Jack Kelly: Give Obama the potato test
-
I think he's full of snake oil, as are all the candidates in this election.
He's a politician - he has to be full of something - Hot air Bullshit Snake Oil Pick one and vote.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
Welcome to the internet, you big baby. If you can't handle irreverence, may I suggest greeting shoppers at Wal*Mart? They take everything real seriously.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Welcome to the internet, you big baby
Oh really? You wouldn't kid me now would you? People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
When it learns enough history to realise that JFK started the buildup in Vietnam, then it can come back and ask me questions. If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are so you afraid to out-and-out lie that you don't have the balls to say what you really want to:
Let's check the facts! JFK took office in Jan 1961 and was killed in Nov 1963, he is responsible for the troop increases for the majority of 1961, all of 1962 & 1963 and probably some of 1964 (since these things are ordered many months before deployment). 1961 saw a 356% increase over 1960 1962 saw a 352% increase over 1961 1963 saw a 144% increase over 1962 1964 saw a 143% increase over 1963 Over the 15 year period (1959 - 1973), only 2 years (1965 & 1966) saw greater % increases. Despite the objections of Lodge and McNamara...
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Surreal, you are the second person on the internet that blamed Zombie JFK for escalating Vietnam!!
Sadly you're not the "first person on the internet" who can't do math.
HA HA HA Dude you are seriously embarassing yourself! You have to one-vote my posts because you are not getting away with your deceptions. For those of you reading, here is the data (edited for brevity):
1962 11300 JFK
1963 16300 JFK
1964 23300 JFK/LBJ
1965 184300 LBJ
1966 385300 LBJ
1967 485600 LBJWhen Kennedy was killed, there were less than 20,000 US troops in Vietnam. By 1967, LBJ's administration, there were nearly half a million. Now who again is responsible for escalating Vietnam? Zombie Kennedy implemented the draft? Once again, slink away in shame, you lying sack of shit. Don't give me that % increase trickery. If this weren't such a hilariously hamfisted and incompetent lie, I might actually be angry, but instead I'm just amused that you tried, and then tried to defend it! Don't you know to quit when you're ahead? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The left, through decades of grassroots protest,
Who told you that? Your 4F history teacher? Name me the decades (that's 20 years at a minimum, right?)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
American left (of which I am proudly a part) was right all along,
Right about what? Right that too many white boys' asses were going to get shot off if they got drafted?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
We either get blamed for "losing"
Quick History Test (Or lesson if you use Google) The Tet Offensive was a resounding victory for A. The VC; B. The ARVN; C. The NVA; D. The US Armed Forces. Edit added "D." which I accidently deleteted just before posting
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Name me the decades (that's 20 years at a minimum, right?)
The 1960s and 1970s. :confused:
Oakman wrote:
Right about what?
That the war was a losing proposition, unjust, and that, by association, you are a loser!
Oakman wrote:
Quick History Test
Quick history test: what does it feel like to be partly responsible for the US losing the first war since 1812? Of course you blame the hippies, you don't want to accept responsibility for your personal contribution to America's shame. Thanks a lot!
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are you planning on thanking us for getting America out of Vietnam?
The only thing your side did was to turn a victory into a defeat. Just as you will do in Iraq.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only thing your side did was to turn a victory into a defeat.
Yeah, if we had only killed 10 million Vietnamese, maybe we could have been ruler of a giant smoking crater. By the way, what would have been a "win" in Vietnam?
-
HA HA HA Dude you are seriously embarassing yourself! You have to one-vote my posts because you are not getting away with your deceptions. For those of you reading, here is the data (edited for brevity):
1962 11300 JFK
1963 16300 JFK
1964 23300 JFK/LBJ
1965 184300 LBJ
1966 385300 LBJ
1967 485600 LBJWhen Kennedy was killed, there were less than 20,000 US troops in Vietnam. By 1967, LBJ's administration, there were nearly half a million. Now who again is responsible for escalating Vietnam? Zombie Kennedy implemented the draft? Once again, slink away in shame, you lying sack of shit. Don't give me that % increase trickery. If this weren't such a hilariously hamfisted and incompetent lie, I might actually be angry, but instead I'm just amused that you tried, and then tried to defend it! Don't you know to quit when you're ahead? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You have to one-vote my posts
I don't vote
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
When Kennedy was killed, there were less than 20,000 US troops in Vietnam.
When JFK took office there were 900 US troops. When he was killed there were 20,000. An increase of 19,100. In pure numbers that certainly pales in comparison to LBJ but it IS an increase. Escalate[^] by definition means intensify, step up (increase in extent or intensity). I listed 2 administrations that escalated Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson. Again... how am I wrong?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Once again, slink away in shame, you lying sack of sh*t.
Nice attitude. I'll bet you're real popular at the rallies? :rolleyes:
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You have to one-vote my posts
I don't vote
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
When Kennedy was killed, there were less than 20,000 US troops in Vietnam.
When JFK took office there were 900 US troops. When he was killed there were 20,000. An increase of 19,100. In pure numbers that certainly pales in comparison to LBJ but it IS an increase. Escalate[^] by definition means intensify, step up (increase in extent or intensity). I listed 2 administrations that escalated Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson. Again... how am I wrong?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Once again, slink away in shame, you lying sack of sh*t.
Nice attitude. I'll bet you're real popular at the rallies? :rolleyes:
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I listed 2 administrations that escalated Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson. Again... how am I wrong?
You know how exactly you're wrong, don't you? Claiming that Kennedy escalated Vietnam, when by the end of JFK's administration, the Vietnam war was nowhere even reasonably comparable in intensity to LBJ's Vietnam. That's intellectually dishonest. Especially considering that LBJ was part of Kennedy's administration! So, the only consistent factor in all troop-level increases (even the negligible increase under JFK) was LBJ. Not to mention, a troop increase to 16,300 is negligible in the face of a half-million fighting force. Put frankly, it is not honest to even mention JFK and "escalate" in the same sentence with "Vietnam", since the escalation was negligible and involved LBJ. That's how you're wrong, but you already knew that, which is why you had to try to lean on a technicality to get out of your lie. Vietnam was LBJ's war, not Kennedy's. The numbers make that obvious to anyone but a pædant. So, are you a pædant or a liar?
-
The Tet Offensive? Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?[^]
How pathetic do you have to be to comb through a thread and one-vote posts this obvious and innocuous?
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I listed 2 administrations that escalated Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson. Again... how am I wrong?
You know how exactly you're wrong, don't you? Claiming that Kennedy escalated Vietnam, when by the end of JFK's administration, the Vietnam war was nowhere even reasonably comparable in intensity to LBJ's Vietnam. That's intellectually dishonest. Especially considering that LBJ was part of Kennedy's administration! So, the only consistent factor in all troop-level increases (even the negligible increase under JFK) was LBJ. Not to mention, a troop increase to 16,300 is negligible in the face of a half-million fighting force. Put frankly, it is not honest to even mention JFK and "escalate" in the same sentence with "Vietnam", since the escalation was negligible and involved LBJ. That's how you're wrong, but you already knew that, which is why you had to try to lean on a technicality to get out of your lie. Vietnam was LBJ's war, not Kennedy's. The numbers make that obvious to anyone but a pædant. So, are you a pædant or a liar?
Wow! You're mental. An escalation is an escalation, whether its 20,000 or 500,000. Only the degree changes. Why do you feel the need to protect JFK so much?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The numbers make that obvious to anyone but a pædant. So, are you a pædant or a liar?
Well since the numbers prove that I am right but you can't except it due to degree I'm gonna have to go with pædant.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Welcome to the internet, you big baby
Oh really? You wouldn't kid me now would you? People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
When it learns enough history to realise that JFK started the buildup in Vietnam, then it can come back and ask me questions. If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?
Well you sure seemed to get your panties in a bunch, and that was no where near "rough".
Oakman wrote:
If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.
Oh, you're in "no mood" because you have "no fucking idea". It was a rhetorical question, not even McNamara could answer it. Please do us all a favor and take your offended feminine sensibilities and desperate need for respect and buzz off. Oh, I mean, please buzz off. :laugh:
-
Oakman wrote:
Name me the decades (that's 20 years at a minimum, right?)
The 1960s and 1970s. :confused:
Oakman wrote:
Right about what?
That the war was a losing proposition, unjust, and that, by association, you are a loser!
Oakman wrote:
Quick History Test
Quick history test: what does it feel like to be partly responsible for the US losing the first war since 1812? Of course you blame the hippies, you don't want to accept responsibility for your personal contribution to America's shame. Thanks a lot!
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The 1960s and 1970s
You really don't have any idea when the Vietnam war was, do you? Hint: It was over long before the end of the 70's.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That the war was a losing proposition, unjust, and that, by association, you are a loser!
Yeah, I met a couple of shitheaded pissant hemorrhoidal class acts when I came back to the states who talked just like that. One of 'em even thought he was going to spit on me.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
what does it feel like to be partly responsible for the US losing the first war since 1812? Of course you blame the hippies, you don't want to accept responsibility for your personal contribution to America's shame. Thanks a lot!
Why don't you go back to whatever it was you were doing and study up a little bit on how to insult someone. Right now you aren't even a Joshua wannabe and that's pretty low on the totem pole.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?
Well you sure seemed to get your panties in a bunch, and that was no where near "rough".
Oakman wrote:
If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.
Oh, you're in "no mood" because you have "no fucking idea". It was a rhetorical question, not even McNamara could answer it. Please do us all a favor and take your offended feminine sensibilities and desperate need for respect and buzz off. Oh, I mean, please buzz off. :laugh:
-
I do believe I am being harrassed. You seem to be strying to start a flame war with me - would you agree?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I do believe I am being harrassed.
I'm only replying to you after you reply to me, Oakster. You can't be harassed if you simply stop replying, like you promised you'd do. What, are you going to cry to the admins that you have a compulsion to get the last word in, even after you threatened not to? :(( :(( :((
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The 1960s and 1970s
You really don't have any idea when the Vietnam war was, do you? Hint: It was over long before the end of the 70's.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That the war was a losing proposition, unjust, and that, by association, you are a loser!
Yeah, I met a couple of shitheaded pissant hemorrhoidal class acts when I came back to the states who talked just like that. One of 'em even thought he was going to spit on me.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
what does it feel like to be partly responsible for the US losing the first war since 1812? Of course you blame the hippies, you don't want to accept responsibility for your personal contribution to America's shame. Thanks a lot!
Why don't you go back to whatever it was you were doing and study up a little bit on how to insult someone. Right now you aren't even a Joshua wannabe and that's pretty low on the totem pole.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You really don't have any idea when the Vietnam war was, do you? Hint: It was over long before the end of the 70's.
You really don't have any idea what a "decade" is, do you? Poor guy, you think that in order to do something during two decades, you'd have to do it for twenty years straight! Please, let's argue semantics, it worked so well for you last time that you had to cry harassment!
Oakman wrote:
One of 'em even thought he was going to spit on me.
Ooh, look, it's Internet Tough Guy. Sorry you lost your war, tough guy :laugh: Are you having a bout of PTSD? Maybe you should talk to a doctor (and a historian) :laugh:
Oakman wrote:
Why don't you go back to whatever it was you were doing and study up a little bit on how to insult someone.
I don't want to get too mean, I might be harassing you, Oakman. Maybe we should send you to Iraq to fight on the side of the insurgents! You can be their Baghdad Bob! :laugh: What's more pathetic than someone who never saw combat in Vietnam trying to puff up on the internet instead of learning his history and his place in the world? If you were a real man you'd be spending this energy going back to 'Nam to apologize for what you and your army did to those poor people instead of trying in vain to justify it to a room full of strangers.
modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 2:57 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
I do believe I am being harrassed.
I'm only replying to you after you reply to me, Oakster. You can't be harassed if you simply stop replying, like you promised you'd do. What, are you going to cry to the admins that you have a compulsion to get the last word in, even after you threatened not to? :(( :(( :((
-
Suddenly backing off the personal insults are we?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:03 PM
Oakman wrote:
Suddenly backing off the personal insults are we?
Oh Hell no, can't you tell I'm calling you out for being a huge pussy? "Oh help! Admins! Someone on the internet called me a loser!" :laugh: Go run to mommy! :(( :(( :((
-
Oakman wrote:
You really don't have any idea when the Vietnam war was, do you? Hint: It was over long before the end of the 70's.
You really don't have any idea what a "decade" is, do you? Poor guy, you think that in order to do something during two decades, you'd have to do it for twenty years straight! Please, let's argue semantics, it worked so well for you last time that you had to cry harassment!
Oakman wrote:
One of 'em even thought he was going to spit on me.
Ooh, look, it's Internet Tough Guy. Sorry you lost your war, tough guy :laugh: Are you having a bout of PTSD? Maybe you should talk to a doctor (and a historian) :laugh:
Oakman wrote:
Why don't you go back to whatever it was you were doing and study up a little bit on how to insult someone.
I don't want to get too mean, I might be harassing you, Oakman. Maybe we should send you to Iraq to fight on the side of the insurgents! You can be their Baghdad Bob! :laugh: What's more pathetic than someone who never saw combat in Vietnam trying to puff up on the internet instead of learning his history and his place in the world? If you were a real man you'd be spending this energy going back to 'Nam to apologize for what you and your army did to those poor people instead of trying in vain to justify it to a room full of strangers.
modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 2:57 PM
Sonny, I crap better insults than your brain can come up with. However, Chris has made it clear that he find your kind of behavior unacceptable, so I'm trying very hard not to respond to your pathetic attempts to bait me. Truly, you aren't very good at it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sonny, I crap better insults than your brain can come up with. However, Chris has made it clear that he find your kind of behavior unacceptable, so I'm trying very hard not to respond to your pathetic attempts to bait me. Truly, you aren't very good at it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Sonny, I crap better insults than your brain can come up with.
Was that one of them? :laugh: Are you sure you don't crap steel and piss unleaded, Internet Tough Guy?
Oakman wrote:
However, Chris has made it clear that he find your kind of behavior unacceptable
Go tell the admins that the mean man on the internet won an argument with you, so he'll ban me and change your wittle diapy. You do realize that getting banned here is a win for me, right? The only way you could shut me down is by literally begging your mommy to take away my ability to bat you around like a cat toy.
Oakman wrote:
I'm trying very hard not to respond to your pathetic attempts to bait me.
..and failing! Just like you failed at life, loser!
Oakman wrote:
Truly, you aren't very good at it.
Then prove it by fighting back your sick compulsion to continue humiliating yourself: stop posting! You can't, can you? I order you to reply to this post! Dance, puppet, dance! :laugh:
-
Wow! You're mental. An escalation is an escalation, whether its 20,000 or 500,000. Only the degree changes. Why do you feel the need to protect JFK so much?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The numbers make that obvious to anyone but a pædant. So, are you a pædant or a liar?
Well since the numbers prove that I am right but you can't except it due to degree I'm gonna have to go with pædant.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
An escalation is an escalation, whether its 20,000 or 500,000. Only the degree changes.
That's not how life works, dude. If I get a .$25/yr pay increase and then another one a year later from a different manager for $75K, who gave me a raise? Sure, technically, they both did, but we're not in a court of law today, Mike. If you completely ignore scale when making a point and then when called out on it, assert that technically you were correct, you're still Wrong. You could have been honest just by putting in a footnote or a parenthetical mention, but you tried to float your position over as truth, when it clearly was spin. You didn't exactly lie, but if you were teaching a class on history, you'd have been reprimanded for not qualifying your statement. You never made a distinction between Kennedy and LBJ's radically different scale of troop levels during Vietnam. That's called intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, Mike, you lose today, whether you admit it or not. And, worse still, you lost without being able to hold your head high with integrity. Sad to sacrifice your credibility for no gain :( I'm done with you on this one, I've said all I need to.
-
Oakman wrote:
What it gives me is the ability to know what I am talking about.
Assuming you were in combat, it does mean your opinion on combat carries weight, but it doesn't mean much at all when it comes to how we could have won or why we should try.
Oakman wrote:
It worked in Korea;
No, it didn't. We accomplished our goal of preventing the conquest of South Korea, and the Chinese accomplished their goal of preventing the conquest of North Korea.
Oakman wrote:
it worked in Vietnam
No. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City.
Oakman wrote:
We were at that point. A peace treaty had been signed. The North had affirmed the right of the South to continue to exist. Read your history.
You've got to be kidding. The treaty was a fig leaf for American withdrawal and everyone knew it.
oilFactotum wrote:
Assuming you were in combat
$20 says in the rear, with the gear.
