Stay the course.

[Red Door]

Thank You Red Stranger! Every one of your threads makes me feel smarter.

 

[Red Stranger]

North King is saying we need more troops to do anything, BUT it's going to cost us more than its worth. Honestly Red Stranger, how do you expect to go to "Harvard" if you can't comprehend simple grammar?

It's not my comprehension of grammar. It is North King and other liberals' inconsistency in their arguments. He's saying, "we need more troops, BUT don't send more troops." The problem is that there are three options, as GinandTonic said. The people who oppose Bush wants to agree with both option 1 and option 3, which are contradictory. If you're going to quote respectable generals that say we need more troops, then show your support for the troops. If you want to reduce troop levels, then show me quotes from respectable generals that wants a troop reduction. But you can't quote a general that wants more troops and then conclude that we should reduce troop level. And don't you worry about how I got into Harvard. Maybe I'm just good at taking test. Apparently I perform at the top 1% level for some tests.

link

Thank You Red Stranger! Every one of your threads makes me feel smarter.

You can't just read my threads to be smarter. You have to synthesize it. Just like any other great literature. For great reads, try subscribing to The Weekly Standard

 

[Red Door]

You can't just read my threads to be smarter. You have to synthesize it. Just like any other great literature. For great reads, try subscribing to The Weekly Standard

You don't get it, do you? I'm saying your stupidness makes me feel smarter.

 

[Stevenpfo]

Could it be possible that said people were quoting the generals to show that the current administration wasn't listening to it's generals and not that they actually think we need more troops over there?

Just a thought

 

[Red Stranger]

You don't get it, do you? I'm saying your stupidness makes me feel smarter.

My stupidness knows that stupidness is not even a word. Look, there is a world outside of CFC OT. And if you look there, they are the people who re-elected Bush.

 

[El_Machinae]

You could take this opportunity to understand the liberals' statements, instead of parsing them to tilt at nothing. There's no point continually mis-paraphrasing someone and then calling them wong; nobody benefits from that.

 

[Red Door]

My stupidness knows that stupidness is not even a word. Look, there is a world outside of CFC OT. And if you look there, they are the people who re-elected Bush.

And this has to do with this discussion how.....?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Red, I do enjoy how, you've digressed from the true argument about 'stay the course' to trolling about sarcasm in a troll post to begin with, and then responding to that response! That's why so many of your threads get closed, Red, because you allow them to sway so far from the topic. Let's get back into the discussion that we had on page one, shall we? You can start by responding to my post.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Red Stranger, I also want to hear why your answer to this post, so that I can understand whether or not you think we are staying the course, and whether or not we should stay the course.

<runninggag> PS: Bill O'Reilly thinks we should stay the course. I have an email from him that says so. </runninggag>

 

[CartesianFart]

Red Stranger, I also want to hear why your answer to

linky

Gootube linky for the media-impaired


post, so that I can understand whether or not you think we are staying the course, and whether or not we should stay the course.

Since you are begging Red Stranger a question,why don't you tell us what you think of it?If one's raises a question,one must explain why the question is important,don't you think?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You appear to have misunderstood the terminology, as I don't believe it is possible to beg a subject a question.

Red Stranger is being an oddity to me, as often before, and therefore I want to hear his opinion so that I don't misinterpret what he's saying, as what he's saying seems obfuscatory to me at the moment.

 

[EdwardTking]

You know what's funny. Liberals make fun of the Bush administration for saying "Stay the Course,"

I think some do, but most are merely critical and find no 'fun' regarding Iraq.

but they're opposed to NOT staying the course.

eliminating the deliberately confusing double negative would mean

'they are in favour of staying the course.'

I think that you are simply wrong and that most liberals are not in
favour of staying the course.

When someone says, let's pack up our bags and go, they say, "no, you broke it you have to fix it."

I think you are wrong, it is the nationalistic right and not the liberals
who tend to say 'the US should stay to fix it'

When someone else says, let's increase the troop level, they say "no you can't do that."

Those liberals who are in favour of withdrawal are logically not in favour of increasing troop levels, so this is a perfectly consistent argument.

They'll quote generals that say we need more troops in Iraq,

so?

then they'll turn around and say we need to pull out.

so?

The fact that some generals say you need more troops in Iraq is perfectly consistent with the fact that many liberals want a withdrawal.

How can we have more and less at the same time?

You can not and I am not aware of any individual
liberals advocating that.

Isn't it just living a fantasy?

The fantasy here is that you can justify current policy,
by deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreting and
amalgamating the statements of generals with the
different opinions that liberal individuals may have.


I await to here a reasonable defence of current UK-US policy.

All I get from you is distractive smears against the liberals.

 

[Cannae]

Thank You Red Stranger! Every one of your threads makes me feel smarter.

I second this lol.

 

[CartesianFart]

You appear to have misunderstood the terminology, as I don't believe it is possible to beg a subject a question.

You "don't believe it is possible?"

Funny,how you say don't and expounding a belief that believing it is or not to beg the a subject into forcing an answer.

Red Stranger is being an oddity to me,

I think your questioning is an odd one that leaves out a motive of why the question is important to you.

therefore I want to hear his opinion so that I don't misinterpret what he's saying,

How can you misinterpret someone when firstly you not ask of what the person have said but divert the subject at hand with something altogether different question that is not seemingly related?

as what he's saying seems obfuscatory to me at the moment.

Same here.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You "don't believe it is possible?"

Funny,how you say don't and expounding a belief that believing it is or not to beg the a subject into forcing an answer.

"Begging the question" is an idiom that does not take a subject and is not conjugated. Thank you and good night!

 

[blackheart]

It's not my comprehension of grammar. It is North King and other liberals' inconsistency in their arguments. He's saying, "we need more troops, BUT don't send more troops." The problem is that there are three options, as GinandTonic said. The people who oppose Bush wants to agree with both option 1 and option 3, which are contradictory. If you're going to quote respectable generals that say we need more troops, then show your support for the troops. If you want to reduce troop levels, then show me quotes from respectable generals that wants a troop reduction. But you can't quote a general that wants more troops and then conclude that we should reduce troop level.

I'll try to simplify this even more. I tried explaining this to a middle schooler at a private school and they got it, so maybe you'll understand it as well.

Those who want to pull out are citing certain generals saying that we need more troops in Iraq to do anything. They people who want to pull out saying sending in more troops is a waste of time, money, resources, and people; we should pull out now and cut our losses before they become even greater. Therefore, it is concluded that because we already have so many troops over there and if even more troops are needed, it is a futile and pointless exercise and we should cease it.

And don't you worry about how I got into Harvard. Maybe I'm just good at taking test. Apparently I perform at the top 1% level for some tests.

link

IQ doesn't determine how well you do in a political debate. High IQ doesn't mean you'll succeed in life. An IQ score from an internet site doesn't mean you're smart.

You can't just read my threads to be smarter. You have to synthesize it. Just like any other great literature. For great reads, try subscribing to The Weekly Standard

This isn't great literature and you can't synthesize circular rhetoric.

 

[BasketCase]

someone else says, let's increase the troop level, they say "no you can't do that." They'll quote generals that say we need more troops in Iraq, then they'll turn around and say we need to pull out. How can we have more and less at the same time? Isn't it just living a fantasy?

One thing to keep an eye out for is the tendency to lump "liberals" together into a monolith. They're not.

Different liberals sometimes say different things. Some are almost certainly guilty of the cognitive dissonance you accuse them of (and by all means call them on it ). However, there are also liberals who depart from the party line and say we SHOULD stay over there. I've met liberals who favored the invasion, and conservatives who opposed it.

Keep an eye on what the individual says; sometimes the person saying "we shouldn't be there" and the person saying "we should send MORE troops over there" aren't actually the same person.....

 

[Cuivienen]

My stupidness knows that stupidness is not even a word. Look, there is a world outside of CFC OT. And if you look there, they are the people who re-elected Bush.

Your asininity, cretinism, fatuity, fatuousness, foolishness, idiocy, imbecility, insipidity, stupidity and tomfoolery make everyone here feel smarter, even your fellow conservatives.

In 2003, we should have sent more troops if we were to go to war at all. Now, it's too late, and it has been since at least 2004. Perhaps the subtleties of such an argument escape you.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Trajan12]

Originally Posted by Cuivienen
asininity, cretinism, fatuity, fatuousness, foolishness, idiocy, imbecility, insipidity, stupidity and tomfoolery

[Liberalism]I think what is meant is that in order to win we need more troops, but they don't want to see that happen. If we are going to be stuck in this war then we might as well increase our chances.[/Liberalism]

 

[blackheart]

[Liberalism]I think what is meant is that in order to win we need more troops, but they don't want to see that happen. If we are going to be stuck in this war then we might as well increase our chances.[/Liberalism]

Nice try at doublethinking even though it's been thoroughly explained in this thread countless times. I applaud you for overlooking every single argument made and instead choosing to go by your own rhetoric.