Iran War?

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
571
Reaction score
451
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
Bush II, not so much.

Should have remembered Bush I, tremendous service.
Everyone else before my time, but thank you for correcting this.

Soooooo, you are saying Obama has a double set of large, titanium, diamond coated balls then 🤣
Nah. Unless service in the 'hood in Chitown counts. LOL.
 

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,060
Reaction score
621
Country
llUnited States
REALLY?!?!?!
I have heard him on TV/radio lately saying he wants the Senate trial "tomorrow".
His approval numbers have done nothing but gone up since the impeachment started.



QUOTE="Gunner Scott, post: 2002689, member: 10375"]
The orange turd is just trying to distract from impeachment. It is unfortunate all republicans fear cadet bonespures. Hopefully the Iranians will hit all of trumps assets and not the American people.
[/QUOTE]
 

Gunner Scott

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
1,728
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Watching too much Fox News huh Chas?

REALLY?!?!?!
I have heard him on TV/radio lately saying he wants the Senate trial "tomorrow".
His approval numbers have done nothing but gone up since the impeachment started.



QUOTE="Gunner Scott, post: 2002689, member: 10375"]
The orange turd is just trying to distract from impeachment. It is unfortunate all republicans fear cadet bonespures. Hopefully the Iranians will hit all of trumps assets and not the American people.
[/QUOTE]
 

Capt. Batguano

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
311
Reaction score
267
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Country
llCanada
Okay well thanks for the link but I'm not seeing any Russian planes reported destroyed there. Syrian ones, not Russian ones. The thing that sticks out for me with that strike was this, "The U.S. military stated it communicated with the Russian military to minimize any chance of Russian casualties. "

Then there is a report of 4 Russian ground casualties. No biggie though, your point is understood but not entirely compelling to me.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,080
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Well that statement is either a wise and sincere appraisal or a total crock of shit. I won't know until I see what party you're registered with.
Party shouldn't matter. When we cheer our own side for the shit we bitch about the other side doing, we the electorate don't stand for anything. It doesn't matter what our team says or does because we're fans and sycophants. We hate it when Donald exercises Executive Authority but cheer when President Obama does it. We hate when President Obama conducts targeted strikes but cheer when Ooompa Loompa does it. It's no wonder we get the shit we do. We don't stand for a fucking thing except party. And as such, the parties can do whatever they want and get away with it because we the sycophants only hold the other party accountable. -- jim

PS: I am a registered Republican but I have not voted Republican since Cheeto's ascendancy. As a President, I don't know if he has been good or bad. IMO, the Republic will take more than one asshat to tumble. We have survived far worse. As a human being, I find asshat to be despicable, misogynistic, xenophobe, racists, lying jackwagon. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire unless I was able to somehow piss gasoline. Not that party should have anything to do with it. Labels are just a shortcut to avoid critical thinking. That's why poles are failing us. I recommend a read of Cambridge Analytica. I am only about 50 pages into it and it is pretty eye-opening.
 

Morbii

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
502
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
Hopefully the Iranians will hit all of trumps assets and not the American people.
I brought this idea up up thread, and personally I hope it’s what happens (even though it probably won’t).

If they could go after his assets with no loss of life, I’d actually cheer them on for it. It’d be like a double win: we finally got the general (oh, nevermind, he’s already been replaced by a clone), and the grifter finally gets punished because he can’t sue, lie, and screw over people to get out of it.

I also can’t imagine it would do anything to unify us. Especially if they just wait out his presidency first.
 

Gunner Scott

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
1,728
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
I think many country's are waiting out cadet bonespures term. And thanks too the republicans being a bunch of spineless jellyfish, they are going to get voted out the senate. Sure there are stupid people that vote for republicans but I think the majority of Americans are smarter then those few idiots. Especially if your in the military or law enforcement or support those guys, you wont vote republican since they abandoned them.

I brought this idea up up thread, and personally I hope it’s what happens (even though it probably won’t).

If they could go after his assets with no loss of life, I’d actually cheer them on for it. It’d be like a double win: we finally got the general (oh, nevermind, he’s already been replaced by a clone), and the grifter finally gets punished because he can’t sue, lie, and screw over people to get out of it.

I also can’t imagine it would do anything to unify us. Especially if they just wait out his presidency first.
 

Morbii

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
502
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
This could easily be flipped and that's the problem. We see the world through politically shaded glasses. -- jim
This post is based on the argument that "both sides do it".

The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure - it's too simplistic, I think. And I'm not talking about how it can be twisted into a tu quoque argument, which I know you weren't making. Further, this argument is so often taken to an extreme ("DEMOCRATS WERE RACIST IN 1830!"), that I think the merit of it has to be questioned if left without boundaries. It's also way too often used as a deflection.

The weakest rebuttal I think I can come up with is that people do change their minds. But I know you weren't focused on this either, it isn't the whole of it, and probably not the majority, so I'll move on from it.

Next, if you're talking to voters who weren't around to vote at the time, or were on the other "side" at the time, what's the point? Sure, you can "warn" young voters, but if they already think the one side is doing wrong, I don't know what the warning would be about. I guess it's just tricky. You probably could use this argument within a generation, but can it really be used against younger generations for their criticisms?



So, we come to the most important thing I've been considering, which is that I don't think the argument considers the reasons for the action. For example, exploding the deficit. Surely one can criticize the deficit explosion based on why, not just on that it happened. Between Obama, Bush II, and Trump exploding the deficit, there are pretty much 2 1/2 reasons. You may not agree with the reasons why each did it, but to say "they exploded it too" is far too simplistic, IMO. That's just an example.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,080
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
This post is based on the argument that "both sides do it".

The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure - it's too simplistic, I think. And I'm not talking about how it can be twisted into a tu quoque argument, which I know you weren't making. Further, this argument is so often taken to an extreme ("DEMOCRATS WERE RACIST IN 1830!"), that I think the merit of it has to be questioned if left without boundaries. It's also way too often used as a deflection.

The weakest rebuttal I think I can come up with is that people do change their minds. But I know you weren't focused on this either, it isn't the whole of it, and probably not the majority, so I'll move on from it.

Next, if you're talking to voters who weren't around to vote at the time, or were on the other "side" at the time, what's the point? Sure, you can "warn" young voters, but if they already think the one side is doing wrong, I don't know what the warning would be about. I guess it's just tricky. You probably could use this argument within a generation, but can it really be used against younger generations for their criticisms?

So, we come to the most important thing I've been considering, which is that I don't think the argument considers the reasons for the action. For example, exploding the deficit. Surely one can criticize the deficit explosion based on why, not just on that it happened. Between Obama, Bush II, and Trump exploding the deficit, there are pretty much 2 1/2 reasons. You may not agree with the reasons why each did it, but to say "they exploded it too" is far too simplistic, IMO. That's just an example.
All of this boils down to "the ends justify the means" or "it's OK as long as I agree with it" which is EXACTLY the point I was making. If you're going to rationalize it with a "why" and then dismiss your objections, the other side can too and here we are. Either it's a firmly held belief or it's a negotiating point. I warned people when President Obama was ruling by Executive Order that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and everyone was like "it's OK. Fuck Congress. We agree with where he is going". Now, you don't agree with Cheeto's direction and you're like "OMG!!!! Executive Orders are the devil!!!" -- jim
 
Top