Originally Posted by princeofcats67

What are you even talking about, Eric?

No, Eric. You'll have to ask him why he didn't send in the SEALs in 1998.
He's already stated that he didn't call for an airstrike because he wanted
to avoid civilian casualties.

You lost me there. Air strikes is exactly what Clinton did in august 1998 in response to Al Qaeda's actions then.

Resolution 1441. Research it.

I've never said I agreed with it. I have said that I understood why
some people could believe Iraq 2.0 was necessary. That's all.

Not quite all. Then you voted for Bush, because the Democrats were criticizing his war policy; according to you. Probably for other reasons as well. You can "understand why some people believe Iraq 2.0 was necessary" and still understand that they were wrong; which they were for the reasons I stated. Clearly and easily comprehended by you.

Whatever. Not interested enough to respond to what you believe 'should' happen.

I was responding to what I perceive that you "believe should happen," or at least what supporters of the war believed "should" happen.

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion, My Liege!

Anyway, the authors were Prophet-Boomers. You're a Prophet-Boomer. I'm a Nomad-Xer.
I'm what he's being described as, and I'm telling you he's not anything like me or very few
people that are from my generation, in my experience. I concede that he's in the middle.
But, he's more characteristic of the Prophet Archetype than the Nomad Archetype, IMO.

You are welcome to your opinion. I could gladly claim him as one of my own. I think the variety of opinions here on this give some evidence that he's a hybrid/cusper.

I'll say this much. I do believe President Obama lost the Peace in Iraq.
(It's only an opinion. I fully understand others may dis-agree.)

Others would disagree because your opinion is clearly in error.

But, I'm not that critical because all this crap isn't what he wanted.
An economic crisis. Wars overseas. Not in his wheelhouse.

But that's the way being a leader works.
You've got to deal with the issues and environment that's dealt to you.

I actually kinda feel bad for the guy, in a way.

All that's true (or I agree). I feel badly that he got so little support from the people who elected him. The least they could do was to let him keep a congress he could work with. But they stayed home or strayed from the course. Americans; whatever indeed.

Good debate. Um, .... yeah, Eric. Whatever.

Anyway, I'm starting to get verwy .... verwy, .... ver ... wy .... swee .... pyyyyyy ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Yeah, those of you who are not awake to what's happening, kinda prefer it that way. Americans. What can you expect of an asleep and deceived people

Like I already said, you lack 'critical thinking' skills.

Prove it.

(... and have a problem with reading comprehension! )


Prince

PS: I'm not interested in attempting to re-litigate any of this.

But you are interested nevertheless in holding on to your opinion, no matter what the facts are, and continuing to vote for Bush and his ilk on that basis (again, according to you) lol :lol:

If you don't want to engage in critical thinking, and just hold on to discredited opinions, or just go to sleep and not read, why bother voting at all? You might consider this. Just stay home and say, "whatever!" and "Anyway, I'm starting to get verwy .... verwy, .... ver ... wy .... swee .... pyyyyyy ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You lost me there. Air strikes is exactly what Clinton did in august 1998 in response to Al Qaeda's actions then.

Aggh! Against OBL, Eric.

President Clinton didn't call for an airstrike against OBL.
Besides, 9-11 hadn't occurred yet. Had 9-11 occurred,
and Bill Clinton was president in 2011 when OBL's location
was discovered, I believe it's reasonable to believe he would've
sent in the SEALs(or maybe even called in an airstrike).

No one knows. No one will ever know(unless someone asks him).
Until that happens, this is all just meaningless speculation.

To say that President Clinton or President Bush wouldn't have done the
same thing, the same way as President Obama, in 2011, is meaningless
speculation.

PBro(and you) are engaging in meaningless speculation, IMO.

That's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Eric

Not quite all. Then you voted for Bush, because the Democrats were criticizing his war policy; according to you. Probably for other reasons as well. You can "understand why some people believe Iraq 2.0 was necessary" and still understand that they were wrong; which they were for the reasons I stated. Clearly and easily comprehended by you.

Aggh! No, Eric. I don't believe they were 'wrong'. I said I didn't agree with them.

Originally Posted by Eric

I was responding to what I perceive that you "believe should happen," or at least what supporters of the war believed "should" happen.

I don't believe anything 'should' happen. Anything.
(I do believe there are things that I would like to
have not happen, though.)

Originally Posted by Eric

You are welcome to your opinion. I could gladly claim him as one of my own. I think the variety of opinions here on this give some evidence that he's a hybrid/cusper.

On this, we agree.
(Hey, it happens sometimes! )

Originally Posted by Eric

Others would disagree because your opinion is clearly in error.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Eric

All that's true (or I agree). I feel badly that he got so little support from the people who elected him. The least they could do was to let him keep a congress he could work with. But they stayed home or strayed from the course. Americans; whatever indeed.

I believe people made their feelings known quite clearly;
(it's up to him to read the 'signals' correctly.)

Originally Posted by Eric

Yeah, those of you who are not awake to what's happening, kinda prefer it that way. Americans. What can you expect of an asleep and deceived people

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Eric

Prove it.

Ok, Eric.

If a person is not 'against' something, in your opinion,
does that make them a 'supporter'?

Originally Posted by Eric

But you are interested nevertheless in holding on to your opinion, no matter what the facts are, and continuing to vote for Bush and his ilk on that basis (again, according to you) lol :lol:

What I said is that I don't(and probably won't vote for Democrats) in a national election.
That does not mean I vote for the GOP(although I have the last three times.)


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

If you don't want to engage in critical thinking, and just hold on to discredited opinions, or just go to sleep and not read, why bother voting at all? You might consider this. Just stay home and say, "whatever!" and "Anyway, I'm starting to get verwy .... verwy, .... ver ... wy .... swee .... pyyyyyy ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"

Nope. Democrats are actually getting worse, IMO.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Aggh! Against OBL, Eric.

President Clinton didn't call for an airstrike against OBL.
Besides, 9-11 hadn't occurred yet. Had 9-11 occurred,
and Bill Clinton was president in 2011 when OBL's location
was discovered, I believe it's reasonable to believe he would've
sent in the SEALs(or maybe even called in an airstrike).

No one knows. No one will ever know(unless someone asks him).
Until that happens, this is all just meaningless speculation.

He sent air strikes against bin Laden in Afghanistan, and for good measure, in Sudan.

No, it's true we don't know exactly what he would have done to get bin Laden after 9-11. I "speculate" he would not have invaded Iraq, and thus not diverted resources from the target. I'm on solid ground there. Would he have had the guts and focus to do what Obama did? I speculate not, but I don't know. Mrs. Clinton was involved in Obama's actions though.

Aggh! No, Eric. I don't believe they were 'wrong'. I said I didn't agree with them.

That's more like I expect from you. Parse words rather than engage in debate. It's what you agree with or don't that counts here.

I don't believe anything 'should' happen. Anything.
(I do believe there are things that I would like to
have not happen, though.)

I believe the point is that those who pursued the war believed that the USA should make Iraq "democratic" (IOW easily available to corporate business and control) by invasion. The word "should" has nothing to do with it. I am not interested in debating words. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

On this, we agree.
(Hey, it happens sometimes! )

Hey, good.

I believe people made their feelings known quite clearly;
(it's up to him to read the 'signals' correctly.)

In other words, he should have done what the Republicans wanted instead of pursuing what he was elected to do. Balderdash. The people should have stuck with him.

If a person is not 'against' something, in your opinion,
does that make them a 'supporter'?

It does, if you vote for that something.

What I said is that I don't(and probably won't vote for Democrats) in a national election.
That does not mean I vote for the GOP(although I have the last three times.)

So, you voted for the GOP in the last 3 elections. Why did you do that? You said before it was because you didn't like Democrats criticizing Bush about the war in Iraq 2.0. What's wrong with criticizing Bush for his Iraq War policy? It seems to me that's exactly what needed to happen, loudly and vociferously. Nothing was more worthy of anyone's support in 2004. If you disagree, then you do not understand Bush's error. And you have based your next 3 presidential votes on that misunderstanding, according to you.

Nope. Democrats are actually getting worse, IMO.

Democrats are blocked from doing almost everything, unless Obama does something by executive action. So how could they be getting worse, when they aren't doing anything, because they can't?
Just some thought to consider. I know you'll do what you want.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He sent air strikes against bin Laden in Afghanistan, and for good measure, in Sudan.

I'm not talking about Zhawar Kili al-Badr.
(Aghh! Why are you being so difficult?)

I'm done with this. Believe what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Eric

No, it's true we don't know exactly what he would have done to get bin Laden after 9-11. I "speculate" he would not have invaded Iraq, and thus not diverted resources from the target. I'm on solid ground there. Would he have had the guts and focus to do what Obama did? I speculate not, but I don't know. Mrs. Clinton was involved in Obama's actions though.


That's more like I expect from you. Parse words rather than engage in debate. It's what you agree with or don't that counts here.


I believe the point is that those who pursued the war believed that the USA should make Iraq "democratic" (IOW easily available to corporate business and control) by invasion. The word "should" has nothing to do with it. I am not interested in debating words. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Call it parsing words if you want to. Either way, I'm done with this.

Originally Posted by Eric

In other words, he should have done what the Republicans wanted instead of pursuing what he was elected to do. Balderdash. The people should have stuck with him.

Not interested.
(he's basically a 'lame duck' now, anyway.)

Originally Posted by Eric

It does, if you vote for that something.

You've always deflected on that when I've asked you.
(FWIW, I think you're basically a B&W-thinker.)

Originally Posted by Eric

So, you voted for the GOP in the last 3 elections. Why did you do that? ...

Because I think Democrats(and the policies they support) basically suck.

... You said before it was because you didn't like Democrats criticizing Bush about the war in Iraq 2.0. What's wrong with criticizing Bush for his Iraq War policy? It seems to me that's exactly what needed to happen, loudly and vociferously. Nothing was more worthy of anyone's support in 2004. If you disagree, then you do not understand Bush's error. And you have based your next 3 presidential votes on that misunderstanding, according to you.

Nope. I said I missed the vote in 2000. By 2004, we were already involved
in Iraq 2. You can't just erase stuff like it didn't happen. IOW, just because
I didn't support Iraq 2, that doesn't mean I can't be against leaving before the
job gets done(even if I didn't support it being started in the first place).
[Note: Plus, Kerry pretty much sucks. ]

Originally Posted by Eric

Democrats are blocked from doing almost everything, unless Obama does something by executive action. So how could they be getting worse, when they aren't doing anything, because they can't?

It's what they've done, and are proposing to do.
(I don't have a problem with you supporting that stuff, though.)


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

Just some thought to consider. I know you'll do what you want.

Yes, I will. And so will you(and everybody else).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'm not talking about Zhawar Kili al-Badr.
(Aghh! Why are you being so difficult?)

I'm done with this. Believe what you want to believe.

I remember the missile strike quite well. They were trying to take out OBL. They missed.

Not interested.
(he's basically a 'lame duck' now, anyway.)

Because you don't support his policies (but might have, had he run in 1992). Obama lost the congress in 2010 because the people didn't stick with the change he had promised, and was delivering. The millies didn't vote, because they do not know that voting in midterms counts. The same problem happened in 1994. The older people "made known" they didn't really support the government making changes. They were still hung up on Reaganomics. They could not stay the course with what they had voted for, on either occasion. They are lily-livered cowards.

You've always deflected on that when I've asked you.
(FWIW, I think you're basically a B&W-thinker.)

When the truth calls for black and white thinking, I do it.

Because I think Democrats(and the policies they support) basically suck.

Yes I know, but you didn't think so until the Democrats criticized Bush for the war. That's a new slant on your fall from grace.

Nope. I said I missed the vote in 2000. By 2004, we were already involved
in Iraq 2. You can't just erase stuff like it didn't happen. IOW, just because
I didn't support Iraq 2, that doesn't mean I can't be against leaving before the
job gets done(even if I didn't support it being started in the first place).
[Note: Plus, Kerry pretty much sucks. ]

Kerry wasn't a very good candidate, but he was light years better than Dubya. But then, you know my opinion already.

The job was something we didn't need to be doing, so my opinion was, we didn't need to continue it after a year and a half; and besides, Bush did not deserve re-election after such a colossal and costly blunder as that. No-one would have deserved it, Republican or Democrat. LBJ did not either. But I understand your point; once we started, (and invested so much in it, people might say), we needed to finish it. To me, that's Vietnam-era thinking. It's called "quagmire." That's what we got, and still have.

It's what they've done, and are proposing to do.
(I don't have a problem with you supporting that stuff, though.)

I understand your opinion, and that you don't want to defend it in a debate.

I have written the stuff I want frequently, and it makes perfect sense. Liberal Democrats are proposing to keep the fossil fuel barons and car companies from ruining the habitability of our planet, and to keep a small minority from expropriating the money which good working people make for them, all for themselves. All else is comparatively-minor detail, or fair system reform. As I said, makes perfect sense. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. Always worth stating, no matter who I am discussing things with.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Unrelated to the discussion, but the cynic in me had to note that this is a comment from a core member of the 3-way Xer tag team.

Priceless!

Yeah, but we also have a 3 member core Boomer tag team to go with it.

This intergenerational food fight, now that is priceless.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I remember the missile strike quite well. They were trying to take out OBL. They missed.

Eric. Reading comprehension. I'm done discussing whether or
not Obama is a Nomad based on some Al Capone-narrative.

Originally Posted by Eric

Because you don't support his policies (but might have, had he run in 1992). Obama lost the congress in 2010 because the people didn't stick with the change he had promised, and was delivering. The millies didn't vote, because they do not know that voting in midterms counts. The same problem happened in 1994. The older people "made known" they didn't really support the government making changes. They were still hung up on Reaganomics. They could not stay the course with what they had voted for, on either occasion. They are lily-livered cowards.

And, yet again: Whatever.

Originally Posted by Eric

When the truth calls for black and white thinking, I do it.

The 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. Look it up.
(Although it's probably more fundamental than just that, IMO)

Originally Posted by Eric

Yes I know, but you didn't think so until the Democrats criticized Bush for the war. That's a new slant on your fall from grace.

Yeah. I basically started paying attention and thinking.
(and stopped 'pretending' that I knew things that I didn't.)

Originally Posted by Eric

Kerry wasn't a very good candidate, but he was light years better than Dubya. But then, you know my opinion already.

The job was something we didn't need to be doing, so my opinion was, we didn't need to continue it after a year and a half; and besides, Bush did not deserve re-election after such a colossal and costly blunder as that. No-one would have deserved it, Republican or Democrat. LBJ did not either. But I understand your point; once we started, (and invested so much in it, people might say), we needed to finish it. To me, that's Vietnam-era thinking. It's called "quagmire." That's what we got, and still have.

A 'quagmire' is more like trying to have a conversation with you. !

Originally Posted by Eric

I understand your opinion, and that you don't want to defend it in a debate.

There's nothing to defend; It's an opinion.

Originally Posted by Eric

I have written the stuff I want frequently, and it makes perfect sense. Liberal Democrats are proposing to keep the fossil fuel barons and car companies from ruining the habitability of our planet, and to keep a small minority from expropriating the money which good working people make for them, all for themselves. All else is comparatively-minor detail, or fair system reform. As I said, makes perfect sense. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. Always worth stating, no matter who I am discussing things with.

And yet again, Eric: What-ever. Whatever.


Prince

PS: Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to assess preparations for a potential riot.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric. Reading comprehension. I'm done discussing whether or
not Obama is a Nomad based on some Al Capone-narrative.



And, yet again: Whatever.



The 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. Look it up.
(Although it's probably more fundamental than just that, IMO)



Yeah. I basically started paying attention and thinking.
(and stopped 'pretending that I knew things that I didn't.)



A 'quagmire' is more like trying to have a conversation with you. !



There's nothing to defend; It's an opinion.



And yet again, Eric: What ever. Whatever.


Prince

PS: Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to assess preparations for a potential riot.

I wonder if he talks and comes across as being as arrogant and self righteous as he does when he writes?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah, but we also have a 3 member core Boomer tag team to go with it.

This intergenerational food fight, now that is priceless.

Three independent minded core Gen Xer's vs three herd minded core Boomers. Priceless.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Three independent minded core Gen Xer's vs three herd minded core Boomers. Priceless.

This Joneser take is as such :

Core Boomers think core Xer's as being mole rats lacking in vision.
Core X'ers think core Boomers as being a flock of screech owls squawking over minutiae.

Of course both POV's do have a kernel of truth to them.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

This Joneser take is as such :

Core Boomers think core Xer's as being mole rats lacking in vision.
Core X'ers think core Boomers as being a flock of screech owls squawking over minutiae.

Of course both POV's do have a kernel of truth to them.

Xer vision extends beyond them and therefore does not include them.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

This Joneser take is as such :

Core Boomers think core Xer's as being mole rats lacking in vision.
Core X'ers think core Boomers as being a flock of screech owls squawking over minutiae.

Of course both POV's do have a kernel of truth to them.

Very true, but not all Core Xers are mole rats. At any rate, I do not side with the "let's nuke 'em and end the war on terror" crowd.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I wonder if he talks and comes across as being as arrogant and self righteous as he does when he writes?

I seriously don't know.
(and actually, I don't think I wanna know.)


Prince

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah, but we also have a 3 member core Boomer tag team to go with it.

This intergenerational food fight, now that is priceless.

Got to keep the entertainment going!

... and thus ends the sermon for today.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

... At any rate, I do not side with the "let's nuke 'em and end the war on terror" crowd.

Yeah, me neither.
(I think Classic-X might've been a bit over-the-top on that one. )


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric. Reading comprehension. I'm done discussing whether or
not Obama is a Nomad based on some Al Capone-narrative.

Yeah, that story is over.

However, I don't know why you can't read the history that I relate to you, that everyone knows. That Clinton tried to take out OBL with a missile strike in Afghanistan. But, if you don't want to read THAT story either, that's your priviledge too!

And, yet again: Whatever.

Yeah, facts are facts.

The 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. Look it up.
(Although it's probably more fundamental than just that, IMO)

Sometimes things need to be stated in black and white terms. But the terms are always approximate; that's the nature of "terms."

Yeah. I basically started paying attention and thinking.
(and stopped 'pretending' that I knew things that I didn't.)

Well, no. When you started supporting Republicans, you definitely stopped paying attention and thinking. Well, whatever!

A 'quagmire' is more like trying to have a conversation with you. !

Yeah, but at least it doesn't cost thousands of lives and millions of dollars. Or is that millions of lives, and billions of dollars? I guess it depends on the quagmire! Vietnam was deeper than Iraq, that much is clear. But it's also clear that we SURE didn't learn our lesson. We followed a Republican Boomer into the ditch. What do they say about the blind leading the blind?

And yet again, Eric: What-ever. Whatever.

Again, just the facts. You can take em or leave em.

PS: Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to assess preparations for a potential riot.

To be a rioter, or an enforcer of law and order? Or just to keep your life and property safe? Well, whatever is your pleasure!

Myself, it is clear to me that the economic system you believe in, coupled with rampant racial discrimination and fear, and misconduct by police, is the cause of these riots. I can fully understand why the young people in Baltimore want to fight the police (maybe not the looting and all). The police have it coming. What they are doing is just awful. How would you or anyone feel if you were just hanging around, maybe accused of some minor violation, and some thug cop busts your spine and hauls you away to die, without the slightest concern for you, someone whom you have sworn to protect? Outrageous is a polite term for what the cops are doing to these folks.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

This Joneser take is as such :

Core Boomers think core Xer's as being mole rats lacking in vision.
Core X'ers think core Boomers as being a flock of screech owls squawking over minutiae.

Of course both POV's do have a kernel of truth to them.

Yes indeed. Unfortunately Classic Xers' POV does not.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Three independent minded core Gen Xer's vs three herd minded core Boomers. Priceless.

I think there's more than 3 of us, and I'm not sure there's 3 of you right now, but vice-versa on the herd-minded and independent-minded. Delusion is always herd minded, and that's what trickle-down economics is. Herdminded delusion.

I wonder if he talks and comes across as being as arrogant and self righteous as he does when he writes?

I do try to tell the truth as I see it, but I admit that I might be incorrect on occasion. On those rare occasions, I admit it!

But, if the simple truth comes across as arrogant, it might say more about the audience than the speaker too. Classic Xer seems unable to answer points, and falls back on emotion. And Prince does the same, except he doesn't fall back on emotion, so much as on the "classic Xer" refrain of "whatever." No matter, it's up to you guys to see the truth for yourselves, and I pray that you will, someday. Even now, I'm sure you can see the truth about some things. Just not very much that's political here on this forum, apparently.

Oh well, politics aren't everything. And when you are able to constructively debate and contribute to the discussion, that's well and good. Views other than mine, I welcome, even when I feel I must speak against them. If you call that "arrogant," that's your priviledge too

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Yeah, me neither.
(I think Classic-X might've been a bit over-the-top on that one. )


Prince

Me neither neither.
Other than that, I have no idea wtf you guys are arguing about. OBL is dead. Let's move on.
As for riots and such, did anyone else notice our prez using the word "thugs" when describing the rioters? I thought that was supposed to be a racial slur now.

ETA
It looks like somebody did notice.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...he_n-word.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, that story is over.

However, I don't know why you can't read the history that I relate to you, that everyone knows. That Clinton tried to take out OBL with a missile strike in Afghanistan. But, if you don't want to read THAT story either, that's your priviledge too!

Eric, I was referring to the strike at Kandahar he chose not to make.

Originally Posted by Eric

Yeah, facts are facts.

Well, no. When you started supporting Republicans, you definitely stopped paying attention and thinking. Well, whatever!

Yeah, but at least it doesn't cost thousands of lives and millions of dollars. Or is that millions of lives, and billions of dollars? I guess it depends on the quagmire! Vietnam was deeper than Iraq, that much is clear. But it's also clear that we SURE didn't learn our lesson. We followed a Republican Boomer into the ditch. What do they say about the blind leading the blind?

Again, just the facts. You can take em or leave em.

This is all pretty much your opinions on political bullshit. Not interested.


But, let's have a look at this:

Originally Posted by Eric

Sometimes things need to be stated in black and white terms. But the terms are always approximate; that's the nature of "terms."

Why do 'you feel' that sometimes it's 'necessary' for
things to be stated in 'black and white' terms?

Originally Posted by Eric

To be a rioter, or an enforcer of law and order? Or just to keep your life and property safe? Well, whatever is your pleasure!

Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

Myself, it is clear to me that the economic system you believe in, coupled with rampant racial discrimination and fear, and misconduct by police, is the cause of these riots.

Great. Thanks for sharing, yet again.

Eric. Reading comprehension. Try to focus for a couple seconds.
I'm. Not. Interested. In. What. You. Think. Politically.

Originally Posted by Eric

I can fully understand why the young people in Baltimore want to fight the police (maybe not the looting and all). The police have it coming. What they are doing is just awful. How would you or anyone feel if you were just hanging around, maybe accused of some minor violation, and some thug cop busts your spine and hauls you away to die, without the slightest concern for you, someone whom you have sworn to protect? Outrageous is a polite term for what the cops are doing to these folks.

I'm really not interested in discussing any of this with you, specifically, Eric.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, I was referring to the strike at Kandahar he chose not to make.

Yes, it kinda helps prove the point brower made that Clinton was less ruthless and effective than Obama in the fight against OBL. For one thing, he thought he could get him with an air strike. Nonsense! He wisely held off, knowing how much additional killing would result. Obama conceived and carried out a plan that worked. And Clinton did carry out the strike I referred to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_...August_1998%29

Again, so well known that I should not have needed to post this reference.

This is all pretty much your opinions on political bullshit. Not interested.

Yeah, you're not interested in historical facts, a lot of the time. That's your priviledge too

Why do 'you feel' that sometimes it's 'necessary' for
things to be stated in 'black and white' terms?

Because sometimes the situation IS so black and white that such terms are appropriate. Certainly, Republicans are wrong and Democrats are more likely to be correct. I guess that's not black and white, but black and gray. But it will do as an example. Just the fact as I see it, so I say it. You disagree, but that does not mean I should not or cannot truthfully, as I see it, use the "black" term to describe the deplorable policies supported by the Party whom you vote for.

Eric. Reading comprehension. Try to focus for a couple seconds.
I'm. Not. Interested. In. What. You. Think. Politically.

I'm really not interested in discussing any of this with you, specifically, Eric.

So, why bother to say so? I can post my opinions whether you are interested in them or not. This is a public forum, not a conversation with you. Unless you would like one. That's up to you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, it kinda helps prove the point brower made that Clinton was less ruthless and effective than Obama in the fight against OBL. For one thing, he thought he could get him with an air strike. Nonsense! He wisely held off, knowing how much additional killing would result. Obama conceived and carried out a plan that worked. And Clinton did carry out the strike I referred to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_...August_1998%29

Again, so well known that I should not have needed to post this reference.

Eric. Did you ever consider that SEALs are used for the purpose of minimizing
potential civilian casualties? And to get confirmation that the job is done?

Originally Posted by Eric

Because sometimes the situation IS so black and white that such terms are appropriate. ...

You mean like: "You're either with us, or against us"?


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

So, why bother to say so? I can post my opinions whether you are interested in them or not. This is a public forum, not a conversation with you. Unless you would like one. That's up to you.

Why are you interested in chasing around board members
and accosting them with your political opinions?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric. Did you ever consider that SEALs are used for the purpose of minimizing potential civilian casualties? And to get confirmation that the job is done?

Yes

You mean like: "You're either with us, or against us"?

No, but clearly my opinion is pretty "black" about Republican policies.

Why are you interested in chasing around board members
and accosting them with your political opinions?

You mean bored members? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm not chasing anyone. Whatever, dude.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes

That's good to hear. So, you still think using SEALs,
as opposed to an airstrike, is akin to being a gangster?

Originally Posted by Eric

No, but clearly my opinion is pretty "black" about Republican policies.

Black is cool!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

You mean bored members? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm not chasing anyone. Whatever, dude.

<chuckle!>

Don't worry, Eric. You're not so bad. There's plenty of posters around
that are interested in your political opinions. I'm just not one of them.
(I fully understand that you don't like to be given unasked-for advice,
so I'll respect that, and refrain from doing so. )