Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2008 at 4:21 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227344June 23, 2008 at 4:21 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227354
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantVeritas: Keep drinking the coffee! I coach youth football, so you don’t need to tell me about the feminization of America.
I blame the Red Diaper Baby/Counterculture movement of the 1960s for all of this nonsensical PC crap. And, yes, I see plenty of kids who want a trophy just for showing up. The concept of hard work is gradually being eroded by the concept of “self-esteem” and everyone is excellent. Well, if everyone is excellent, then no one is.
I like the reference to Huxley. As of late, he seems more relevant then even Orwell, which is truly scary.
June 23, 2008 at 4:21 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227387Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantVeritas: Keep drinking the coffee! I coach youth football, so you don’t need to tell me about the feminization of America.
I blame the Red Diaper Baby/Counterculture movement of the 1960s for all of this nonsensical PC crap. And, yes, I see plenty of kids who want a trophy just for showing up. The concept of hard work is gradually being eroded by the concept of “self-esteem” and everyone is excellent. Well, if everyone is excellent, then no one is.
I like the reference to Huxley. As of late, he seems more relevant then even Orwell, which is truly scary.
June 23, 2008 at 4:21 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227403Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantVeritas: Keep drinking the coffee! I coach youth football, so you don’t need to tell me about the feminization of America.
I blame the Red Diaper Baby/Counterculture movement of the 1960s for all of this nonsensical PC crap. And, yes, I see plenty of kids who want a trophy just for showing up. The concept of hard work is gradually being eroded by the concept of “self-esteem” and everyone is excellent. Well, if everyone is excellent, then no one is.
I like the reference to Huxley. As of late, he seems more relevant then even Orwell, which is truly scary.
June 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227223Allan from Fallbrook
Participantjustme: Why don’t you save us all some trouble and change your name to “strawman”?
I was not in Vietnam, Ex-SD was. I was too young, but I respect the hell out of him for his service to his country, and especially in that Godforsaken war.
Clinton did drop more bombs on Iraq during the final two years of his tenure than the USAAC/USAAF dropped on Germany in three and a half years of bombing (1942 – 1945).
Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.
Clinton was more interventionist than Bush II. Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo (just to name a few). American involvement in the various UN STABFOR operations in the Balkans alone outpaced Bush II’s interventions.
I did not say that Clinton expended MORE blood and treasure than Bush II. I simply said that Clinton expended a considerable amount of US blood and treasure.
I did not say that No-Fly Zones were a Clinton program. I said that he enforced them.
If you cannot mount a serious defense to an opponent’s argument, simply go away. Do not, however, come back at me with this nonsense.
The ability to look up information on Wikipedia does not a debater make.
I was not setting Bill Clinton up as a strawman; I was arguing that you use strawman arguments. And not particularly well, either.
June 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227339Allan from Fallbrook
Participantjustme: Why don’t you save us all some trouble and change your name to “strawman”?
I was not in Vietnam, Ex-SD was. I was too young, but I respect the hell out of him for his service to his country, and especially in that Godforsaken war.
Clinton did drop more bombs on Iraq during the final two years of his tenure than the USAAC/USAAF dropped on Germany in three and a half years of bombing (1942 – 1945).
Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.
Clinton was more interventionist than Bush II. Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo (just to name a few). American involvement in the various UN STABFOR operations in the Balkans alone outpaced Bush II’s interventions.
I did not say that Clinton expended MORE blood and treasure than Bush II. I simply said that Clinton expended a considerable amount of US blood and treasure.
I did not say that No-Fly Zones were a Clinton program. I said that he enforced them.
If you cannot mount a serious defense to an opponent’s argument, simply go away. Do not, however, come back at me with this nonsense.
The ability to look up information on Wikipedia does not a debater make.
I was not setting Bill Clinton up as a strawman; I was arguing that you use strawman arguments. And not particularly well, either.
June 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227348Allan from Fallbrook
Participantjustme: Why don’t you save us all some trouble and change your name to “strawman”?
I was not in Vietnam, Ex-SD was. I was too young, but I respect the hell out of him for his service to his country, and especially in that Godforsaken war.
Clinton did drop more bombs on Iraq during the final two years of his tenure than the USAAC/USAAF dropped on Germany in three and a half years of bombing (1942 – 1945).
Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.
Clinton was more interventionist than Bush II. Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo (just to name a few). American involvement in the various UN STABFOR operations in the Balkans alone outpaced Bush II’s interventions.
I did not say that Clinton expended MORE blood and treasure than Bush II. I simply said that Clinton expended a considerable amount of US blood and treasure.
I did not say that No-Fly Zones were a Clinton program. I said that he enforced them.
If you cannot mount a serious defense to an opponent’s argument, simply go away. Do not, however, come back at me with this nonsense.
The ability to look up information on Wikipedia does not a debater make.
I was not setting Bill Clinton up as a strawman; I was arguing that you use strawman arguments. And not particularly well, either.
June 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227382Allan from Fallbrook
Participantjustme: Why don’t you save us all some trouble and change your name to “strawman”?
I was not in Vietnam, Ex-SD was. I was too young, but I respect the hell out of him for his service to his country, and especially in that Godforsaken war.
Clinton did drop more bombs on Iraq during the final two years of his tenure than the USAAC/USAAF dropped on Germany in three and a half years of bombing (1942 – 1945).
Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.
Clinton was more interventionist than Bush II. Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo (just to name a few). American involvement in the various UN STABFOR operations in the Balkans alone outpaced Bush II’s interventions.
I did not say that Clinton expended MORE blood and treasure than Bush II. I simply said that Clinton expended a considerable amount of US blood and treasure.
I did not say that No-Fly Zones were a Clinton program. I said that he enforced them.
If you cannot mount a serious defense to an opponent’s argument, simply go away. Do not, however, come back at me with this nonsense.
The ability to look up information on Wikipedia does not a debater make.
I was not setting Bill Clinton up as a strawman; I was arguing that you use strawman arguments. And not particularly well, either.
June 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227400Allan from Fallbrook
Participantjustme: Why don’t you save us all some trouble and change your name to “strawman”?
I was not in Vietnam, Ex-SD was. I was too young, but I respect the hell out of him for his service to his country, and especially in that Godforsaken war.
Clinton did drop more bombs on Iraq during the final two years of his tenure than the USAAC/USAAF dropped on Germany in three and a half years of bombing (1942 – 1945).
Clinton’s sanctions were estimated to have killed 500,000 according to Amnesty International.
Clinton was more interventionist than Bush II. Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo (just to name a few). American involvement in the various UN STABFOR operations in the Balkans alone outpaced Bush II’s interventions.
I did not say that Clinton expended MORE blood and treasure than Bush II. I simply said that Clinton expended a considerable amount of US blood and treasure.
I did not say that No-Fly Zones were a Clinton program. I said that he enforced them.
If you cannot mount a serious defense to an opponent’s argument, simply go away. Do not, however, come back at me with this nonsense.
The ability to look up information on Wikipedia does not a debater make.
I was not setting Bill Clinton up as a strawman; I was arguing that you use strawman arguments. And not particularly well, either.
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227145Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantConcho: What are your thoughts on decaf? Just curious.
In spite of my private (Catholic) education, I am all FOR birth control.
Not too hot on the tiny effeminate cars, though. Does that make me a bad person?
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227259Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantConcho: What are your thoughts on decaf? Just curious.
In spite of my private (Catholic) education, I am all FOR birth control.
Not too hot on the tiny effeminate cars, though. Does that make me a bad person?
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227270Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantConcho: What are your thoughts on decaf? Just curious.
In spite of my private (Catholic) education, I am all FOR birth control.
Not too hot on the tiny effeminate cars, though. Does that make me a bad person?
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227301Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantConcho: What are your thoughts on decaf? Just curious.
In spite of my private (Catholic) education, I am all FOR birth control.
Not too hot on the tiny effeminate cars, though. Does that make me a bad person?
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227319Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantConcho: What are your thoughts on decaf? Just curious.
In spite of my private (Catholic) education, I am all FOR birth control.
Not too hot on the tiny effeminate cars, though. Does that make me a bad person?
June 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227114Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantVeritas: Blame 12 years of Catholic school. As I get older, though, I’m starting to think ignorance has a lot going for it.
-
AuthorPosts
