Hilarious. You could have simply admitted your error and moved on, but no, I have to deal with this shit.
8 1/2 months bad, 2 weeks good!
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Hilarious. You could have simply admitted your error and moved on, but no, I have to deal with this shit.
Let them. Let's get off oil, lose interest in the area and let them be whatever they want to be.
But first you have to show that there is a different position. You haven't done so, because you can't. In fact, I bet dollars to donuts that you didn't even read the article, you just read that dumbass blog post.
Keep digging though, hotshot.
You are being obtuse, purposefully so. You can't even read a post you are quoting that doesn't say what you insist it does.
As am I.
Really? Ball's in your court, hotshot. Just hit it on back to me.
See posts 9, 11 and 22 and get back to me.
Again. I'm waiting for you to show where I said the media said it was murder. You jumped on that to try to protect Darla. It simply didn't happen.
I said that she called him a murderer and linked to media stories that said we were "creating more terrorists."
You insist we never had conversations on this, and I've reminded you of the conversations. You pretend you can't remember them, that's fine. I am sure others do and I am willing to let your insistence that they never occurred be your last word on that subject.
At some point in any conversation you know you have made your point well, mine came when you tried to "prove" I said something I didn't with quotes that didn't say what you insist they did. It made me realize that you are desperately trying to make this simply a thread about Damocles rather than the subject at hand.
Thank you for participating, but people have to be uscitizen level of Alzheimer patient before they can't remember those conversations. Especially people who, like Darla, called Bush and almost Obama (but she stopped short of calling him one directly) both murderers because of attacks in Pakistan.
OK. You didn't say the media called it murder. But you did say that the media said a lot of mean and nasty things about Bush's Pakistan policy. In fact, that was the entire premise of your post and my early criticisms of it (See posts 9 and 11).
Please provide examples. And while you are at it please address the issues I raised in post #22 relating to the NPR article.
You tried to change the subject and got called out. You successfully diverted the thread. Now that we're back on topic, show your hand.
Jackass.
uscitizen
Villified User
Reminder to Mr. Forgetful. I checked that thread you linked to made by Sir Galahad and had one reply , me heckling SG.
The NPR article does not shower the credit on Obama. And it does not show any great measure of success. Supposedly, we are getting at their leaders. So? What impact is that having on the stability of Afghanistan.
True. But the point of the entry was stating that you wouldn't read about any success before Obama took office. Now that he has we get stories about how what we were doing has been successful and praising the current policy as more effective. We were "losing" and "creating more terrorists" just two weeks ago.
It directly speaks to the previous "Losing the Hearts and Minds" articles that preceded it and speaks as to one change of personnel seems to change the news we are getting, even when the policy is no different.
It is opinion, clearly, based on what they would read before as to what we are reading now. Suddenly, victory is at hand and there is light at the end of the tunnel, but it appears as if that can only be reported when somebody new takes office is what the blog entry is saying.
It says, some Senior officials in the CIA say that we now have a shot at victory in the mountainous region, along the Pakistani border. The story offers a counter to that idea.
It does not. Obama is mentioned 3 times once to date an attack, again to note that it appears he will continue the Bush policy and once more in the Gates quote giving credit. Bush is mentioned twice, once to note that his orders expanded the attacks and in the Gates quote.
The bias is in your reading.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I agree with Damocles even though he is a facist prick. The article clearly mentions Obama more than three times. The writer sounds as if he's going to come in his pants every time he mentions the Messiah's name.
Pinhead media!
Again, the article states that success is happening and the blogger's entry talks about how such articles would not happen when Bush was in office. Now my opinion (is of course biased that is what opinions are) is that articles pre-Obama were about "losing the hearts and minds" and were often used by people on this site to say that Bush was "murdering" innocents bombed by drones. Now articles are saying there has been some success and such articles would not be prevalent if Bush was still in office. (Of course we can't know because Bush will never hold that office again and we have no access to the parallel universe where he is still President.)
It is my opinion that the media will take any opportunity to praise him, even when the experts are saying, "It's too early to say we were victorious."
It is hyperbole to state the story says Obama is winning, I understand that. But I still think the blogger's point about the media and the different tone to stories now as opposed to before is evident.
I believe that your opinion is biased in the other direction. Stunning shocker there.
I think the blogger makes a valid point, especially from npr articles, that such tones and speaking of successes is almost totally without parallel from npr articles pre-Obama and nearly non-existent from the media on a general basis.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Damo, which is more frustrating, me, or the liberal walking dead?