that Biden done a number of things with no understanding of why he was doing it, other than to spite Trump. He has no concept of "Chesterton's Fence"........he has placed party over country.
You nailed it and that's why you got the response you did.
If Trump didn't like Nordstream, OK IT!
If Trump called Houthis terrorists, he's a racist zenophope, remove that designation.
If Trump was hard on Iran, give Iran what they want.
If Trump refused to fund UNRWA, give them $700 million despite the fact they support Hamas.
Actually you fail to make sense regularly and that was why my left field comment was said. I was not discussing Palestine and the UN giving them land, not sure where you went off on that one. I have never made a comment about Palestine, the UN and land being given in any discussion in a very long time if ever.
I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
@Raiders22
Actually you fail to make sense regularly and that was why my left field comment was said. I was not discussing Palestine and the UN giving them land, not sure where you went off on that one. I have never made a comment about Palestine, the UN and land being given in any discussion in a very long time if ever.
I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN
Just focus a little bit and the conversation will clear up for you. Think about this statement and what it leads someone to believe you are talking about when you say it.
@wallstreetcappers
If we had not spearheaded their statehood and taken land from others and gave it to them via the UN
Just focus a little bit and the conversation will clear up for you. Think about this statement and what it leads someone to believe you are talking about when you say it.
I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
It is not me proving you wrong -- just facts. Look up the definition of terrorism and what ALL countries define as terrorism.
Yes. There are many subjects that you need to 'hone' up on. You simply see things from your partisan viewpoint and want it to be that way. There is more than one viewpoint, sometimes several.
There is nothing wrong with reading and learning more about a subject where you think you know something that is not true. That is not a putdown on you. We all can learn more about subjects by reading up on them. When experts in the subject disagree with each other and with you -- then maybe you could learn more about it.
For example, you state the Russia thing like it is fact and never backed it up when asked. Now you state this about Hussein and obviously do not know the subject well enough.
I am simply saying look into it more and maybe you would change your mind.
@wallstreetcappers
I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
It is not me proving you wrong -- just facts. Look up the definition of terrorism and what ALL countries define as terrorism.
Yes. There are many subjects that you need to 'hone' up on. You simply see things from your partisan viewpoint and want it to be that way. There is more than one viewpoint, sometimes several.
There is nothing wrong with reading and learning more about a subject where you think you know something that is not true. That is not a putdown on you. We all can learn more about subjects by reading up on them. When experts in the subject disagree with each other and with you -- then maybe you could learn more about it.
For example, you state the Russia thing like it is fact and never backed it up when asked. Now you state this about Hussein and obviously do not know the subject well enough.
I am simply saying look into it more and maybe you would change your mind.
It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
It is an obvious way to demonstrate why a person is right -- refer someone to facts or an expert's opinion.
It is useless to just state your opinion and have nothing to back it up with. Then it is just two people with uninformed opinions. What good is that for a discussion.
Anyone can learn more and say they did not think of it that way before -- at least we all should.
@wallstreetcappers
It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
It is an obvious way to demonstrate why a person is right -- refer someone to facts or an expert's opinion.
It is useless to just state your opinion and have nothing to back it up with. Then it is just two people with uninformed opinions. What good is that for a discussion.
Anyone can learn more and say they did not think of it that way before -- at least we all should.
That is your fallback and it is not mine, you pointing me to some expert you found that sides with your way of thinking does not prove anything. It proves you found a source that supports your position and that you can use to put others down. I do not need you telling me to research things more, that is an immature ploy you use and is very condescending and poor. I do not read your cut and paste expert messages because if I wanted to read someone elses opinions and research I would seek it out. When I have discussion here it is meant for person to person discussion, even if the other person disagrees it is still view to view, comment to comment and not using a tired ploy of deflection when you do not like the persons view.
For every view you can find some third party affirmation someone else can find for theirs, if it motivates you then congrats but you are not proving a thing by quoting someone elses view or research. If I make a reply it is done to have discussion and on a topic I would like to discuss or if I feel someone is abusing someone else in a poor way I will step in and shift the imbalance. Many times I have nothing to say on a topic or a sport or a conversation so I am not at all saying I know more than you and I have never taken you by the ear and directed you to a book for more research. I find that shallow and juvenile, instead of saying you disagree and WHY you resort to childish condescending and it is part of why I suggested you just not reply to me, I find your approach to be antagonistic and targeted. I have no issue debating with people who have different opinions and completely disagree with me, but if someone cannot be respectful in a difference of opinion or resorts to either personal attacks or stalking or as you do trying to act smarter than others, that serves no purpose and is not adding value. Explain your position and what reasoning you have, be respectful and be interested in discussion or why even reply in the first place?
I am quite positive you will never need to tell any member who dares to enter the politics forum that they need to research more or learn more or educate themselves more, anyone in this forum is educated enough to dive in here and put up with the partisan nonsense and combative approach that many have and it is kind of silly for you to imply that if someone were to research more, then obviously they would agree with your perspective more...that is quite pompous and flawed.
@Raiders22
That is your fallback and it is not mine, you pointing me to some expert you found that sides with your way of thinking does not prove anything. It proves you found a source that supports your position and that you can use to put others down. I do not need you telling me to research things more, that is an immature ploy you use and is very condescending and poor. I do not read your cut and paste expert messages because if I wanted to read someone elses opinions and research I would seek it out. When I have discussion here it is meant for person to person discussion, even if the other person disagrees it is still view to view, comment to comment and not using a tired ploy of deflection when you do not like the persons view.
For every view you can find some third party affirmation someone else can find for theirs, if it motivates you then congrats but you are not proving a thing by quoting someone elses view or research. If I make a reply it is done to have discussion and on a topic I would like to discuss or if I feel someone is abusing someone else in a poor way I will step in and shift the imbalance. Many times I have nothing to say on a topic or a sport or a conversation so I am not at all saying I know more than you and I have never taken you by the ear and directed you to a book for more research. I find that shallow and juvenile, instead of saying you disagree and WHY you resort to childish condescending and it is part of why I suggested you just not reply to me, I find your approach to be antagonistic and targeted. I have no issue debating with people who have different opinions and completely disagree with me, but if someone cannot be respectful in a difference of opinion or resorts to either personal attacks or stalking or as you do trying to act smarter than others, that serves no purpose and is not adding value. Explain your position and what reasoning you have, be respectful and be interested in discussion or why even reply in the first place?
I am quite positive you will never need to tell any member who dares to enter the politics forum that they need to research more or learn more or educate themselves more, anyone in this forum is educated enough to dive in here and put up with the partisan nonsense and combative approach that many have and it is kind of silly for you to imply that if someone were to research more, then obviously they would agree with your perspective more...that is quite pompous and flawed.
I think you are being a little sensitive though , as your obvious history with this poster is affecting your replies , because I do not think he has really stated anything suggestion-wise that you haven’t said to others as well
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
I think you are being a little sensitive though , as your obvious history with this poster is affecting your replies , because I do not think he has really stated anything suggestion-wise that you haven’t said to others as well
It is not immature when you are simply wrong. I did not 'copy and paste' anything. I know you do not like to look at anything you disagree with or proves you wrong.
So, of course you are not going to read someone's else's facts and opinion -- even though they are the expert and not you.
Person to person is fine. But when your partisan stance is called out you get defensive and then spout of something that you cannot substantiate.
I think the way you 'abuse' someone that disagrees is a discredit to that way of thinking. You are always calling the folks you disagree with names and the things they say names and just earlier called it 'amateur hour'. When you do things like that it looks derisive and not like you are promoting discussion.
You still mentioned the Wall to cost Trillions -- when you were shown many times that is wrong. Why? Because it promotes your 'shallow' and 'uniformed' opinion. Why is your opinion wrong? Because you refuse to read what the 'non-partisan' experts have said about it.
Then you get called out about the Russia thing -- which you brought up because I guess you thought it was an equivalent comparison. Then when you are called out about it -- you deflected again.
Then when the Hussein thing is questioned -- you could not support your stance. Why? Because you refuse to be open-minded enough to study up on it.
You refuse to read when other people put things supporting their 'opinion' in here and refuse to look it up on your own. Why? Just so you can keep your uninformed or biased opinion.
Absolutely if you look at the nonsense in the forum you can recommend someone look more into an issue. Just because they are in the forum and comment does not make them an expert on all of the issues.
You constantly complain and say just do not reply to you. Why? Just because you get questioned?
I prefer to attempt to discuss with you because at least you try to state your point even if it is circular sometimes. It is better than the cheerleaders in here that just print a headline and are incapable of trying to discuss that topic or any other, or simply refuse to and just give high-fives to keep a thread promoted.
@wallstreetcappers
It is not immature when you are simply wrong. I did not 'copy and paste' anything. I know you do not like to look at anything you disagree with or proves you wrong.
So, of course you are not going to read someone's else's facts and opinion -- even though they are the expert and not you.
Person to person is fine. But when your partisan stance is called out you get defensive and then spout of something that you cannot substantiate.
I think the way you 'abuse' someone that disagrees is a discredit to that way of thinking. You are always calling the folks you disagree with names and the things they say names and just earlier called it 'amateur hour'. When you do things like that it looks derisive and not like you are promoting discussion.
You still mentioned the Wall to cost Trillions -- when you were shown many times that is wrong. Why? Because it promotes your 'shallow' and 'uniformed' opinion. Why is your opinion wrong? Because you refuse to read what the 'non-partisan' experts have said about it.
Then you get called out about the Russia thing -- which you brought up because I guess you thought it was an equivalent comparison. Then when you are called out about it -- you deflected again.
Then when the Hussein thing is questioned -- you could not support your stance. Why? Because you refuse to be open-minded enough to study up on it.
You refuse to read when other people put things supporting their 'opinion' in here and refuse to look it up on your own. Why? Just so you can keep your uninformed or biased opinion.
Absolutely if you look at the nonsense in the forum you can recommend someone look more into an issue. Just because they are in the forum and comment does not make them an expert on all of the issues.
You constantly complain and say just do not reply to you. Why? Just because you get questioned?
I prefer to attempt to discuss with you because at least you try to state your point even if it is circular sometimes. It is better than the cheerleaders in here that just print a headline and are incapable of trying to discuss that topic or any other, or simply refuse to and just give high-fives to keep a thread promoted.
I have no issue debating with people who have different opinions and completely disagree with me, but if someone cannot be respectful in a difference of opinion or resorts to either personal attacks or stalking or as you do trying to act smarter than others, that serves no purpose and is not adding value. Explain your position and what reasoning you have, be respectful and be interested in discussion or why even reply in the first place?
I agree with this. That is why I never call someone immature or amateur or refuse to read or watcha video someone recommended to support their view. If I am interested in a subject and want to discuss it -- it makes sense to do that.
If you cannot understand opposing viewpoints there is no credible way to refute them.
I have never seen much benefit to discussing with someone just because they agree -- I do not simply need a cheerleader.
But 'reasoning' alone is not good enough if it is based on nothing but opinion. Now if it is based on facts, events, experts that have studied the issue opinion -- then this is just something to substantiate your opinion. Then it becomes more credible.
@wallstreetcappers
I have no issue debating with people who have different opinions and completely disagree with me, but if someone cannot be respectful in a difference of opinion or resorts to either personal attacks or stalking or as you do trying to act smarter than others, that serves no purpose and is not adding value. Explain your position and what reasoning you have, be respectful and be interested in discussion or why even reply in the first place?
I agree with this. That is why I never call someone immature or amateur or refuse to read or watcha video someone recommended to support their view. If I am interested in a subject and want to discuss it -- it makes sense to do that.
If you cannot understand opposing viewpoints there is no credible way to refute them.
I have never seen much benefit to discussing with someone just because they agree -- I do not simply need a cheerleader.
But 'reasoning' alone is not good enough if it is based on nothing but opinion. Now if it is based on facts, events, experts that have studied the issue opinion -- then this is just something to substantiate your opinion. Then it becomes more credible.
I hope we don’t lose this valuable discussion because there’s a simple miscommunication , this forum is basically worthless without these types of well thought out conversations coming from both sides
good luck moving forward on this gentlemen
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
I hope we don’t lose this valuable discussion because there’s a simple miscommunication , this forum is basically worthless without these types of well thought out conversations coming from both sides
I think you are being a little sensitive though , as your obvious history with this poster is affecting your replies , because I do not think he has really stated anything suggestion-wise that you haven’t said to others as well
100%
You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is the land of wolves now...
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
I think you are being a little sensitive though , as your obvious history with this poster is affecting your replies , because I do not think he has really stated anything suggestion-wise that you haven’t said to others as well
anyone in this forum is educated enough to dive in here and put up with the partisan nonsense and combative approach that many have
Axtually....I could give you 3-4 names / alias's that are no where near educated enough to discuss a wide variety of topics....hence, they just copy & paste someone else's thoughts as their own and refuse to discuss at any level any other thoughts than what is copy & pasted.
That's a proven fact. Can't be disputed.
You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is the land of wolves now...
@wallstreetcappers
anyone in this forum is educated enough to dive in here and put up with the partisan nonsense and combative approach that many have
Axtually....I could give you 3-4 names / alias's that are no where near educated enough to discuss a wide variety of topics....hence, they just copy & paste someone else's thoughts as their own and refuse to discuss at any level any other thoughts than what is copy & pasted.
@Raiders22 Actually you fail to make sense regularly and that was why my left field comment was said. I was not discussing Palestine and the UN giving them land, not sure where you went off on that one. I have never made a comment about Palestine, the UN and land being given in any discussion in a very long time if ever. I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
You're in this thread too?! And hurling personal attacks. You're a mod, for Pete's sake. You think Raiders, of all people, fails to make sense regularly? That's not vitriol? You sincerely believe Raiders22 routinely doesn't make sense? That's comical.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 Actually you fail to make sense regularly and that was why my left field comment was said. I was not discussing Palestine and the UN giving them land, not sure where you went off on that one. I have never made a comment about Palestine, the UN and land being given in any discussion in a very long time if ever. I think you get stuck on trying to prove me wrong and in this case I just thought you were pulling the same old routine of telling me you know more than me again and that I need to revisit history or a topic or something. It is amusing how you blatantly talk down to people and make comments like that, it is not a great way to discuss a topic where you feel differently. Telling someone they need to bone up on something as a retort is pretty weak. It would be smarter for you to say you have a difference of opinion, STATE that opinion and have a discussion, not the way you regularly instruct people to learn more. Its an obvious put down but its very transparent and does not work very well in a discussion.
You're in this thread too?! And hurling personal attacks. You're a mod, for Pete's sake. You think Raiders, of all people, fails to make sense regularly? That's not vitriol? You sincerely believe Raiders22 routinely doesn't make sense? That's comical.
Hot Forum Topics
