Is it intelligent to.....

[xsited1]

You're good with the insults, but have little to say. You've been promoted to buttwipe.

Well, if you're going to argue with what I didn't say, don't get salty when I love-tap ya with a "knucklehead."

What kind of world do you live in, buttwipe? Yes, people should have all the facts and 'collective knowledge' before making a decision. However, there is always an agenda which trumps the facts. And you can't know all the facts anyway. It's the age old argument of 'paralysis of analysis'. Sometimes too much information is bad.

IMO, your original post was stupid. That's why I mentioned nation building. It doesn't work and that's what's been going on in Afghanistan. So what is there to talk about? Unless you just want a 'win' for America, but that's an agenda. Buttwipe. Yep, that'd be you.

 

[G.T.]

You and your ilk second guessed the last president and bashed every GD thing he did and given your statements, you're not exactly one of the enlightened few. Nice try, now buzz off.

I don't have an ilk. Try #2 coming soon, to diss me?

 

[G.T.]

But, arguing on the FACT that a ground commander who is privy to all of the "classified" info of which you speak, and who is requesting more troops, is perfectly acceptable.
I trust that ground commander, who IS ACTUALLY on the ground, far more than a president who is obviously playing politics on the issue.
JMHO btw.

It's perfectly acceptable to me, assuming that the commander and the President have the same set of facts that they come to different conclusions regarding those facts. They obviously have some shit they need to clear up between each other, and I respect not making a rushed decision. Rather look at it with deep pragmatism and hopefully get it right the first time.

I will not pretend, like many here will and now I've got a big list of haters, to have a clear picture of who's correct. It's no easy decision, but noone who's for the Pres. will respect that, and noone who's against him will either when debating the issue. I see very few people who AREN'T just simply arguing their "side's" version of the issue, and not simply being decent people and realizing the true reality of the situation. They'd rather play-up the controversy, they almost cheer-lead that the President IS playing politics with the decision, so that they can score some sort of points against him. That is less than human, to me. Just another little reason I despise politics.

 

[G.T.]

What kind of world do you live in, buttwipe? Yes, people should have all the facts and 'collective knowledge' before making a decision. However, there is always an agenda which trumps the facts. And you can't know all the facts anyway. It's the age old argument of 'paralysis of analysis'. Sometimes too much information is bad.

IMO, your original post was stupid. That's why I mentioned nation building. It doesn't work and that's what's been going on in Afghanistan. So what is there to talk about? Unless you just want a 'win' for America, but that's an agenda. Buttwipe. Yep, that'd be you.

The OP wasn't stupid, you're just being a fucking dick. Come on, admit it, you seek-out reasons to hate the President and don't think about Afghanistan otherwise. I like it better when a man can straight up admit his true intentions and doesn't play these veiled political games on political message boards with me. It's so played, it's so fucking lame.

A quick glance at your posting history, and it's easy bro.

Just put the keyboard down.

 

[ba1614]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

I call bullshit on the Triple Ds and need photos, Link?

EDIT: To address the subject matter, all I've ever said is that we need to either A)Define what the mission is, and do what it takes to accomplish it. Or B)Get the fuck out of there.

 

[G.T.]

I call bullshit on the Triple Ds and need photos, Link?

Debbie Does Doogans, dot com?

 

[WillowTree]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

well for starters knucklehead I think almost everybody here realizes that what they say won't go up the chain of command and make a difference. It's all just chatter based on what we do know.

 

[G.T.]

well for starters knucklehead I think almost everybody here realizes that what they say won't go up the chain of command and make a difference. It's all just chatter based on what we do know.

I guess I'm directing the OP to anyone who is guilty, then, but ALSO takes themselves seriously. Aight? Aright.

 

[WillowTree]

and just to add. almost any topic we discuss on this board is devoid of all the facts. so I guess what we should do is swap recipies!

 

[G.T.]

and just to add. almost any topic we discuss on this board is devoid of all the facts. so I guess what we should do is swap recipies!

Ahh, that's just the point though.

You're not being very level-headed then, when you wage your harsh criticisms, knowing you don't know the full picture. That's exactly my thesis, and you've reinforced it for me. I appreciate that.

It's like solving an equation for "X" and you don't know all of the other variables necessary to solve for "X," yet, you'll criticize someone's answer for "X" who clearly has more of the necessary variables than you do.

It just makes you look like a coat-tail riding hater, when you do that. It's not a good look, IMO, but I respect your decisions.

 

[WillowTree]

and just to add. almost any topic we discuss on this board is devoid of all the facts. so I guess what we should do is swap recipies!

Ahh, that's just the point though.

You're not being very level-headed then, when you wage your harsh criticisms, knowing you don't know the full picture. That's exactly my thesis, and you've reinforced it for me. I appreciate that.

It's like solving an equation for "X" and you don't know all of the other variables necessary to solve for "X," yet, you'll criticize someone's answer for "X" who clearly has more of the necessary variables than you do.

It just makes you look like a coat-tail riding hater, when you do that. It's not a good look, IMO, but I respect your decisions.

well then asswipe, don't start a conversation without including all the pertinent information. you've only yourself to blame. Kerry On.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

I don't have 'all the facts' about evolution, but I can certainly make a winning argument for it being a better theory than the book of Genesis.

 

[editec]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

We debate issues based on what we KNOW.

Obviously if we were limited only to discussing issues that we know EVERYTHING about, there would not be a single discussion about national or international policies.

Using the "but you don't know all the facts like our leaders do" argument to end all discussion serves what purpose, exactly?

Only to silence the people.

Tyrants would dearly LOVE it if people accepted that logic as one that prevents us from having and expressing our opinions.

 

[G.T.]

well then asswipe, don't start a conversation without including all the pertinent information. you've only yourself to blame. Kerry On.

Enough was there for anyone not looking to just fling mudd @ anyone who harbors a different point of view. But I understand where bitterness can come from and I actually asked for it and expected it, so no worries. You're a smug poster, and that's alright with me as long as it's alright with you, when you look inward. No h8. No h8.

 

[G.T.]

I don't have 'all the facts' about evolution, but I can certainly make a winning argument for it being a better theory than the book of Genesis.

Of course you don't, but would you pretend to have a better grasp of the concept as a whole over someone whom you know for a fact HAS more of the information pertinent to making an informed decision, than you do? Or could you swallow some pride and admit that you're not sure if he's right or wrong?

 

[G.T.]

We debate issues based on what we KNOW.

Obviously if we were limited only to discussing issues that we know EVERYTHING about, there would not be a single discussion about national or international policies.

Using the "but you don't know all the facts like our leaders do" argument to end all discussion serves what purpose, exactly?

Only to silence the people.

Tyrants would dearly LOVE it if people accepted that logic as one that prevents us from having and expressing our opinions.

It's not tyranny, we voted them in. If you want to call something tyrannical, you can blame the system of "Calssifying" things from the Citizens, itself.

I never said you can't argue something without ALL of the information, but more-so if you're going to call Presidents retarted and air-heads, fling insults at them, etc. etc.......then you better fucking know the full deck of shit they're working with to decide shit, or you're the imbecile. I'm not saying don't be doing it, but when it comes down to bare bones it's not intelligent.

 

[WillowTree]

well then asswipe, don't start a conversation without including all the pertinent information. you've only yourself to blame. Kerry On.

Enough was there for anyone not looking to just fling mudd @ anyone who harbors a different point of view. But I understand where bitterness can come from and I actually asked for it and expected it, so no worries. You're a smug poster, and that's alright with me as long as it's alright with you, when you look inward. No h8. No h8.

you sound like one of those 19 year old pimply faced basement dwellers. But then, I might not have all the facts.

 

[WillowTree]

We debate issues based on what we KNOW.

Obviously if we were limited only to discussing issues that we know EVERYTHING about, there would not be a single discussion about national or international policies.

Using the "but you don't know all the facts like our leaders do" argument to end all discussion serves what purpose, exactly?

Only to silence the people.

Tyrants would dearly LOVE it if people accepted that logic as one that prevents us from having and expressing our opinions.

It's not tyranny, we voted them in. If you want to call something tyrannical, you can blame the system of "Calssifying" things from the Citizens, itself.

I never said you can't argue something without ALL of the information, but more-so if you're going to call Presidents retarted and air-heads, fling insults at them, etc. etc.......then you better fucking know the full deck of shit they're working with to decide shit, or you're the imbecile. I'm not saying don't be doing it, but when it comes down to bare bones it's not intelligent.

Im' gonna tell ya something maybe you don't know! You don't get to set the rules of engagement! "Ain't that a shame? My tears they fell like rain"

 

[G.T.]

We debate issues based on what we KNOW.

Obviously if we were limited only to discussing issues that we know EVERYTHING about, there would not be a single discussion about national or international policies.

Using the "but you don't know all the facts like our leaders do" argument to end all discussion serves what purpose, exactly?

Only to silence the people.

Tyrants would dearly LOVE it if people accepted that logic as one that prevents us from having and expressing our opinions.

It's not tyranny, we voted them in. If you want to call something tyrannical, you can blame the system of "Calssifying" things from the Citizens, itself.

I never said you can't argue something without ALL of the information, but more-so if you're going to call Presidents retarted and air-heads, fling insults at them, etc. etc.......then you better fucking know the full deck of shit they're working with to decide shit, or you're the imbecile. I'm not saying don't be doing it, but when it comes down to bare bones it's not intelligent.

Im' gonna tell ya something maybe you don't know! You don't get to set the rules of engagement! "Ain't that a shame? My tears they fell like rain"

Reading comprehension, your Smugness.