Jack Kelly: Give Obama the potato test
-
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.
-
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.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You never made a distinction between Kennedy and LBJ's radically different scale of troop levels during Vietnam. That's called intellectual dishonesty.
Only if I had gone on to compare JFK and LBJ in any way. I didn't. I made a simple, truthful comment. You, on the other hand, have gone ape-shit defending JFK for as of yet unknown reasons.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
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?
Your analogy blows! A $75K raise is 3000 times more than a $25 raise. A 500k escalation is only 25 times more than a 20k escalation.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I'm done with you on this one, I've said all I need to.
Good, because you're being ridiculous.
-
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?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
By the way, what would have been a "win" in Vietnam?
Just as with Japan, the government in Hanoi surrendering to conquering American troops.
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.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
By the way, what would have been a "win" in Vietnam?
Just as with Japan, the government in Hanoi surrendering to conquering American troops.
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.
Easier said than done. Of course you dolchstoss fantasizers never seem to explain how it could be accomplised, never acknowledge the cost that would be borne, or what would have been gained. truely a bunch of chicken-hawks. X|
-
Easier said than done. Of course you dolchstoss fantasizers never seem to explain how it could be accomplised, never acknowledge the cost that would be borne, or what would have been gained. truely a bunch of chicken-hawks. X|
oilFactotum wrote:
or what would have been gained
A successful outcome to an American commitment.
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.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
or what would have been gained
A successful outcome to an American commitment.
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.
Still unwilling to explain how it could have been accomplished, still unwilling to acknowledge the cost. Nothing but a chicken-hawk.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A successful outcome to an American commitment.
'The reason to win is so we can say we won.' The best you can come up with is bragging rights? No wonder you won't talk about the cost. X|