If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Senate resolution for WW3 includes boots on the ground. So much for just a few missile strikes   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, President Obama, boots on the ground, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Syrians, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen, Senate resolution, Gulf of Tonkin  
•       •       •

9770 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 4:14 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 08:38:40 PM

Kit Fister: I am judging this situation based on the facts I have, and I don't think this war is a good idea. I fear another Iraq. I fear a world where we are always at war.


Wait, what?  I'm only 34, but for as long as I've been alive, we've been "at war". (as much as we've been since WWII)  Hell, even before I was born, we were "at war" for several decades.

Know what the difference is today?  The Internet.  We know about it.  We know about everything going on.  We don't necessarily have all the facts, or detailed insights, but we know when we're mobilized.  That's literally the only thing that's changed.  We've been firing rounds, deploying troops, burning missiles and rolling mechanized infantry constantly.  I grew up military, so every now and again I'd see entire units truck off for their rotation.  Some people didn't come home.  It was just the way things were.

We haven't had a formal declaration of War since WWII, but we sure as hell have been actively hostile every year since then.  They just haven't all been high-profile.
 
2013-09-04 08:40:07 PM

Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.


You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.
 
2013-09-04 08:48:24 PM

Kit Fister: I am judging this situation based on the facts I have, and I don't think this war is a good idea. I fear another Iraq. I fear a world where we are always at war.


I'm saying your fear of another Iraq is completely misguided. Bush and co wanted a massive invasion, with ground forces, lots of shiny tanks and whatnot, and a pretty loose and badly defined objective. It wasn't a secret.

Obama wants a very limited, narrowly tailored, and closely targeted approach to Syria with a specific, limited strategic objective: Weakening Assad, but not enough to remove him, while sending a strong message to the rest of the world that international prohibitions on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons do mean something. He knows how he wants to achieve that objective, and it doesn't involve ground forces. The exact strategic details aren't public, but they were explained in depth to the Senate Foreign Relations committee this afternoon, and on a bipartisan vote, they found it to be a reasonable approach, though some (McCain) didn't think it was strong enough.

It's good to fear another Iraq. Iraq was bad. But the facts in Syria are absolutely nothing like those in Iraq, and the political dynamic, both from the administration and from Congress, is similarly absolutely nothing like that in the leadup to Iraq.


Radioactive Ass: cptjeff: So France, with one of the largest militaries and defense industries in the world, doesn't count?

Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. It's complicated, and nobody would blame you.

France has not committed itself to anything yet. Sure PM Ayrault wants to help but it is expected that his Parliament will vote no. Why don't you "Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about ".

2 days ago is what you are thinking, here's something from 5 hours ago. Read the last line.


Hollande (who has far more power than the PM- the French PM is a nobody) supports action, and doesn't need Parliamentary approval to take it- the French Presidency is incredibly powerful. Thank Charles De Gaulle. He has signaled that he's waiting on the US's decision though- he's going to be more bound to the squabbling of our Congress than his Parliament. And the last line of your article say that the National Assembly isn't expected to actually vote- which leaves the choice solely in the hands of... Hollande, who's ready to start lobbing missiles as soon as the US says go.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:01 PM
Just before Dumbya bullshiatted us into Iraq, I asked why. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was privy to some information which made it clear that there was a damned good reason to invade Iraq, and asked him to explain it. Give the American people a good reason to invade another country- a country which didn't really have the ability to attack us.

We never got a good reason. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead  US and "coalition" troops later, we've accomplished nothing useful. Saddam got sent to the big rape room in the sky, but that wasn't worth the life of anyone, let alone the boxcar-loads of bodies created by our invasion and subsequent occupation.

Now we're being told that it's a moral imperative to "punish" Syria for their use of chemical weapons. Let's try a thought experiment: replace Syria with Russia or China. Would we still feel the need to send our military to punish those who used chemical weapons if it was a different country doing it? If the answer is "no", then we shouldn't be doing so with Syria. There is no way this could end up being beneficial to the United States. The best case scenario is basically hoping that the people who eventually throw Assad out the window aren't too horrible.

So again I ask, "Mr. President, will you please explain the reason why we, the People, need to send our sons and daughters into harm's way and kill a bunch of people we don't know halfway around the world?"

We need to ask the same question of all our elected representatives. Now.
 
2013-09-04 09:09:40 PM

cptjeff: Obama wants a very limited, narrowly tailored, and closely targeted approach to Syria with a specific, limited strategic objective: Weakening Assad, but not enough to remove him, while sending a strong message to the rest of the world that international prohibitions on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons do mean something. He knows how he wants to achieve that objective, and it doesn't involve ground forces.


What they would like to happen (right people die, message heard and heeded round the world) may not match the actual outcome.  It is also not far-fetched to suppose that they welcome some fresh conflict to rally people behind the President, remind everyone that we need to be afraid, terribly afraid of the bad people in the world, and that living in a glass box is a small price to pay for the safety of the homeland.  It's for the children, really.
 
2013-09-04 09:13:52 PM

Snarfangel: HotIgneous Intruder: If Obama bombs Assad's forces, won't he be guilty of giving aid and support to terrorists?

FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Also, Reagan.


Also, Carter.
 
2013-09-04 10:17:18 PM
No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve: ask for
me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I
am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o'
both your houses!...
 
2013-09-04 10:28:59 PM

Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.


France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.
 
2013-09-04 10:31:01 PM

Kit Fister: vygramul: Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.

It's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

No, I believe he wants it to be that simple. But I don't believe Assad is going to let it be that simple and I believe we may very well get sucked into something worse.


Assad can't do anything to MAKE us do anything.
 
2013-09-04 10:39:42 PM
You can put your boots on my ground any time, soldier, if you know what I mean.

And I think that you do. Come bomb me, baby.
 
2013-09-04 10:47:21 PM
Wow, not very peaceful.

mycatbirdseat.com
 
2013-09-04 10:54:27 PM

Wenchmaster: Just before Dumbya bullshiatted us into Iraq, I asked why. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was privy to some information which made it clear that there was a damned good reason to invade Iraq, and asked him to explain it. Give the American people a good reason to invade another country- a country which didn't really have the ability to attack us.

We never got a good reason. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead US and "coalition" troops later, we've accomplished nothing useful. Saddam got sent to the big rape room in the sky, but that wasn't worth the life of anyone, let alone the boxcar-loads of bodies created by our invasion and subsequent occupation.


I think the neo-con chickenhawks would say it was worth it.  The US told the world that they could remove any country's leader if the US chose to.
 
2013-09-04 10:58:45 PM

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


Yeah, why should we demand Congressional approval to commit what amounts to an act of war? Especially with Iran threatening to retaliate.
 
2013-09-04 11:47:18 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.

You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.


They were worse.
 
2013-09-05 12:19:18 AM

soporific: Smeggy Smurf: Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.

You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.

They were worse.


RON PAUL!
 
2013-09-05 12:27:35 AM
 
2013-09-05 12:30:48 AM
Always a whore, never a man ...

christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-05 12:47:24 AM

Radioactive Ass: PsiChick: Yes, how can we think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.

Clearly you are a racist or something...

/what? That's been the standard retort for anyone who has opposed Obama in the past


Typically because there's been no logical reason to oppose Obama, and odd, isn't it, how the right wing is suddenly kowtowing to a group with the most racist protests this side of the KKK...

/Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.
 
2013-09-05 12:51:36 AM

cptjeff: PsiChick: RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)

Yes, how can we  think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.

We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.


...Once again, I would like to note the age gap for those who started politics pre- or post-Bush era. For post-Bush era folks like me, we look at this and think you're utterly adorable, but maybe we should tighten your helmet so it doesn't fall off, and find your caretaker.

/I mean, I hope you're right, but day-um, I feel like I got cheated out of the ability to trust my elected officials here.
 
2013-09-05 01:28:46 AM
Fake outrage is fake. We are going to just throw some missiles at them so they can have peace. It will be awesome.
 
2013-09-05 01:29:30 AM

PsiChick: /Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.


I respect your opinion but no, it's playing the race card when no such claim has been made by the person that it's directed at, their only transgression was criticism of Obama. I've had it directed at me and I gave him money and voted for him in his first campaign. Some people get their -cisms mixed up.

I'm not saying nor implying that there aren't people out there whose main issue is that he's black. I'm saying that there is a problem with people assuming that because he's black that that is the sole reason for the criticism without examining why that criticism is there in the first place. A lot of the same political and personal complaints from the right today about Obama mirror some of the ones about Clinton (pecker jokes aside) in the 90's. That's ideological and not personal and is testable by simply reading news and opinion pieces from back then. Clinton's haircut comes to mind. "Regal president", "Uncaring of the middle class trapped in airplanes" and so on were some of the criticisms being flung around. Does that sound familiar in today's political environment? No racism then, no racism now. Ideological differences across the board and a dislike for the mans politics in general. the same went for Bush I might add.

Now you may disagree with these particular observations of mine but I hold that until someone can actually be proven to have a racial bias then they shouldn't be accused of it right out of the gate. When it is used as cover from having to actually defend their positions ideologically, who is the actual racist? I think that it's the person playing the race card as a method of deflecting a debate over ideological differences when they have no other way to defend their own choices that will appeal to someone outside of their ideology. If they could they would.
 
2013-09-05 01:30:43 AM

muck4doo: Fake outrage is fake. We are going to just throw some missiles at them so they can have peace. It will be awesome.


So we will peace the everloving shiat out of them? Sounds legit...
 
2013-09-05 02:55:19 AM

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.


Um...The Special Forces are "advisors".  That's their gig. It's what they do.
The first U.S. Special Forces operations in Vietnam were in 1957, when soldiers from the 1st Special Forces Group trained fifty eight Vietnamese Army soldiers at the Commando Training Center in Nha Trang.
 
2013-09-05 03:12:00 AM

The Southern Dandy: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

Um...The Special Forces are "advisors".  That's their gig. It's what they do.
The first U.S. Special Forces operations in Vietnam were in 1957, when soldiers from the 1st Special Forces Group trained fifty eight Vietnamese Army soldiers at the Commando Training Center in Nha Trang.


Imagine how the US would react to foreign special forces "advisers" training Al Qeada in 2000.

Yeah, thats probably what the North Vietcong thought about it too.

Well.....at least we stopped the spread of communism and brought Democracy to the world.  And all for the measly price of nearly 60,000 of our soldiers.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:25 AM

vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.


Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.
 
2013-09-05 10:08:31 AM

vudukungfu: Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Forgot basic war winning theory-a
Way down yonder in Syria
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I ain't got no fear of ya,
Next stop is Syria;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of it's trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Arab-cong.

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.


I don't know how you ever expect to stop the war if you can't sing any better than that.
 
2013-09-05 10:18:04 AM

wasteofspace: vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.

Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.


Only if I get to fly a fighter jet, but sure: let's go!

/actually, no.
//non-interventionist
///would still like to fly an F-16.
 
2013-09-05 10:38:05 AM
Call your reps.
They had people answering the phones at mine because so many people were calling to oppose attacking Syria.
Maybe I'm delusional but if it were MY job and I was getting hundreds of calls a day telling me this vote was pivotal in my re-election I would at least consider it.

Mark Begich DEM AK (202) 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski REP AK (202) 224-6665
Jeff Sessions REP AL (202) 224-4124
Richard Shelby REP AL (202) 224-5744
Mark Pryor DEM AR (202) 224-2353
John Boozman REP AR (202) 224-4843
Jeff Flake REP AZ (202) 224-4521
John McCain REP AZ (202) 224-2235
Dianne Feinstein DEM CA (202) 224-3841
Barbara Boxer DEM CA (202) 224-3553
Mark Udall DEM CO (202) 224-5941
Michael Bennet DEM CO (202) 224-5852
Christopher Murphy DEM CT (202) 224-4041
Richard Blumenthal DEM CT (202) 224-2823
Thomas Carper DEM DE (202) 224-2441
Chris Coons DEM DE (202) 224-5042
Bill Nelson DEM FL (202) 224-5274
Marco Rubio REP FL (202) 224-3041
Saxby Chambliss REP GA (202) 224-3521
Johnny Isakson REP GA (202) 224-3643
Mazie Hirono DEM HI (202) 224-6361
Brian Schatz DEM HI (202) 224-3934
Tom Harkin DEM IA (202) 224-3254
Charles Grassley REP IA (202) 224-3744
Jim Risch REP ID (202) 224-2752
Michael Crapo REP ID (202) 224-6142
Richard Durbin DEM IL (202) 224-2152
Mark Kirk REP IL (202) 224-2854
Joe Donnelly DEM IN (202) 224-4814
Dan Coats REP IN (202) 224-5623
Pat Roberts REP KS (202) 224-4774
Jerry Moran REP KS (202) 224-6521
Mitch McConnell REP KY (202) 224-2541
Rand Paul REP KY (202) 224-4343
Mary Landrieu DEM LA (202) 224-5824
David Vitter REP LA (202) 224-4623
Elizabeth Warren DEM MA (202) 224-4543
Edward Markey DEM MA (202) 224-2742
Benjamin Cardin DEM MD (202) 224-4524
Barbara Mikulski DEM MD (202) 224-4654
Angus King IND ME (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins REP ME (202) 224-2523
Debbie Stabenow DEM MI (202) 224-4822
Carl Levin DEM MI (202) 224-6221
Amy Klobuchar DEM MN (202) 224-3244
Al Franken DEM MN (202) 224-5641
Claire McCaskill DEM MO (202) 224-6154
Roy Blunt REP MO (202) 224-5721
Roger Wicker REP MS (202) 224-6253
Thad Cochran REP MS (202) 224-5054
Jon Tester DEM MT (202) 224-2644
Max Baucus DEM MT (202) 224-2651
Kay Hagan DEM NC (202) 224-6342
Richard Burr REP NC (202) 224-3154
Heidi Heitkamp DEM ND (202) 224-2043
John Hoeven REP ND (202) 224-2551
Deb Fischer REP NE (202) 224-6551
Mike Johanns REP NE (202) 224-4224
Jeanne Shaheen DEM NH (202) 224-2841
Kelly Ayotte REP NH (202) 224-3324
Robert Menendez DEM NJ (202) 224-4744
Jeff Chiesa REP NJ (202) 224-3224
Martin Heinrich DEM NM (202) 224-5521
Tom Udall DEM NM (202) 224-6621
Dean Heller REP NV (202) 224-6244
Harry Reid DEM NV (202) 224-3542
Kirsten Gillibrand DEM NY (202) 224-4451
Charles Schumer DEM NY (202) 224-6542
Sherrod Brown DEM OH (202) 224-2315
Rob Portman REP OH (202) 224-3353
James Inhofe REP OK (202) 224-4721
Tom Coburn REP OK (202) 224-5754
Jeff Merkley DEM OR (202) 224-3753
Ron Wyden DEM OR (202) 224-5244
Bob Casey DEM PA (202) 224-6324
Patrick Toomey REP PA (202) 224-4254
Sheldon Whitehouse DEM RI (202) 224-2921
Jack Reed DEM RI (202) 224-4642
Lindsey Graham REP SC (202) 224-5972
Tim Scott REP SC (202) 224-6121
Tim Johnson DEM SD (202) 224-5842
John Thune REP SD (202) 224-2321
Bob Corker REP TN (202) 224-3344
Lamar Alexander REP TN (202) 224-4944
Ted Cruz REP TX (202) 224-5922
John Cornyn REP TX (202) 224-2934
Orrin Hatch REP UT (202) 224-5251
Mike Lee REP UT (202) 224-5444
Tim Kaine DEM VA (202) 224-4024
Mark Warner DEM VA (202) 224-2023
Bernard Sanders IND VT (202) 224-5141
Patrick Leahy DEM VT (202) 224-4242
Maria Cantwell DEM WA (202) 224-3441
Patty Murray DEM WA (202) 224-2621
Tammy Baldwin DEM WI (202) 224-5653
Ron Johnson REP WI (202) 224-5323
Joe Manchin DEM WV (202) 224-3954
Jay Rockefeller DEM WV (202) 224-6472
John Barrasso REP WY (202) 224-6441
Michael Enzi REP WY (202) 224-3424
 
2013-09-05 10:41:13 AM

wasteofspace: vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.

Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.


So: got nuthin', eh?
 
2013-09-05 01:00:46 PM

Radioactive Ass: PsiChick: /Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.

I respect your opinion but no, it's playing the race card when no such claim has been made by the person that it's directed at, their only transgression was criticism of Obama. I've had it directed at me and I gave him money and voted for him in his first campaign. Some people get their -cisms mixed up.

I'm not saying nor implying that there aren't people out there whose main issue is that he's black. I'm saying that there is a problem with people assuming that because he's black that that is the sole reason for the criticism without examining why that criticism is there in the first place. A lot of the same political and personal complaints from the right today about Obama mirror some of the ones about Clinton (pecker jokes aside) in the 90's. That's ideological and not personal and is testable by simply reading news and opinion pieces from back then. Clinton's haircut comes to mind. "Regal president", "Uncaring of the middle class trapped in airplanes" and so on were some of the criticisms being flung around. Does that sound familiar in today's political environment? No racism then, no racism now. Ideological differences across the board and a dislike for the mans politics in general. the same went for Bush I might add.

Now you may disagree with these particular observations of mine but I hold that until someone can actually be proven to have a racial bias then they shouldn't be accused of it right out of the gate. When it is used as cover from having to actually defend their positions ideologically, who is the actual racist? I think that it's the person playing the race card as a method of deflecting a debate over ideological differences when they have no other way to defend their own choices that will appeal to someone outside of their ideology. If they could they would.


...Except that most of the GOP isn't criticizing him. They're just insulting him. Their attacks have no basis in reality (such as Pat Buchannan calling Obama 'untutored' in his article, or claiming he's a socalist, or this whole 'birther' movement). The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

Sure, maybe you personally were insulted by idiots. Doesn't mean the vast majority of the criticism isn't actual, legitimate criticism, not an insult.
 
2013-09-05 01:07:22 PM

PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.


What would that be?
 
2013-09-05 01:18:48 PM

Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?


...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.
 
2013-09-05 03:40:27 PM
We do get fooled again.
 
2013-09-05 05:15:11 PM

Frederick: North Vietcong


Never mind.  You're rolling.
 
2013-09-05 05:36:01 PM

PsiChick: Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?

...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.


The use of "apparently" shows that your logic is circular.  This is the second time I've noticed you doing that.  You might want to curb it if you want to bear public influence through this forum.  Then again, that's not why I'm here, and I don't assume it's your goal, either.  :)
 
2013-09-05 05:36:39 PM
Please excuse me. I meant reasoning, not logic.
 
2013-09-05 06:59:01 PM

Wangiss: PsiChick: Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?

...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.

The use of "apparently" shows that your logic is circular.  This is the second time I've noticed you doing that.  You might want to curb it if you want to bear public influence through this forum.  Then again, that's not why I'm here, and I don't assume it's your goal, either.  :)


'Apparently' was meant to indicate irritation with the world, like when you tell a problem child, 'apparently, you can't handle not getting arrested for smarting off to cops, so from now on you're driving with an adult present'. Not circular logic. :p
 
Displayed 37 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report