Originally posted by Christianbookworm
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Slaughtering our Kurdish allies
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostHas the middle east ever not had conflict?Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI think in 2003 for the Iraq war.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI think in 2003 for the Iraq war.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Turkey Begins Syria Attack, Targeting Militia Backed by U.S.
By Ben Hubbard
Oct. 9, 2019
Updated 10:43 a.m. ET
The SDF has previously said they would abandon the prisoner camps where ISIS troops (including European nationals) were being held if Turkey began an offensive against them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostDems and Reps must quickly team up to dump Trump. Vamos!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
The Kurds may use human shields
Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.
The story itself has numerous hyperlinks and various photos and graphics.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe Kurds may use human shields
Well at least according to The Sun. And the human shields would be captured ISIS combatants. I seriously doubt that killing them would in any way hinder the Turkey military.
Now the fighters which normally guard them are being sent to the border to prepare for a Turkish assault.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNaturally. You've defended worse from Trump rougue. I've even started threads saying - effectively - surely people can't support THIS - and sure enough, a good many of you do.
This has been pointed out to you more than once.
Originally posted by oxmixmuddMany time you and others have chastised me severely for pointing our what he is doing is immoral, after all, you didn't elect a saint.
2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.
3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.
Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.
tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.
Originally posted by oxmixmuddSo I can't even count on the immorality of his actions as any indication you would be likely to reject them. So yes, if you don't explicitly say you are against what he is doing, I assume you are with what he is doing.
Jim
...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostNo, that's a misrepresentation. People disagree with you over the substance of what you think Trump actually did, so they don't have a problem with it. Since they don't think he did what you think he did, they don't draw the conclusion you draw. You have to get them to agree on the premises (what he did) BEFORE you can get them to agree on the conclusion you draw from those premises.
This has been pointed out to you more than once.
1. See above. Until there is agreement on what he actually did, there won't be agreement on whether it is immoral or not.
2. Some people realise that all politicians are to a greater or lesser degree, flawed and immoral. They take a pragmatic view of politics. You seem to be more idealistic.
3. I harbour doubts about how even-handed your moral sensibility is in the area of politics. I suspect you focus on the morality of politicians you dislike, and overlook the morality of politicians you support. As do we all.
Take a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
Now imagine that we changed 'Warren' to 'Trump' but left the statements, backstory, etc the same. I think that they posters who have been supporting 'Warren' would condemn 'Trump' and vice versa. The people who interpret 'Warren's' statements charitably would interpret 'Trump's' statements unfavourably.
tl; dr : I don't think anyone is completely unbiased, certainly not you. Hence 'Trump bad' from you carries little weight.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostTake a good look at the current 'Elizabeth Warren lying' thread. You have a group of posters interpreting her statements in the most charitable way they can (and reasonably, I think), because they broadly oppose Trump and support her. And you have a group of posters who find her statements to be contradictory, and indicative of her lying (reasonably, I think). They don't like her politics, her personality, and find things in her past (claims to be Native American) as evidence that she's likely lying now.
While both positions are understandable, I do not find the latter position as reasonable as the former.
Neither do I find the Washington Beacon's failure to update their piece with additional facts that have come to light consistent with standard editorial review.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI stand by my reasons fo believing rogue will be supporting Trump on an issue, and especially in light of posts that do not directly criticize him. And I dont believe there is any post by rogue in this thread that would provide justification for changing that as my default expectation.
Jim
More substantively, the same should be acknowledged for Lindsey Graham.
But more directly, it is not reasonable in my view to continue to defend an initial judgment at odds with Rogue's direct denial of support in this instance. The proper course, in my view, is to gracefully admit to being wrong, learn from the experience, and move on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostWhen is the last time the USA actually bothered declaring war?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe Kurds may use human shields
Actually, if the human shields are ISIS, I don't think I object.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Lindsey Graham's twitter account, pinned tweetI am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement with Senator @ChrisVanHollen on severe sanctions against Turkey for their invasion of Syria.
While the Administration refuses to act against Turkey, I expect strong bipartisan support.
EGduEjaX0AYzT1d.jpeg
EGduEjZWoAAfVHh.jpeg
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
23 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by eider, 05-11-2024, 06:00 AM
|
38 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:07 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-10-2024, 03:54 PM
|
14 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-10-2024, 12:05 PM
|
7 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-10-2024, 05:10 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 04:14 PM
|
32 responses
200 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-11-2024, 04:50 AM
|
Comment