Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
You have an uncanny ability of missing the point - even when it is as incredibly basic as the hypothetical scenario I laid out.

Assume that the 10 and 100 are all equal at the individual level.  It is a very basic choice of opting between two outcomes that you have the ability to influence in a constrained way.  You can either have 10 dead people or 100 dead people.  Taking no action will make the choice for you at random.  Either way, no matter what, people are going to die.  What will you do with your influence?

You have the incredible delusion that anyone should answer any rhetorical question that you pose when you refuse to answer any directed at you.

How about this... I'll save the ten Swedish bikini babes who might have committed a little bit of waterboarding and damaged your delicate psyche but didn't kill anyone over the one hundred butchers who have murdered thousands of innocents, as you cheer on, when they decide to bomb a sovereign nation back into the stone age at a whim, and without Congressional approval; or decimate a wedding party for one or two suspected terrorists; or terrorists who fly jet liners filled with innocents into skyscrapers; or terrorists who behead people they've captured.

You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Sure I do. I provided you examples of two different evils and I chose to save the lesser of the two.

You did so in an incredibly stupid way, though.  You're saying that with democratic policy, we get drone strikes.  Then, you're saying with republican policy we get waterboarding.

Drone strikes versus waterboarding.

Is that an accurate way of assessing the two available options?  Are you capturing all of the negative effects present with each party's foreign policy?  Is waterboarding the sum total of all that happened during the Bush administration?

Further, when you say this...

Damaged Eagle wrote:No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

... you are in fact confirming that you do not understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.  Clearly, this flies way over your head.  And that's OK.  I doubt anyone here expects you to be able to grasp such concepts anyway so it's not as if you're losing any ground here.

The solution is simple technology. The big drone releases a tiny drone and it flies into the ear of the terrorist and detonates...simple huh ?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Damaged Eagle wrote:You also seem to think that it doesn't take interrogations to come up with targets for drone strikes which indicates how delusional you really are.

You throw this out as if it is a determined fact, when in reality there is nothing that would suggest as much.  In fact, if you happen to read the news at all, you may be familiar with the fact that a comprehensive report on the subject was recently released, and its conclusion is that it does not work.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
You have an uncanny ability of missing the point - even when it is as incredibly basic as the hypothetical scenario I laid out.

Assume that the 10 and 100 are all equal at the individual level.  It is a very basic choice of opting between two outcomes that you have the ability to influence in a constrained way.  You can either have 10 dead people or 100 dead people.  Taking no action will make the choice for you at random.  Either way, no matter what, people are going to die.  What will you do with your influence?

You have the incredible delusion that anyone should answer any rhetorical question that you pose when you refuse to answer any directed at you.

How about this... I'll save the ten Swedish bikini babes who might have committed a little bit of waterboarding and damaged your delicate psyche but didn't kill anyone over the one hundred butchers who have murdered thousands of innocents, as you cheer on, when they decide to bomb a sovereign nation back into the stone age at a whim, and without Congressional approval; or decimate a wedding party for one or two suspected terrorists; or terrorists who fly jet liners filled with innocents into skyscrapers; or terrorists who behead people they've captured.

You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Sure I do. I provided you examples of two different evils and I chose to save the lesser of the two.

You did so in an incredibly stupid way, though.  You're saying that with democratic policy, we get drone strikes.  Then, you're saying with republican policy we get waterboarding.

Drone strikes versus waterboarding.

Is that an accurate way of assessing the two available options?  Are you capturing all of the negative effects present with each party's foreign policy?  Is waterboarding the sum total of all that happened during the Bush administration?

Further, when you say this...

Damaged Eagle wrote:No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

... you are in fact confirming that you do not understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.  Clearly, this flies way over your head.  And that's OK.  I doubt anyone here expects you to be able to grasp such concepts anyway so it's not as if you're losing any ground here.  

Bush had bipartisan backing of Congress for the military actions he took which is noticeably lacking with you blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace as he builds bridges understanding between nations with the innocent bodies of his victims.

Explain to me how bombing Libya, who we've had difficulties with for decades, was so important that it had to be done without seeking Congressional approval and thereby killing over 25,000 in a period of about six months all because you Nobel Champion Of Peace had a whim to do so.

I'm sure the explanation involves something dealing with the lesser of two evils so make sure you add that phrase.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQHPdbGtt8

TEOTWAWKI wrote:911 = new pearl Harbor
required a LOT more coordination intelligence finance and manpower than any Muslim in a cave could muster...it floors me people still believe the government fairytale.

Me, too. But I don't need to get my info from Alex Jones. I can muster my own outrage without having some d-bag screaming at me.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:911 = new pearl Harbor
required a LOT more coordination intelligence finance and manpower than any Muslim in a cave could muster...it floors me people still believe the government fairytale.

Me, too. But I don't need to get my info from Alex Jones. I can muster my own outrage without having some d-bag screaming at me.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

Looks like your perspective of the situation is discriminating and biased when it comes to dealing with situations that are similar. You feel it's just more cost effective and efficient to just bomb people overseas while you need boots on the ground to coddle people who are acting like terrorists here in the United States. Yep! Your Nobel Hero in the white house really knows how to make friends at home and abroad.

Looks like the only stupidity here is on your side of the fence.

Tell me... Are your delusions of grandeur contagious? Because it seems to have spread to most of you liberals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttg0zY0PXY8

Damaged Eagle wrote:Bush had bipartisan backing of Congress for the military actions he took which is noticeably lacking with you blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace as he builds bridges understanding between nations with the innocent bodies of his victims.

Aside from the fact that the majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq (link below), on what planet does congressional backing equate to a moral authority?  Is the degree to which something is moral tied to the degree of government backing?  I'm sure that there are some of the most heinous laws imaginable on the books in the middle east, does that make them perfectly OK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

It's almost as if you're an adult with the brainpower of an elementary school child, but somehow even dumber than that.  If I were a school teacher, I could approach a 2nd grader and tell him "From now on, it is OK for you to punch girls in the face.  I give you this ability from hence forth." and I suspect that very few of those 8 year olds would then go on to punch girls in the face.  Why?  Because even an 8-year-old possess at least some innate sense of a moral compass.  Clearly, you would fail such litmus test, so you are forced to live with the idea that if you don't act morally, some sort of demon will torture you for eternity in a pit of fire.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:Explain to me how bombing Libya, who we've had difficulties with for decades, was so important that it had to be done without seeking Congressional approval and thereby killing over 25,000 in a period of about six months all because you Nobel Champion Of Peace had a whim to do so.

I never said that bombing Libya was important.  What I said is that if we take the sum total of all military intervention that has occurred under Obama, that is less than the sum total of all military intervention that has occurred under Bush or that would have occurred under a republican president had Obama not been elected; hence a vote for Obama is a vote for the lesser of two evils with respect to military intervention.  And I base this on the policies and voting records of democrats and republicans over the last few decades.

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:911 = new pearl Harbor
required a LOT more coordination intelligence finance and manpower than any Muslim in a cave could muster...it floors me people still believe the government fairytale.

Me, too.  But I don't need to get my info from Alex Jones.  I can muster my own outrage without having some d-bag screaming at me.

He's got some much better reporters that take his place often that I like better than him

David Knight

Paul Joseph Watson

Lee Ann McAdoo

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate. Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever. If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Bush had bipartisan backing of Congress for the military actions he took which is noticeably lacking with you blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace as he builds bridges understanding between nations with the innocent bodies of his victims.

Aside from the fact that the majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq (link below), on what planet does congressional backing equate to a moral authority?  Is the degree to which something is moral tied to the degree of government backing?  I'm sure that there are some of the most heinous laws imaginable on the books in the middle east, does that make them perfectly OK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

It's almost as if you're an adult with the brainpower of an elementary school child, but somehow even dumber than that.  If I were a school teacher, I could approach a 2nd grader and tell him "From now on, it is OK for you to punch girls in the face.  I give you this ability from hence forth." and I suspect that very few of those 8 year olds would then go on to punch girls in the face.  Why?  Because even an 8-year-old possess at least some innate sense of a moral compass.  Clearly, you would fail such litmus test, so you are forced to live with the idea that if you don't act morally, some sort of demon will torture you for eternity in a pit of fire.

 

I'm pretty sure that it's you that has the brain that become so dense that it's reached maximum entropy. How soon will it be before another ugly demon rears it's ugly head for your Nobel Champion Of Peace to strike off while he kills tens of thousands for your righteous moral compass? I'm sure it'll be the lesser of two evils for you then also since murdering innocents doesn't seem to bother you or your Nobel Hero.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Explain to me how bombing Libya, who we've had difficulties with for decades, was so important that it had to be done without seeking Congressional approval and thereby killing over 25,000 in a period of about six months all because you Nobel Champion Of Peace had a whim to do so.

I never said that bombing Libya was important.  What I said is that if we take the sum total of all military intervention that has occurred under Obama, that is less than the sum total of all military intervention that has occurred under Bush or that would have occurred under a republican president had Obama not been elected;  hence a vote for Obama is a vote for the lesser of two evils with respect to military intervention.  And I base this on the policies and voting records of democrats and republicans over the last few decades.

That's right. Justify the murdering of innocents. Why don't you show us the tally of deaths under Bush's watch and then give us a tally of the deaths under your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace's watch. After all you seem to think Bush's sum total is greater.

Remember that your messiah is still in Afghanistan and that he was in Iraq for three years after Bush left office so any deaths in those countries belong to your hero. After all he came up with doing the surge and such. Then there's his new involvement in Iraq and let's not forget that over 25,000 died in Libya during his six escapade. Then there's Pakistan, Sudan, and...

Yep! Your boy is doing a bang up job of being a great moral compass on how to kill people and he still has two years left to decide which other sovereign nations and wedding parties he can drop bombs on because he has a whim to do it without Congressional approval.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBaTs8bP8C8

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate.  Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever.  If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

That's right run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate.  Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever.  If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

That's right run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

I'm not running away from your argument.  I'm simply acknowledging that it is a waste of time to try and engage someone - in writing - when they clearly struggle with reading comprehension.

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not condone the murder of innocent people.  I have repeatedly given you very basic examples in an attempt to explain this to you as if you're 5.  Somehow this all falls on deaf ears and all you can respond with is "AH!!! OH!!! SO YOU CONDONE MURDER!!!"

As I said before, if you can't read, there is no argument that I can submit to you in writing that will convince you of anything.  It's almost as if you're not reading anything that I'm saying and instead you're just replying to reply.

This back and forth perfectly illustrates that.

boards of FL wrote:You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

boards of FL wrote:Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

boards of FL wrote:The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

boards of FL wrote:If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

boards of FL wrote:Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

boards of FL wrote:Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.

Seems fairly clear what I'm saying here, doesn't it?  In fact, it seems excruciatingly obvious.

But, alas, I'm communicating with the illiterate....

Damaged Eagle wrote:Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

I didn't edit any of that.  That is exactly how stupid you come across on this forum, and that is precisely why most people ignore you.  Oddly enough, you seem to have convinced yourself that it isn't your own incredible incompetence that is to blame for this.  Of course not!  It's actually because you make such cogent arguments!  Cough...bullshit...cough.

Congratulations, Captain Dunning!  You win another one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(exits elevator)

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate.  Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever.  If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

That's right run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

I'm not running away from your argument.  I'm simply acknowledging that it is a waste of time to try and engage someone - in writing - when they clearly struggle with reading comprehension.

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not condone the murder of innocent people.  I have repeatedly given you very basic examples in an attempt to explain this to you as if you're 5.  Somehow this all falls on deaf ears and all you can respond with is "AH!!! OH!!! SO YOU CONDONE MURDER!!!"

As I said before, if you can't read, there is no argument that I can submit to you in writing that will convince you of anything.  It's almost as if you're not reading anything that I'm saying and instead you're just replying to reply.

This back and forth perfectly illustrates that.

My reading comprehension is fine. You're the one that says your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace's policy of bombing innocents whenever he has a whim is the lesser of two evils. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

boards of FL wrote:You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Which means you do condone it.

boards of FL wrote:Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

But it's OK to murder innocents. (See above)

boards of FL wrote:The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

boards of FL wrote:If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Just because you're to good to eat dog food with the rest of us low life's because you think you're superior isn't my fault. I'll quote Richard Widmark here... "When you're really hunger you will eat dog."

boards of FL wrote:Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

So giving the police helicopter drones so they don't have to put boots on the ground will be something you will support in the near future... Teo's going to appreciate that...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t17714p15-folks-murdered-by-police-in-2014-thus-far

boards of FL wrote:Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.

And you've proven that you're more than willing to choose the worst option.

I'm not understanding why you're having so much difficulty comprehending this other than your lack of neurons due to the implosion happening in your head as it reaches maximum entropy.

boards of FL wrote:Seems fairly clear what I'm saying here, doesn't it?  In fact, it seems excruciatingly obvious.

But, alas, I'm communicating with the illiterate....

It's clear now... I'm sorry you're illiterate. Do you need someone to come over and read my replies to you?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

I didn't edit any of that.  That is exactly how stupid you come across on this forum, and that is precisely why most people ignore you.  Oddly enough, you seem to have convinced yourself that it isn't your own incredible incompetence that is to blame for this.  Of course not!  It's actually because you make such cogent arguments!  Cough...bullshit...cough.

Congratulations, Captain Dunning!  You win another one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(exits elevator)

I didn't edit anything either. How's you blood soaked moral compass of compassion coming along as you wade through the blood and gore spilled by your Nobel Hero? Perhaps the two of you can get together later and whine about how the media and posters like me don't understand you and the policies you condone as you build bridges of understanding out of the mutilated bodies you create with your superior gore splattered moral integrity.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGL_ZvT6cA

Boards probably never hear of Sgt York but he used the same BS situation ethics to go from a pacifist to an efficient German killer...


"Alvin: Well I'm as much agin' killin' as ever, sir. But it was this way, Colonel. When I started out, I felt just like you said, but when I hear them machine guns a-goin', and all them fellas are droppin' around me... I figured them guns was killin' hundreds, maybe thousands, and there weren't nothin' anybody could do, but to stop them guns. And that's what I done.
Maj. Buxton: Do you mean to tell me that you did it to save lives?
Alvin: Yes sir, that was why.
Maj. Buxton: [amazed] Well, York, what you've just told me is the most extraordinary thing of all!"


from Sgt York

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate.  Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever.  If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

That's right run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

I'm not running away from your argument.  I'm simply acknowledging that it is a waste of time to try and engage someone - in writing - when they clearly struggle with reading comprehension.

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not condone the murder of innocent people.  I have repeatedly given you very basic examples in an attempt to explain this to you as if you're 5.  Somehow this all falls on deaf ears and all you can respond with is "AH!!! OH!!! SO YOU CONDONE MURDER!!!"

As I said before, if you can't read, there is no argument that I can submit to you in writing that will convince you of anything.  It's almost as if you're not reading anything that I'm saying and instead you're just replying to reply.

This back and forth perfectly illustrates that.

My reading comprehension is fine. You're the one that says your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace's policy of bombing innocents whenever he has a whim is the lesser of two evils. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

boards of FL wrote:You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Which means you do condone it.

boards of FL wrote:Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

But it's OK to murder innocents. (See above)

boards of FL wrote:The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

boards of FL wrote:If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Just because you're to good to eat dog food with the rest of us low life's because you think you're superior isn't my fault. I'll quote Richard Widmark here... "When you're really hunger you will eat dog."

boards of FL wrote:Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

So giving the police helicopter drones so they don't have to put boots on the ground will be something you will support in the near future... Teo's going to appreciate that...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t17714p15-folks-murdered-by-police-in-2014-thus-far

boards of FL wrote:Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.

And you've proven that you're more than willing to choose the worst option.

I'm not understanding why you're having so much difficulty comprehending this other than your lack of neurons due to the implosion happening in your head as it reaches maximum entropy.

boards of FL wrote:Seems fairly clear what I'm saying here, doesn't it?  In fact, it seems excruciatingly obvious.

But, alas, I'm communicating with the illiterate....

It's clear now... I'm sorry you're illiterate. Do you need someone to come over and read my replies to you?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

I didn't edit any of that.  That is exactly how stupid you come across on this forum, and that is precisely why most people ignore you.  Oddly enough, you seem to have convinced yourself that it isn't your own incredible incompetence that is to blame for this.  Of course not!  It's actually because you make such cogent arguments!  Cough...bullshit...cough.

Congratulations, Captain Dunning!  You win another one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(exits elevator)

I didn't edit anything either. How's you blood soaked moral compass of compassion coming along as you wade through the blood and gore spilled by your Nobel Hero? Perhaps the two of you can get together later and whine about how the media and posters like me don't understand you and the policies you condone as you build bridges of understanding out of the mutilated bodies you create with your superior gore splattered moral integrity.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGL_ZvT6cA

All you did is isolate each quote and then either misinterpret it or respond to a straw man.  At no point in any of the above are you directly responding to anything I have said.  Simply using the quote feature and then adding text after it does not mean that you are directly responding.

This level of inanity is breathtaking.

Watch...

Damaged Eagle wrote:How's you blood soaked moral compass of compassion coming along as you wade through the blood and gore spilled by your Nobel Hero?

Ah ha!  So you admit that you want to see communists take over the entire world!   Oh my!  How hypocritical of you!  Perhaps you can enlighten us with why it is that you so love communist dictators!?!?  

Stupid chuckle

Boards just loves the smell of napalm...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w

Makes ya just wanta enlist and go kill krauts

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think your moral code is superior to someone else's?

Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

No yours just condones the butchering of tens of thousands because your Nobel Champion Of Peace decides he can bomb a sovereign nation at a whim without Congressional approval or savage peaceful gatherings with his drones on foreign soil to get that one suspected terrorist that he doesn't like.

No, it doesn't.  You're simply not smart enough to wrap your head around the concept of the lesser of two evils.

The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

With all that said, feel free to completely misunderstand all of this and tell me that I condone the butchering of children, torture, etc...

If you really believe your own bullshit then why didn't you demand that the president use drone strikes on the looters in Ferguson?

Why would I?  What is it that you're reading that would lead you to such an off-the-wall conclusion?  I explained it to you as if you were five, and yet...

This comment is so incredibly stupid that I'm not even sure as to how to respond other than to say, "Because I think that would be a very bad idea and it doesn't fit with my worldview in any way, shape, or form."

Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

You are seriously illiterate.  Absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever.  If you aren't capable of reading and comprehending what I'm saying, there is essentially no argument that I can present to you in writing that could convince you of anything, so I'll bow out at this point.


As I have said before...

boards of FL wrote:I think you tend to get ignored because you struggle to stay on topic or directly respond to anything.

I could say something like "I agree with Obama's immigration policy" and your response would be "OH!!!! OH!!!!! SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATORS TORTURED AND MURDERED!!!!! RIGHT??!?!?! HUH?!!?!?"

Watch, you're about to do it right now.

That's right run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

I'm not running away from your argument.  I'm simply acknowledging that it is a waste of time to try and engage someone - in writing - when they clearly struggle with reading comprehension.

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not condone the murder of innocent people.  I have repeatedly given you very basic examples in an attempt to explain this to you as if you're 5.  Somehow this all falls on deaf ears and all you can respond with is "AH!!! OH!!! SO YOU CONDONE MURDER!!!"

As I said before, if you can't read, there is no argument that I can submit to you in writing that will convince you of anything.  It's almost as if you're not reading anything that I'm saying and instead you're just replying to reply.

This back and forth perfectly illustrates that.

My reading comprehension is fine. You're the one that says your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace's policy of bombing innocents whenever he has a whim is the lesser of two evils. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

boards of FL wrote:You're still not grasping the concept of lesser of two evils.  We're either going to get drone strikes or costly, large-scale occupations.  If I'm free to do whatever I want, I'm not broadly in favor of either of these options;  but if I'm constrained to select one or the other, I'll take the drone strikes.

Which means you do condone it.

boards of FL wrote:Well, my moral code doesn't condone the act of torturing human beings; hence my moral code is superior to anyone else's that does condone the act of torturing human beings.

But it's OK to murder innocents. (See above)

boards of FL wrote:The train operator - from my hypothetical question - who directs the train to the right, which results in the death of 10 people versus the death of 100 people doesn't condone the death of 10 people.  That train operator merely sought to use his influence to minimize an inevitable negative outcome.

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

boards of FL wrote:If I'm on a long flight that offers three meals - filet mignon, circus peanuts, or dog food - and if by the time the steward reaches me they are out of filet mignon which causes me to select circus peanuts, that doesn't mean that I condone eating circus peanuts for dinner.  It is an example of me opting for the lesser of two evils - circus peanuts or dog food.

Just because you're to good to eat dog food with the rest of us low life's because you think you're superior isn't my fault. I'll quote Richard Widmark here... "When you're really hunger you will eat dog."

boards of FL wrote:Applying this painfully clear logic to this thread:  If I have to select between the democratic foreign policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted drone strikes or the republican policy of full on occupation of countries that run into the trillions (and, torture, apparently), I'll take the democratic foreign policy.  That doesn't mean that I condone the democratic foreign policy.  It just means that I see that the republican policy is worse so I'll seek to avoid that.

So giving the police helicopter drones so they don't have to put boots on the ground will be something you will support in the near future... Teo's going to appreciate that...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t17714p15-folks-murdered-by-police-in-2014-thus-far

boards of FL wrote:Someone who is forced to select between two clearly bad options is not necessarily condoning either option.  They are selecting the lesser of two evils.

And you've proven that you're more than willing to choose the worst option.

I'm not understanding why you're having so much difficulty comprehending this other than your lack of neurons due to the implosion happening in your head as it reaches maximum entropy.

boards of FL wrote:Seems fairly clear what I'm saying here, doesn't it?  In fact, it seems excruciatingly obvious.

But, alas, I'm communicating with the illiterate....

It's clear now... I'm sorry you're illiterate. Do you need someone to come over and read my replies to you?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Yet you're perfectly willing to condone such drone strikes on wedding parties and other peaceful activities to take out one or two suspected terrorists overseas and have been consist so far in saying it's the lesser of two evils.

I didn't edit any of that.  That is exactly how stupid you come across on this forum, and that is precisely why most people ignore you.  Oddly enough, you seem to have convinced yourself that it isn't your own incredible incompetence that is to blame for this.  Of course not!  It's actually because you make such cogent arguments!  Cough...bullshit...cough.

Congratulations, Captain Dunning!  You win another one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(exits elevator)

I didn't edit anything either. How's you blood soaked moral compass of compassion coming along as you wade through the blood and gore spilled by your Nobel Hero? Perhaps the two of you can get together later and whine about how the media and posters like me don't understand you and the policies you condone as you build bridges of understanding out of the mutilated bodies you create with your superior gore splattered moral integrity.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGL_ZvT6cA

All you did is isolate each quote and then either misinterpret it or respond to a straw man.  At no point in any of the above are you directly responding to anything I have said.  Simply using the quote feature and then adding text after it does not mean that you are directly responding.

This level of inanity is breathtaking.

Watch...

I didn't isolate any of your quotes. You did that all on your own.

You're beginning to sound like your whiner-in-chief and how he feels about the media.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:How's you blood soaked moral compass of compassion coming along as you wade through the blood and gore spilled by your Nobel Hero?

Ah ha!  So you admit that you want to see communists take over the entire world!   Oh my!  How hypocritical of you!  Perhaps you can enlighten us with why it is that you so love communist dictators!?!?  

Stupid chuckle

So now you're going to do what you accuse me of. The density must be getting pretty tight in there... Are you going to go nova or simply become a black hole when the implosion happens? Did you know that neutrino's can't pass through neutronium..... That might explain what's happening here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2MB14JTSM

Damaged Eagle wrote:So now you're going to do what you accuse me of. The density must be getting pretty tight in there... Are you going to go nova or simply become a black hole when the implosion happens? Did you know that neutrino's can't pass through neutronium..... That might explain what's happening here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2MB14JTSM

Oh!  Oh!  Look, everyone!  I knew it!  He finally admits that he is a southern dixiecrat who wants to oppress other races!  At last!  Oh the humanity!  You just can't make this stuff up!

****FARTS***

B=====D  ~  ~  ~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxdmw4tJJ1Y

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So now you're going to do what you accuse me of. The density must be getting pretty tight in there... Are you going to go nova or simply become a black hole when the implosion happens? Did you know that neutrino's can't pass through neutronium..... That might explain what's happening here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2MB14JTSM

Oh!  Oh!  Look, everyone!  I knew it!  He finally admits that he is a southern dixiecrat who wants to oppress other races!  At last!  Oh the humanity!  You just can't make this stuff up!

****FARTS***

B=====D  ~  ~  ~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxdmw4tJJ1Y

And there he goes!

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtvuYAvRqUI



By the way you missed my first reply to your other comment in that post. But then I realize you like to selectively edit things in a pathetic attempt to make yourself look good. We all know how you and your blood soaked Nobel Hero don't like being cast in a negative way.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzJNYYkkhzc