If he were truly in the military, he would've tried to leverage his military experience in his argument here. He didn't. What I've found is that people who run around claiming to be the military, who aren't, try to cower away from those who are real veterans. But again, if he did have military experience, in the combat arms family of MOSs, he would not be spewing the majority of the bullshit that he spews on this and on other threads when it comes to topics related to the military.
Undercount has proved time and time again that he is a congenital liar. First he was black, then a Mexican, then a white guy, a rich man, a poor man, a soldier and sailor. He is as phony as they come and no one should ever give him any credence in anything he says. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:37 PM
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:38 PM
- WombRaider
- 09-16-2015, 06:40 PM
If he were truly in the military, he would've tried to leverage his military experience in his argument here. He didn't. What I've found is that people who run around claiming to be the military, who aren't, try to cower away from those who are real veterans. But again, if he did have military experience, in the combat arms family of MOSs, he would not be spewing the majority of the bullshit that he spews on this and on other threads when it comes to topics related to the military. Originally Posted by herfacechairIt's damNing, you goddamned illiterate shitstain.
I never said I was in the military. NEVER. Go back and find the post where I said that. It's not a claim I ever made. Period. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
What I've found is that idiots like you are often tiny-dicked blowhards who make up for their lack of sack by using tons of words. I don't give a shit what your argument is. You're full of shit. You're a fucking cog in the machine and you're too fucking stupid to even know it. You were used and spit out so that old, white men could get richer.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by bigtex
- andymarksman
- 09-16-2015, 06:45 PM
A look at the history of our presidents and their actions will show you that it's the Democrat administrations that twiddled their thumbs when it came to geostrategic issues. Kennedy twiddled his thumbs, and fumbled the Bay of Pigs invasion.A blatant lie! That operation never had a chance; because the Cuban populace, whose support was crucial for its success, never went over to the exile fighters.
Both, the United States Navy and the invaders rehearsed together for such invasion. When the actual invasion got underway, the invaders pulverized the Cuban Army, pushed them almost to the other side of Cuba.
All that was needed, were a few Navy fighter jets, flying in their Combat Air Patrol positions, to fly in and take out Cuban airpower, as well as Cuban armor. That was all that was needed.
Kennedy, at the last minute, refused to give the order for the Navy to do just that. This is exactly what led to the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The last comment, of their commander, was a question asking the US how "they could do that" to them Originally Posted by herfacechair
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1765.html
http://www.prouty.org/bay_pigs.html
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/bay-of-pigs.htm
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:46 PM
DaleGribbleGuy: HerrGoebbelsChair,
There's a 180° difference between Goebbels' and my arguments. My arguments are based on fact, and are consistent with reality. His propaganda was based on similar nonsense to what you are spewing.
ColanderOnGrape: you're a propagandist for the Military Industrial Complex. [REPEAT POINT]
My current MOS is 37F PSYOP. Knowing what constitutes propaganda is a part of my MOS knowledge. It's not propaganda if it's based on fact, and argues utilizing fact, reason, and logic. It's propaganda; however, when it is complete BS, like your conspiracy whack job theories. Your conspiracy whack job arguments constitute propaganda. The major fact that you would argue this propaganda speaks volumes to the fact that you are susceptible to propaganda. On a scale of 1-10, I would put your susceptibility to propaganda at 10.
The arguments that I come up with, on this thread and elsewhere, are based on my own extensive research, experience, analysis, and are my own conclusions. Also, with my MBA background, to your apparent lack of it, I'm qualified to say you are full of it if you think that corporations would get together and spread "propaganda" that has nothing to do with gaining more customers on the commercial side of the business.
Again, no CEO, CFO, or any other senior member of the corporate leadership team, would have time to try to personally lobby the government to start wars. Remove your tinfoil hat and think about this. The United States military is less than 1% of the total population. No corporation, worth its salt, would waste a lot of time or money trying to start wars through the government.
DaleGribbleGuy: You're what Ike warned us about.
Wrong. He warned us about maintaining the status that we built during World War II, where the economy was strongly tied to the military. Our industry was predominantly set up to support our efforts in World War II. That had not been completely dismantled by the time his presidency ended.
THAT's the military-industrial complex that he talked about. The military industrial complex he talked about was nothing like the military-industrial complex that you guys talk about today.
If you read his entire speech, in context, you'd know that he was not trying to warn the country that people like me would destroy conspiracy whack job theories with the facts.
ColanderOnGrape: Use all the blue and red you want,
I intend to use as much blue and red as I want in an argument proving you wrong. You're so full of BS that I'm having a field day explaining to you how you're wrong. I'm doing so using the facts, reason, and logic.
DaleGribbleGuy: it's still bullshit.
In order to dismiss something as "bullshit," you have to actually PROVE it such. You have consistently failed to do that. Here I am, taking you apart and proving you wrong point by point.
What do you? You get emotional and throw emotion-based words around. Of course you think it's "bullshit," quotation marks used strongly. You disagree with it. However, realize that simply dismissing it as such does not make it as such. Again, you have to actually PROVE it for to be so.
The only guy here, between the two of us, that's slinging bullshit is you. How about you make yourself useful by auditioning to take your place among the monkeys in the zoo. With as much poo slinging that you do, you'd fit right in with the other residents of the monkey exhibits.
ColanderOnGrape: Look behind the curtain, asshole, and learn the truth.
Don't dismiss your drivel, conspiracy whack job concepts, as the "truth," quotation marks used strongly. They aren't. The only person that's having a hard time looking behind the curtain is you. In fact, I've slid the curtain open and wide, and I'm pointing to the guy behind the curtain. You refuse to look at the man behind the curtain. You continuously insist that the big giant mechanical face that is talking is something other than machinery receiving orders from the controls operated by the man behind the curtain.
If you want to see truth, read my posts. If you want to read pure conspiracy whack job drivel, read your posts. You can't simply identify your posts as the "truth" until you present an argument "proving" it as such.
DaleGribbleGuy: Your arguments are lame.
Says the guy that consistently refuses to actually debate the points that I'm bringing up on this thread. What's going on is that I'm picking you apart, point by point, in showing you how you are wrong. In response, you are throwing childish accusations and name labeling.
If my arguments were "lame," you would not have a hard time presenting an argument to me. Or, you'd simply ignore me. Instead, you fart out your opinions of what you think about my argument.
My arguments are not "lame," they are strong as evidenced by your failure to address them in lieu of farting your opinion about them.
ColanderOnGrape: You probably copy and past from Wiki like others on here.
You see, this is what I mean by you farting out your opinions instead of actually trying to prove your point. I know for fact that I dictated my replies to Microsoft Word, then later copy and pasted my replies to this post. That's the only copy and pasting that I did. What I generate is my own argument, based on extensive research and experience.
As usual, you are wrong.
DaleGribbleGuy: Nothing new, nothing original, [REPEAT POINT]
My replies are directly related to what I'm replying to. As you can see, I'm taking you apart point by point. If you feel that what I'm saying is "nothing new, nothing original," that is because you keep repeating yourself like broken record.
ColanderOnGrape: all party line statism. [REPEAT POINT]
Wrong. The information that I am presenting here is based on my own conclusions, based on my own extensive research on what I'm arguing about, and on my own firsthand experiences. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I'm too stubborn for that. These conclusions that I've argued, are based on my own analysis based on the facts that I researched. Other people, in the military, have independently came to very similar conclusions that I've came too.
The only person here, that's spouting the party line, is you. Except, you are not spouting a Republican or Democrat party line, you're spouting the conspiracy whack job party line. You people like to fart flap your lips about "corporate control" or "New World order" or "the illuminati," or some other entity that allegedly takes our rights away and is controlling things from the background.
You people mistake these misperceptions, and your emotional rants frenzies, as the "truth." You people don't realize that what you think is the "truth" is pure nonsense. You people are gullible. Dale Gribble, of King of the Hill, is a perfect representation of you guys. How the audience sees him is how the population sees you people.
DaleGribbleGuy: Along with a few ill thought out ad hominem attacks.
If these were "ill thought out," you would not have even mentioned them. But, the fact that you're mentioning these ad hominem attacks speaks volumes to the fact that I'm getting you good with these attacks. Now, I would not lob ad hominem attack on someone unless they do so first against me. You've done that. The moment you accused me of drinking the Kool-Aid, you opened yourself to ad hominem attacks.
If you cannot take it, don't dish it. If you have issues with people conducting ad hominem attacks against you, don't conduct ad hominem attacks against them.
Again, there is a purpose behind every word that I use on a post. Do continue to show me that you have a thin skin. There is a purpose to the attacks that I use in these posts. They're working nicely with you.
ColanderOnGrape: You're wasting time,
No, I'm not wasting time. One of the reasons to why I use speech to text software is because it's fast. It does not take me long to generate these replies in response to you. Likewise, there is a lot involved in my day, activity wise, outside of hammering people like you.
Also, if you felt that I was "wasting time," what do you end up doing on your end? Here, let me help you out.
Let your drivel be "X."
Let my response to your drivel be "Y."
If "X," then "Y." If not "X," then not "Y." Review that to get a hint about what you could do if you feel that I am "wasting time."
Replying to you guys is never a waste of time. In fact, I consider it a personal duty and responsibility that I have no intentions of neglecting.
A reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Even if I don't reply to you guys today, tonight, tomorrow, the next week, the next month, next year, next decade, etc., I will get get back with you guys. This is never a waste of time.
When the debate is all said and done, I will still have the same stance I had before entering this debate.
DaleGribbleGuy: and bandwidth.
Says the retard that quotes my entire post in his replies. If you felt that I was "wasting time," and "bandwidth," then why are you quoting my entire replies? You say one thing, your actions contradict your words. This just tells me that you are, as usual, full of baloney.
ColanderOnGrape: No one thinks you're smart, you're just a blowhard
First, the purpose of my posts is to prove the opposition wrong. I've done that repeatedly on this thread and in others. However, if you're seeing this as me trying to prove that I am smart, then your subconscious is trying to tell you that you are wrong. Listen to it.
Second, a few years ago, I argued against our common opposition. I used very similar tactics. What you said to me back then was consistent to what those, on my side of the argument on this thread, have told me recently. It's like what I said earlier in this thread, those on your side of the argument dismissing me the way you're dismissing me here are doing so for emotional reasons. That is your arrogance speaking.
The blowhard is the one that's going around attacking the other person, and attacking the argument, instead of trying to argue against that argument. You're that blowhard.
DaleGribbleGuy: who thinks the longest post wins the argument. Wrong.
Wrong. I've stated, on this thread, that winning the argument entails advancing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument against the opposition's not doing so. I won the moment I entered this thread. I did so by advancing a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument against the baseless opinions advanced by the opposition.
This proves that you don't even bother reading the opposition's comments with the intentions of understanding what the opposition is saying. You've demonstrated more interest in replying, or, rather, in slinging poo.
There's a 180° difference between Goebbels' and my arguments. My arguments are based on fact, and are consistent with reality. His propaganda was based on similar nonsense to what you are spewing.
ColanderOnGrape: you're a propagandist for the Military Industrial Complex. [REPEAT POINT]
My current MOS is 37F PSYOP. Knowing what constitutes propaganda is a part of my MOS knowledge. It's not propaganda if it's based on fact, and argues utilizing fact, reason, and logic. It's propaganda; however, when it is complete BS, like your conspiracy whack job theories. Your conspiracy whack job arguments constitute propaganda. The major fact that you would argue this propaganda speaks volumes to the fact that you are susceptible to propaganda. On a scale of 1-10, I would put your susceptibility to propaganda at 10.
The arguments that I come up with, on this thread and elsewhere, are based on my own extensive research, experience, analysis, and are my own conclusions. Also, with my MBA background, to your apparent lack of it, I'm qualified to say you are full of it if you think that corporations would get together and spread "propaganda" that has nothing to do with gaining more customers on the commercial side of the business.
Again, no CEO, CFO, or any other senior member of the corporate leadership team, would have time to try to personally lobby the government to start wars. Remove your tinfoil hat and think about this. The United States military is less than 1% of the total population. No corporation, worth its salt, would waste a lot of time or money trying to start wars through the government.
DaleGribbleGuy: You're what Ike warned us about.
Wrong. He warned us about maintaining the status that we built during World War II, where the economy was strongly tied to the military. Our industry was predominantly set up to support our efforts in World War II. That had not been completely dismantled by the time his presidency ended.
THAT's the military-industrial complex that he talked about. The military industrial complex he talked about was nothing like the military-industrial complex that you guys talk about today.
If you read his entire speech, in context, you'd know that he was not trying to warn the country that people like me would destroy conspiracy whack job theories with the facts.
ColanderOnGrape: Use all the blue and red you want,
I intend to use as much blue and red as I want in an argument proving you wrong. You're so full of BS that I'm having a field day explaining to you how you're wrong. I'm doing so using the facts, reason, and logic.
DaleGribbleGuy: it's still bullshit.
In order to dismiss something as "bullshit," you have to actually PROVE it such. You have consistently failed to do that. Here I am, taking you apart and proving you wrong point by point.
What do you? You get emotional and throw emotion-based words around. Of course you think it's "bullshit," quotation marks used strongly. You disagree with it. However, realize that simply dismissing it as such does not make it as such. Again, you have to actually PROVE it for to be so.
The only guy here, between the two of us, that's slinging bullshit is you. How about you make yourself useful by auditioning to take your place among the monkeys in the zoo. With as much poo slinging that you do, you'd fit right in with the other residents of the monkey exhibits.
ColanderOnGrape: Look behind the curtain, asshole, and learn the truth.
Don't dismiss your drivel, conspiracy whack job concepts, as the "truth," quotation marks used strongly. They aren't. The only person that's having a hard time looking behind the curtain is you. In fact, I've slid the curtain open and wide, and I'm pointing to the guy behind the curtain. You refuse to look at the man behind the curtain. You continuously insist that the big giant mechanical face that is talking is something other than machinery receiving orders from the controls operated by the man behind the curtain.
If you want to see truth, read my posts. If you want to read pure conspiracy whack job drivel, read your posts. You can't simply identify your posts as the "truth" until you present an argument "proving" it as such.
DaleGribbleGuy: Your arguments are lame.
Says the guy that consistently refuses to actually debate the points that I'm bringing up on this thread. What's going on is that I'm picking you apart, point by point, in showing you how you are wrong. In response, you are throwing childish accusations and name labeling.
If my arguments were "lame," you would not have a hard time presenting an argument to me. Or, you'd simply ignore me. Instead, you fart out your opinions of what you think about my argument.
My arguments are not "lame," they are strong as evidenced by your failure to address them in lieu of farting your opinion about them.
ColanderOnGrape: You probably copy and past from Wiki like others on here.
You see, this is what I mean by you farting out your opinions instead of actually trying to prove your point. I know for fact that I dictated my replies to Microsoft Word, then later copy and pasted my replies to this post. That's the only copy and pasting that I did. What I generate is my own argument, based on extensive research and experience.
As usual, you are wrong.
DaleGribbleGuy: Nothing new, nothing original, [REPEAT POINT]
My replies are directly related to what I'm replying to. As you can see, I'm taking you apart point by point. If you feel that what I'm saying is "nothing new, nothing original," that is because you keep repeating yourself like broken record.
ColanderOnGrape: all party line statism. [REPEAT POINT]
Wrong. The information that I am presenting here is based on my own conclusions, based on my own extensive research on what I'm arguing about, and on my own firsthand experiences. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I'm too stubborn for that. These conclusions that I've argued, are based on my own analysis based on the facts that I researched. Other people, in the military, have independently came to very similar conclusions that I've came too.
The only person here, that's spouting the party line, is you. Except, you are not spouting a Republican or Democrat party line, you're spouting the conspiracy whack job party line. You people like to fart flap your lips about "corporate control" or "New World order" or "the illuminati," or some other entity that allegedly takes our rights away and is controlling things from the background.
You people mistake these misperceptions, and your emotional rants frenzies, as the "truth." You people don't realize that what you think is the "truth" is pure nonsense. You people are gullible. Dale Gribble, of King of the Hill, is a perfect representation of you guys. How the audience sees him is how the population sees you people.
DaleGribbleGuy: Along with a few ill thought out ad hominem attacks.
If these were "ill thought out," you would not have even mentioned them. But, the fact that you're mentioning these ad hominem attacks speaks volumes to the fact that I'm getting you good with these attacks. Now, I would not lob ad hominem attack on someone unless they do so first against me. You've done that. The moment you accused me of drinking the Kool-Aid, you opened yourself to ad hominem attacks.
If you cannot take it, don't dish it. If you have issues with people conducting ad hominem attacks against you, don't conduct ad hominem attacks against them.
Again, there is a purpose behind every word that I use on a post. Do continue to show me that you have a thin skin. There is a purpose to the attacks that I use in these posts. They're working nicely with you.
ColanderOnGrape: You're wasting time,
No, I'm not wasting time. One of the reasons to why I use speech to text software is because it's fast. It does not take me long to generate these replies in response to you. Likewise, there is a lot involved in my day, activity wise, outside of hammering people like you.
Also, if you felt that I was "wasting time," what do you end up doing on your end? Here, let me help you out.
Let your drivel be "X."
Let my response to your drivel be "Y."
If "X," then "Y." If not "X," then not "Y." Review that to get a hint about what you could do if you feel that I am "wasting time."
Replying to you guys is never a waste of time. In fact, I consider it a personal duty and responsibility that I have no intentions of neglecting.
A reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Even if I don't reply to you guys today, tonight, tomorrow, the next week, the next month, next year, next decade, etc., I will get get back with you guys. This is never a waste of time.
When the debate is all said and done, I will still have the same stance I had before entering this debate.
DaleGribbleGuy: and bandwidth.
Says the retard that quotes my entire post in his replies. If you felt that I was "wasting time," and "bandwidth," then why are you quoting my entire replies? You say one thing, your actions contradict your words. This just tells me that you are, as usual, full of baloney.
ColanderOnGrape: No one thinks you're smart, you're just a blowhard
First, the purpose of my posts is to prove the opposition wrong. I've done that repeatedly on this thread and in others. However, if you're seeing this as me trying to prove that I am smart, then your subconscious is trying to tell you that you are wrong. Listen to it.
Second, a few years ago, I argued against our common opposition. I used very similar tactics. What you said to me back then was consistent to what those, on my side of the argument on this thread, have told me recently. It's like what I said earlier in this thread, those on your side of the argument dismissing me the way you're dismissing me here are doing so for emotional reasons. That is your arrogance speaking.
The blowhard is the one that's going around attacking the other person, and attacking the argument, instead of trying to argue against that argument. You're that blowhard.
DaleGribbleGuy: who thinks the longest post wins the argument. Wrong.
Wrong. I've stated, on this thread, that winning the argument entails advancing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument against the opposition's not doing so. I won the moment I entered this thread. I did so by advancing a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument against the baseless opinions advanced by the opposition.
This proves that you don't even bother reading the opposition's comments with the intentions of understanding what the opposition is saying. You've demonstrated more interest in replying, or, rather, in slinging poo.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:51 PM
A day in the life one of those conspiracy guys...
FIXED!
Good, they're not looking. I told them that I was taking my medication, I lied. I was stashing my medication underneath my tongue, then I spit it out when they weren't looking. That was the first thing I did to prevent the military-industrial complex and the government from controlling my mind.
That's what these medications are, they set you up for mind control.
Then, I grabbed my colander, with tinfoil wrapped around it, and put it on my ahead. I walked outside, and to freedom. I faced North once I was outside. That big huge tower towards the east is where the government keeps its mind control station. It's using that tower to send mind control waves out.
I decided to do my second line of defense. I spread my feet apart, and kept them planted firmly on the ground. Then, with my arms hanging loosely on my side, I shook my upper body back and forth rapidly as far as I could lean forward and backward. Aaaaaah! That felt good, freedom! I'm FREE! I let the wind blow into my mouth, and I kept shaking my upper body front and back, arms swinging freely front and back.
I let the drool flow out of my mouth, I had to keep it open. Whatever waves did make it into my mind, I had to let escape through my mouth. I helped that along. I kept making noises while my saliva slid down my cheeks and chin. I kept shaking front and back while my legs remained still and firmly planted on the ground.
Cars passing me on the street in front of me honked at me in support. This felt good, I kept swinging my upper body back and forth. The government was not going to control my mind. They were not going to program my head!
Then, the staff wearing white lab coats came out of the building. They call themselves the group residence staff, but I know otherwise. They work for the government. They are there to keep us under the control of these medications. These medicines makes it easier for the government to program our minds. As soon as they reached out to touch me, I made louder noises. I said, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! Loud, and repeatedly, while swinging my arms at them, to scare them away.
Then I felt a prick. Not long after that, it was all dark. I woke up in my own bed to them giving me supper and my evening medicines. I put them under my tongue again, then spit them out again after the staff left. I'm going to go outside and do that again. That was fun! I can't wait till those cars support me again! Aahhh, Freedom! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- WombRaider
- 09-16-2015, 06:54 PM
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 06:55 PM
Until you've answered the yes/no question that I've asked you earlier this thread, per the parameters I set, you do not have a leg to stand on demanding or expecting me to answer your questions. Go back and answer all the questions I've asked you on this thread, truthfully, factually, without your BS, before you ask me any questions.
[REPEAT POINT]
Wrong again.
The full text of the agreement is in the link at the bottom. See page 7 item #5. Iran must keep it enriched uranium below 3.67%. Weapons grade enriched uranium is 20%. They simply will not have the ability to make a bomb at 3.67 % enrichment. To conduct nuclear fission, requires a nuclear reactor. The Natchez facility will be monitored 24/7 in real time. This agreement will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for 15 years.
HFC, question for you. Did you read that part of the agreement? Did you understand what you read?
The number one objective of the agreement was to push out Iran's ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. This agreement does that.
[REPEAT POINT] Originally Posted by flghtr65
First, gnadfly was correct when he said this:
"The Iranians haven't given up anything. They've promised to give up some of their enriched uranium. Does the US really know how much u235 Iran has or is it an educated guess? Seems to me without "anytime, anywhere" inspections we can't." -- gnadfly
In order for any part of the agreement to be effective, the Iranians would have to be 100% truthful about what they have. This includes what materials and infrastructure they actually have versus what they reported. The agreement only deals with what Iran told them they have. It does not deal with what Iran has not told them to have. So, anything mentioned in the agreement, with regards to what Iran is supposed to have, or produce, is meaningless if we do not have a 100% picture of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
If the Iranians could run their operation in infrastructure that has not been declared, with materials that have not been declared, whatever is done consistent with the agreement or not is null and void. The agreement is ineffective in that end.
Now, here are two statements side-by-side that invalidates your entire comment:
"They simply will not have the ability to make a bomb at 3.67 % enrichment." -- flghtr65
Versus this:
"The number one objective of the agreement was to push out Iran's ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. This agreement does that." -- flghtr65
How the God damn fuck is this going to push out their ability to produce a nuclear weapon if they will not have the ability to make a bomb? Nothing in the agreement supports your so-called "number one objective."
Again, this all depends on what the Iranians are willing to admit they have. It doesn't matter how often one facility is monitored. If that's the only facility that the Iranians are willing to admit to, and they have other facilities that could do the same thing, that agreement is effectively useless.
Remember the guy in his kitchen? If he could do some crap on a stove top, with related technology, only a fool would think that a traditional reactor is the only way to accomplish this goal.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the Iranians will completely abide by the deal; that they'll only have the material suggested in the deal; and that they will be completely honest about what they have infrastructure wise. The cold hard reality is that they won't. They will not be honest about what they have, and they will not restrict themselves to doing with what the agreement has.
The question isn't on whether I could understand what's being read. Not only did I understand what I read, but I also understand it in context. Both, within the document and the document as impacted by reality.
This deal will not restrict the Iranians in real life any more than speed limits would restrict traffic speed.
I downloaded the agreement, and have been going through it ever since we started this argument. You are cherry picking it, and are coming to conclusions that the agreement does not support. What section, in the agreement, does it say that the number one objective is to push out Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon? WHERE?
Why don't you quote that part of the agreement supporting your assumptions about its objectives? I'd ask you if you understood what you read, but judging by your replies on this thread, the answer to that would be no. Again, everything hinges on the Iranian's honesty about what they have. It also hinges on their honesty about abiding by the agreement. In the real world, neither is going to facilitate the agreement.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:00 PM
What's cracking me up is the fact that asswipe can't even post one of his usual puerile blathering complaints without revealing what a clueless buffoon he is. In the very same post that he faults HFC for "poorly written" arguments, he uses grammatically incorrect phrases such as "overwhelming verbose" and "whether this dick cheese whether..." Assup is the poster boy for libtards who live in glass houses and stupidly throw stones.Actually, putting me on ignore is one of the smartest things the opposition has done. They've lost the moment we replied to them. I keep hammering them to keep destroying their credibility. I also keep hammering them, using specific words and sentences, to make them react the way I want them to react. As usual, my tactics work. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying the opposition on this thread.
What's also cracking me up is seeing how all of the libtards in this forum run for the exits in the face of HFC's barrages. Yes, his posts are verbose, but that should provide more targets for anyone with the intellectual firepower to take him on. He packs 15-20 arguments into a single post, yet the libtards here can't even find one weak spot on which to challenge him. Instead, asswipe and his ilk reach for the ignore button. When they get carpet-bombed, they can't even toss a grenade back. Very revealing!
You libtarded morons are a colossal disappointment. In any debate, I could argue your side of any argument far better than you do. I've been posting in this forum for two years, and not one of you fucktards (with the occasional exceptions of timpage and old-T) is even minimally competent when it comes to scoring debate points using facts and logic. And of course, asswipe is the least competent of all of yinz.
Keep cracking me up, suckers! Keep reaching for that ignore button, sissy boys! Pretty soon you'll all be reduced to a libtard circle jerk!
. Originally Posted by lustylad
These people are exposing more and more of their psychological makeup with each reply. I turn around and abuse that by implementing the knowledge in further replies.
These idiots don't realize that I didn't come here to change their minds. I jump in to perpetually dismantle their arguments. This is my own, personal, version of PSYOP battle drills. They are the "OPFOR." Because of their willingness to get abused, and to lose credibility, I exercise one skill set needed downrange. They are unwilling participants in that regard. By willingly becoming my punching bags, they help me refine a skill that would be used downrange in another war that they would argue against.
Also, not trying to argue with me as you suggest they would, is another smart strategy on their part. Others, on other message boards, tried to do what you suggested. I generated posts that made my largest posts on this thread look like a single sentence post by comparison.
It's like what I told these retards earlier in the thread. Before I jump in, I have to know that the opposition is hopelessly clueless about the topic being argued. Also, I have to know that I know far more about the debate topics than the opposition does. A lot of these guys argue the same argument that I have seen and rebutted on other message boards over the past 12 years.
Only the facts get me to adjust my position. I have yet have anybody, that I have argued with, be in position to do that. Not even as of the posting of this specific post. Just as I have no intention of changing their minds, I've never changed my debate position because of anything the opposition has said. I complete every argument with the exact same views/assessment that I had prior to jumping in. I'm just here for the indefinite Saxon style clash.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:03 PM
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:06 PM
There you go again, Puss in the Boots in the Glory Hole booth, completely taking me out of context and addressing something that I was not addressing. Let's sum up how the specific debate went.
[STRAWMAN]
I didn't know Vietnam was our backyard. I see you fail at geography as well. And trickle-down economics is bullshit. Originally Posted by WombRaider
I talked about our involvement in Central America, Asia, and elsewhere. You came back and erroneously claimed that "they" were still communist. This was in response to a post I made regarding Central America and the Middle East. Given that fact, I addressed this from the Central America standpoint. In addition to proving you wrong, that they, Central America, were no longer communist, I pointed out how they were a tourist and retiree destination. You came back and sarcastically said that we got involved so that some people could get rich. I came back and pointed out that you wanted me to "quantify" success. I did, partly by pointing out the free trade agreement we have in that area.
In the post that you quoted, in the above strawman statement, I clearly indicated Soviet/Cuban influence in our backyard. In the trend of our argument in that area, I mentioned Soviet/Cuban in reference to the Caribbean and Central America.
No, there's nothing wrong with my extensive knowledge of geography. However, with you mentioning Vietnam when I was clearly talking about Central America, it's obvious that you suck at geography just as you suck at debating, just as you suck while at your glory hole station. There is a lot wrong with your inability to read simple English, that a fifth grader could understand.
"Trickle-down economy" is not "bullshit," but is something that's based on reality. The rich and super rich, the economic engine, generates most of the money. If they are allowed to keep more of their money, they would invest more of that money into the economy. This involves creating more jobs in order to have an operation that would hopefully earn more money for the job creator.
The rich and super rich are also responsible for the bulk of the money paid in terms of personal income tax, as well as consumer spending. If these entities are allowed to spend money in the economy this way, the rank-and-file, everybody else, would have more money to spend.
The opposite, which is the actual bullshit economy, is the "trickle up economy" concept. This concept involves throwing money at the lower end of the economic ladder based on the ignorance of where most of the money comes from with regards to consumer spending.
"Trickle up economy" is Keynesian and doesn't reflect economic realities.
This falls under simple reading comprehension. You continuously fail at that.
You're so desperate in this argument that you seriously took me out of context, you addressed something I did not say, in order to stay in this fight. Now, let's revisit what you said earlier in this thread:
If you can't get straight what you're going to do, what makes you think that anything else you say would be credible?
Says the guy that consistently farts on this thread and in others. You, dismissing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument that destroys your position as "nothing but hot air" are just throwing your stress shields up. I doubt that you have me on ignore, as with anything else that you've lied about on this thread, that's BS. However, your last sentence reminds me of the time I said something similar, back when I was a kid, after my parents belted me. Of course, I said that when I was elsewhere. But, that last sentence is testament to your sub conscience telling you that you got your arse whopped bad. Originally Posted by herfacechair
Nothing but hot air. He's already on ignore. Fuck him and his bullshit. Originally Posted by WombRaider
This proves that you are a liar. This also proves that you are full of shit, and that you spew nothing but bullshit. Even when it comes to talking about what YOU'VE done, I'm right and you are wrong.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:09 PM
Money. Following the money will always get you to the truth of why something happened. Originally Posted by WombRaiderUsing your justification, we could go ahead and argue that the American Revolution was about money, not about freedom or independence.
The cold hard reality is that this is not about money. Again, this is more geo-strategical and geopolitical that it is geo-economical. Geo political and geo-strategic issues played a key role in the decision to go into Vietnam, just as it played a key role in the decision to go to the other wars that we were involved with.
Again, our philosophy that emphasizes property rights and rule of law tends to facilitate wealth creation. The "money" is a side effect of our economic and political philosophy being applied. Saying that this is primarily "about money" is as idiotic as saying that the increase of churches is "causing" the increase in bars.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:13 PM
Who wants to take the time to wade through his bullshit? And it's always hilarious when you call others cowards and pussies when it's you who needed an enforcer. Hypocritical piece of shit. You're not worthy to shine my fucking shoes you degenerate titlicker. Originally Posted by WombRaiderFirst, you would not be dismissing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument as "bullshit" if you and I were arguing on the same side of the argument. The only reason to why you are dismissing my argument as "bullshit," is because you know that it's an extensive argument as to why you are wrong, Stupid.
Second, an adult, debating on a thread like this, would take the time to read every word of the opposition's reply. You're actually shooting yourself in the foot by not completely reading my responses. Because if you did, and you read everything that I said with the intention of understanding what I said, you wouldn't be advancing an argument that requires pulling straws, creating strawmen, then attacking said strawmen.
But, we all know that you're not mentally an adult, just a spoiled brat 2 year old in an adults body.
Third, yes, you people are cowards for refusing to take an honorable course of action. You people have been destroyed on this thread. When you guys are clearly losing, it takes courage to cut your losses and to move on. When you stay and continue to fight a losing battle, you demonstrate to the critical thinker that you guys are driven by arrogance.
Given the third point, its you, and those arguing on our side of the argument, that's hypocritical. Over the 12 years I've been arguing with libtards online, it's the majority of your side of the argument that called for the US to prematurely pull out of Iraq under the phony assumption that the US was "losing," despite the fact that you people continuously fail to do the same thing in a debate when you guys are actually losing.
I saw this knowing full well that you guys will continue to be driven by arrogance, going after an objective that every single person that I've debated with in the past has unsuccessfully strived for. What you guys are thinking right now regarding the argument with me, others have thought over the past 12 years of debating with me.
Not happening, as I take sadistic pleasure in destroying you guys, then watching you guys self-destruct over the weeks and months that the debate progresses. I say the above knowing that you guys will eventually bitch about the way I debate, and bitch at the hammering that I've given you up to that point. As usual, I'd turn back to these posts and make it harder to bitch about me as if your decision process had nothing to do with the process.
You people are predictable. Also, who'd want to shine your boots? Puss in the boots in the glory hole stall? You need to polish up your act before you talk about others polishing your shoes.
- herfacechair
- 09-16-2015, 07:19 PM
