Civil War

[Diogenes]

Then join in the discussion.

I did, paw paw.

It's a ridiculous premise, in my opinion.

Roll, Tide!

 

[Into the Night]

That's an opinion you can't back up, nor can I back up mine.

I can back up mine. All I have to do is show a single exception to your theory.

If anyone else is reading this, please spare me the question 'how is a newborn evil' I could turn it around and ask how is a newborn known as being good,

I said a baby is not inherently evil. All I have to do is find a single exception. Easy to do.

is it the cute looks or the crying all night. lol

A baby does not know about night and day and when to sleep. It only wants, so it cries, the only way it can let anyone know he wants.
That is not 'evil'.

It's interesting that in many cases the very first word we teach infants to understand is NO.

My sister's first word was 'beer'.

It's very important for many reasons, not the least of which is safety.

It is not possible to make everything safe. Parents can certainly limit some kinds of dangers a baby faces. No word will prevent a baby from pulling table over on itself, or eating an entire bottle of medicine, or sticking a fork in an electrical socket.

But you CAN put away breakable items, lock up the medicine, and use tamperproof electrical sockets (now required by the electrical code!).

Baby crawls near the fireplace, NO, or baby moves toward anything dangerous NO or baby smashes toys, NO and so on. This is only the first things that a new parent will observe, as time rolls on many more things will happen that despite any and all efforts to try and mitigate unexpected bad behavior it will just keep coming all the way to adulthood. If those behaviors are not mitigated as they happen you'll have a hellion on your hands

No, you'll have a dead child.

Obviously, I don't remember saying people 'wanted' to die in combat, did I?

I'll ignore this.

In my view, it's a dodge to suggest that my point is equal to suicide, which is ridiculous.

Someone that wants to die and succeeds is suicide. From Latin: 'sui' - meaning oneself, and 'cide', meaning to kill.

I'm fine with your focus on precise meanings of words it's quite relevant in many cases, but many words have more than one meaning, as you can confirm by looking in any dictionary.

No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. It is not even the purpose of a dictionary to define a word. Dictionaries even disagree on their 'definitions'.

Dictionaries are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation. Words are defined by people. They don't change meaning.

You won't find any explanation anywhere on the willingness to die for one's country equated to suicide

If one wants to die and succeeds, it is suicide. It can be called nothing else.

except for a few quotes that attempt to make a point relevant to events the person is experiencing or some rant by libtards. Patton's quote, I think, was made to stress the importance of doing your very best not to die.

It is therefore valid. Soldiers generally do not want to die. They want to make the other poor dumb bastard die to protect his own country.
There ARE people that want to wipe a country off the map or take it over. The military wants to win the war, not die.

My statement doesn't aim to suggest someone should be or ever is willing to commit suicide for their country. So, if you'd like to have a debate about the precise uses of any number of words of your choosing, I'll consider it.

First, you should learn at least some Latin and French, where many English words come from.

Again, just your opinion. You no more understand what people 'naturally do' than I.

Do you think it is natural to want to kill yourself?

I also have an opinion backed up by my observations that are different from yours or Patton's. (He wasn't a God, he was good at leading men into battle, I'll give you that.) That said, I just explained how I read Patton's quote, but you can take anything you want from it. Often, people interpret great quotes, historical events, the Bible, works of art, music, etc., differently. Some are closely aligned and others are not, but they're all valid to the individual interpreting them.

Patton, like any other competent military man, wants to win the war, not die.

Completely ridiculous, People attempting understand each other in good faith couldn't possible interpret a person willingness to die for their Country as meaning they're DANGEROUS from being suicidal. What's that all about? If theirs some relevant point of that comment, I'm clearly not smart enough to understand it.

If a soldier appears suicidal, others will avoid him. Soldiers must depend on each other for their very lives. One that is suicidal may take others with him. He is dangerous.

Again, failing to debate in good faith.

I am. I am presenting each of my arguments and the reasoning for them.

 

[Into the Night]

How about you just stick your own conversations.

Why are you piling on his shit?

I am conducting my own conversations. Unnecessary insults are not a conversation and accomplish nothing. Indeed, it's worse than nothing. It is weak copout, and drives people away. I have politely asked you to axe the attitude and respond with presenting an argument and the reasoning for it.

If you want to get testy, you have sunk your own ship.

 

[Into the Night]

I wanted to point out something interesting concerning one of my earlier assertion that OBBB doesn't need to be complicated.. When a typical bill becomes law, it's packed with pages and pages of text, making them tediously boring and difficult to read. Many times we're given a couple days at best to read it. This means we depend on the media for the 'important bits,' and they're just great at their jobs. Right? There are lots of shady deals, helping the lawmakers on both sides, get rich, fast. It's been that way so long, many think it has to be.

Now, for a comparison: that huge spending bill Congress tried to push through in December last year, was 502,775 words long. The entire U.S. Constitution? Just 7,591 words. Which one had more time to debate, had more impact, and is the envy of the world? Clearly, it's better and possible to keep things simple.

It's not about the number of words. It's about how many different topics are stuck in a bill.

Keep it simple. Pass multiple simple specific bills, not try to pass one glob that does 'everything'.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's not about the number of words. It's about how many different topics are stuck in a bill.

Keep it simple. Pass multiple simple specific bills, not one glob that does 'everything'.

Congress has not done regular order in decades, in part because they are not up to it, they tend to be both too dumb and too lazy.

 

[Hawkeye10]

CongressCritters is a great word.

 

[Tobytone]

It's not about the number of words. It's about how many different topics are stuck in a bill.

Keep it simple. Pass multiple simple specific bills, not try to pass one glob that does 'everything'.

Tell Congress that, they've mastered the art of drowning political payoffs and pet projects in a sea of words, where they just might know the 'right' person with a few bucks they won't miss lying around. Fewer words mean clearer, simpler laws that the average American can actually comprehend or at least try, just like the Constitution, which lays out its principles with surprising simplicity given its scope. That's why I picked it to make my point. It's tough to argue that less verbiage leads to more convoluted legislation.

Besides, I don't think it will go your way, it's looking more like the one big beautiful bill is moving forward. If anything it may be split into two pretty looking plump bills, not likely to be many cute skinny bills. LOL

 

[Tobytone]

I can back up mine. All I have to do is show a single exception to your theory.


I said a baby is not inherently evil. All I have to do is find a single exception. Easy to do.

A baby does not know about night and day and when to sleep. It only wants, so it cries, the only way it can let anyone know he wants.
That is not 'evil'.

My sister's first word was 'beer'.

It is not possible to make everything safe. Parents can certainly limit some kinds of dangers a baby faces. No word will prevent a baby from pulling table over on itself, or eating an entire bottle of medicine, or sticking a fork in an electrical socket.

But you CAN put away breakable items, lock up the medicine, and use tamperproof electrical sockets (now required by the electrical code!).

No, you'll have a dead child.

I'll ignore this.

Someone that wants to die and succeeds is suicide. From Latin: 'sui' - meaning oneself, and 'cide', meaning to kill.

No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. It is not even the purpose of a dictionary to define a word. Dictionaries even disagree on their 'definitions'.

Dictionaries are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation. Words are defined by people. They don't change meaning.

If one wants to die and succeeds, it is suicide. It can be called nothing else.

It is therefore valid. Soldiers generally do not want to die. They want to make the other poor dumb bastard die to protect his own country.
There ARE people that want to wipe a country off the map or take it over. The military wants to win the war, not die.

First, you should learn at least some Latin and French, where many English words come from.

Do you think it is natural to want to kill yourself?

Patton, like any other competent military man, wants to win the war, not die.

If a soldier appears suicidal, others will avoid him. Soldiers must depend on each other for their very lives. One that is suicidal may take others with him. He is dangerous.

I am. I am presenting each of my arguments and the reasoning for them.

I could be wrong, but I believe I've made my stance pretty clear, and a lot of your points are just the same as before. If I'm wrong, I'll have to live with it. The whole not understanding a simple statement like a soldier's willingness to die for his country was where I decided to jump ship on this reply. The idea that you don't get that sentiment seems ridiculous to me. Sorry, just keeping it real. I'm worn out on this point and much of this argument, which was somewhat entertaining at first but now feels absurd.

The truth is, I don't see any real possibility of a civil war being anything but a war of words and policy, with a few skirmishes along the way, as has always happened at times in history. So, I'll concede any statements I haven't addressed and call it a wrap on the civil war debate. My opinion has been detailed enough for the purposes of this forum. Please don't misunderstand, I've enjoyed this debate at least early on, much more than one with people I really disagree with. They generally suck at debating. LOL

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I do, and who'd know better than I, paw paw?

Civil war? Who'd fight it?

Roll, Tide!

The civil war is cancelled for being stupid,

sorry, deep state.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Tell Congress that, they've mastered the art of drowning political payoffs and pet projects in a sea of words, where they just might know the 'right' person with a few bucks they won't miss lying around. Fewer words mean clearer, simpler laws that the average American can actually comprehend or at least try, just like the Constitution, which lays out its principles with surprising simplicity given its scope. That's why I picked it to make my point. It's tough to argue that less verbiage leads to more convoluted legislation.

Besides, I don't think it will go your way, it's looking more like the one big beautiful bill is moving forward. If anything it may be split into two pretty looking plump bills, not likely to be many cute skinny bills. LOL

see, into the night is a bullshit artist who's job is to destroy good threads with excess bullshit.

 

[Tobytone]

see, into the night is a bullshit artist who's job is to destroy good threads with excess bullshit.

I don't know about all that, I very much enjoy watching him trip up Libtards, for sure. I also enjoyed the strange feeling of a real conversation here, for a while. I think I know what you're referring to, but I generally agree with @Into the Night's methods. In this case, I was done a while ago. Even though a person might like seeing some asshole getting beat up by someone bigger, nobody likes it if the same dude turns around and heads their way, that's just human nature. That said, this is an example of him sliding over the edge and avoiding true understanding with no real purpose, nobody's perfect, at least I'm definitely not. On balance, I'll take it, any day, over the mindless drones I deal with daily here.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I don't know about all that, I very much enjoy watching him trip up Libtards, for sure. I also enjoyed the strange feeling of a real conversation here, for a while. I think I know what you're referring to, but I generally agree with @Into the Night's methods. In this case, I was done a while ago. Even though a person might like seeing some asshole getting beat up by someone bigger, nobody likes it if the same dude turns around and heads their way, that's just human nature. That said, this is an example of him sliding over the edge and avoiding true understanding with no real purpose, nobody's perfect, at least I'm definitely not. On balance, I'll take it, any day, over the mindless drones I deal with daily here.

I do know about all that.

he's good on some issues.

but he's a deep state globalist eugenicist fucktoid all the way, and is a fascist.

 

[Libhater]

I don't know about all that, I very much enjoy watching him trip up Libtards, for sure. I also enjoyed the strange feeling of a real conversation here, for a while. I think I know what you're referring to, but I generally agree with @Into the Night's methods. In this case, I was done a while ago. Even though a person might like seeing some asshole getting beat up by someone bigger, nobody likes it if the same dude turns around and heads their way, that's just human nature. That said, this is an example of him sliding over the edge and avoiding true understanding with no real purpose, nobody's perfect, at least I'm definitely not. On balance, I'll take it, any day, over the mindless drones I deal with daily here.

Hey Toby, I love your signature statement, as it's on the lines of my signature statement. Those Libtards you mentioned will never
fully understand that their socialist policies has never worked here or anywhere the world over.

 

[Tobytone]

I do know about all that.

he's good on some issues.

but he's a deep state globalist eugenicist fucktoid all the way, and is a fascist.

Lol, I was heading for that 'thumbs up' until that last line. I know, I know, I'm a fascist globalist pig too.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Lol, I was heading for that 'thumbs up' until that last line. I know, I know, I'm a fascist globalist pig too.

are monopolies free trade?

 

[Tobytone]

Hey Toby, I love your signature statement, as it's on the lines of my signature statement. Those Libtards you mentioned will never
fully understand that their socialist policies has never worked here or anywhere the world over.

I like that signature as well, if I had thought of saying it originally, I would've maybe added "the murder always follows a few years later." There is no excuse for our educational system failing to thoroughly teach all young people the absolute nightmare results of so many trying socialist policies in the 20th century. It should be required learning, needed to graduate and maybe less tragic examples will exist in the 21st century.

 

[Tobytone]

are monopolies free trade?

No, certainly not. your point?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No, certainly not. your point?

just checking.

 

[Into the Night]

Congress has not done regular order in decades, in part because they are not up to it, they tend to be both too dumb and too lazy.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Try again.

 

[Into the Night]

Tell Congress that, they've mastered the art of drowning political payoffs and pet projects in a sea of words, where they just might know the 'right' person with a few bucks they won't miss lying around.

No need to tell Congress that! They already know!

Fewer words mean clearer, simpler laws that the average American can actually comprehend or at least try, just like the Constitution, which lays out its principles with surprising simplicity given its scope. That's why I picked it to make my point. It's tough to argue that less verbiage leads to more convoluted legislation.

This DOES go against your earlier argument of OOOB though.

Besides, I don't think it will go your way, it's looking more like the one big beautiful bill is moving forward. If anything it may be split into two pretty looking plump bills, not likely to be many cute skinny bills. LOL

Not many bills are needed at all for Trump's agenda. Most of it can be implemented by Trump himself without using Congress.