(01-12-2020 06:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 05:28 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 05:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 05:09 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 12:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Except those missiles went into an unoccupied area and no Americans were hit or harmed, suggesting that Iran simply had to show some sort of something for domestic consumption. There is even a (very believable) story that Iran contacted us and said, "We need to do something for show, so get all of your people out of that area and we will fire some rockets into it." The average American has little or no understanding of how things are done on that stage.

american base isn't a U.S. target? or maybe you cant read.
and UNOCCUPIED is not the same as EVACUATED, smart guy.

Have you seen the satellite photos of where they hit? It looks like an area off the end of a runway, and there is absolutely nothing there.
And while we are at it, it looks like shooting down that airliner has triggered some significant unrest in Iran. If that toppled the theocracy, it would be poetic justice.

bull****,, not what the photos show at all. FIVE different structures hit, youre talking out your ass.
would be AWESOME for the shah to go down.

Not the photos I saw.

At any rate, whether there were buildings there or not, there were no people injured, so if there were any buildings, they must be abandoned or evacuated.

let's see your photos. "area off the end of a runway" ha!

dont trip over your feet backpedaling. seriously, you couldnt bother to read about it? like not ONE news article??? admin has ALWAYS said iran tried to KILL troops. evacuation saved them.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-missi...ntagon.amp

or if you want ALL the details theyre out now
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-troops-...me-report/
"directly on living quarters that had been evacuated due to the warnings"


how are you AMERICANS cool with empty idle THREATS of AMERICAN FORCE? like no pride? dont care if they ALL know were full of CRAP?

(01-12-2020 09:01 PM)Foff Wrote:  let's see your photos. "area off the end of a runway" ha!
dont trip over your feet backpedaling. seriously, you couldnt bother to read about it? like not ONE news article??? admin has ALWAYS said iran tried to KILL troops. evacuation saved them.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-missi...ntagon.amp
or if you want ALL the details theyre out now
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-troops-...me-report/
"directly on living quarters that had been evacuated due to the warnings"
how are you AMERICANS cool with empty idle THREATS of AMERICAN FORCE? like no pride? dont care if they ALL know were full of CRAP?

The photos were in a Facebook post this morning that said the rockets were fired into unoccupied territory. Obviously, wherever they were fired was unoccupied since there were no casualties.

So we knew of the firings 2-5 hours ahead of time and evacuated? How convenient. How did we know?

I don't see any empty idle threats here. We killed the guy. It's about time we did that instead of empty idle threats like Obama's disappearing red line. What happened strikes me as turning a major page, and a good one to turn.

(01-12-2020 09:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:01 PM)Foff Wrote:  let's see your photos. "area off the end of a runway" ha!
dont trip over your feet backpedaling. seriously, you couldnt bother to read about it? like not ONE news article??? admin has ALWAYS said iran tried to KILL troops. evacuation saved them.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-missi...ntagon.amp
or if you want ALL the details theyre out now
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-troops-...me-report/
"directly on living quarters that had been evacuated due to the warnings"
how are you AMERICANS cool with empty idle THREATS of AMERICAN FORCE? like no pride? dont care if they ALL know were full of CRAP?

The photos were in a Facebook post this morning that said the rockets were fired into unoccupied territory. Obviously, wherever they were fired was unoccupied since there were no casualties.

So we knew of the firings 2-5 hours ahead of time and evacuated? How convenient. How did we know?

I don't see any empty idle threats here. We killed the guy. It's about time we did that instead of empty idle threats like Obama's disappearing red line. What happened strikes me as turning a major page, and a good one to turn.

Word for the wise - believe nothing you see on Facebook. Always double check every claim you read on social networks, in general.

(01-12-2020 08:01 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  over a bunch of blown up dirt and some buildings that suffered some damage.

nice flipflop! donny would be proud!

Dude, the response from Iran was ineffective. I know that sticks in your craw, but too boo hoo bad.

You seemingly want an escalation over zero injuries, zero deaths, and less than a handful of buildings damaged. I am rather relieved Orange Man didnt respond to that miniscule effect of a response.

Seemingly pisses you off. Good grief..... I think Im gonna join Optimistic and turn this brain fart of a poster off.

Edited to add: from his link --

Quote:the damage at the bases was largely contained to “tentage, taxiways, the parking lot,"

Ooh, that damage to tentage is really gonna get the war fever boiling....... lolz.

(01-12-2020 09:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The photos were in a Facebook post this morning that said the rockets were fired into unoccupied territory. Obviously, wherever they were fired was unoccupied since there were no casualties.

Many of the boomsticks missed entirely.

Quote:So we knew of the firings 2-5 hours ahead of time and evacuated? How convenient. How did we know?

The Iranians gave notice to Iraq --

Quote:An Arab diplomatic source told CNN that the Iraqis had warned the US in advance of which bases would be hit after receiving the information from the Iranians. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi said the Iranians gave an official verbal message warning Iraq shortly before the attack started.

Yamamoto would be proud. Foff certainly is.

(01-12-2020 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Good grief..... I think Im gonna join Optimistic and turn this brain fart of a poster off.

So filled with irrational hate and won't even listen. What a waste.

It says something that I have this guy on Ignore but not Fountains...yet.

(01-12-2020 09:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:01 PM)Foff Wrote:  let's see your photos. "area off the end of a runway" ha!
dont trip over your feet backpedaling. seriously, you couldnt bother to read about it? like not ONE news article??? admin has ALWAYS said iran tried to KILL troops. evacuation saved them.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-missi...ntagon.amp
or if you want ALL the details theyre out now
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-troops-...me-report/
"directly on living quarters that had been evacuated due to the warnings"
how are you AMERICANS cool with empty idle THREATS of AMERICAN FORCE? like no pride? dont care if they ALL know were full of CRAP?

The photos were in a Facebook post this morning that said the rockets were fired into unoccupied territory. Obviously, wherever they were fired was unoccupied since there were no casualties.

So we knew of the firings 2-5 hours ahead of time and evacuated? How convenient. How did we know?

I don't see any empty idle threats here. We killed the guy. It's about time we did that instead of empty idle threats like Obama's disappearing red line. What happened strikes me as turning a major page, and a good one to turn.

lets see your FB photos. do they even exist?? ricelad15 already posted the real ones, but youre too lazy to open them i guess.


but really how ignorant are you??? donnys threats came AFTER we killed soleimani... not before.

EMPTY bs threat,,, typical. here it is from AFTER the killing
"These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner."

so iran attacks AMERICAN base.. the same base donny said
"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. ... We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

iran fires MISSILES at it and blows up buildings and our PEOPLE have to ESCAPE! think our TROOPS on the ground think iran didnt STRIKE a US TARGET? nuh uh. read the article.

at least obama took away syria chemical weapons when they crossed his red line and then repubs refused to attack.. right call by repubs by the way!!!
donnyboy puts line in sand and iran jumps on it 3 days later with an ATTACK. no response but sanctions on sanctions,, thank God he wont keep a PROMISE!

(01-12-2020 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 08:01 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  over a bunch of blown up dirt and some buildings that suffered some damage.

nice flipflop! donny would be proud!

Dude, the response from Iran was ineffective. I know that sticks in your craw, but too boo hoo bad.

You seemingly want an escalation over zero injuries, zero deaths, and less than a handful of buildings damaged. I am rather relieved Orange Man didnt respond to that miniscule effect of a response.

Seemingly pisses you off. Good grief..... I think Im gonna join Optimistic and turn this brain fart of a poster off.

Edited to add: from his link --

Quote:the damage at the bases was largely contained to “tentage, taxiways, the parking lot,"

Ooh, that damage to tentage is really gonna get the war fever boiling....... lolz.

how dense are you?? i KNOW iran was ineffective. said it five times,,, im THRILLED iran was ineffective. and THRILLED that donny backed out on his dumb threat.

i am PISSED he made his dumb threat... makes America a JOKE. youre cool with it.

(01-12-2020 05:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, you complained of some language usage. Does Foff's screen name offend you?

Haha, until you wrote this post, I was pronouncing it as foff in my head and hadn't given it a second thought.

To answer your question, not as much as referring to a specific person as a skank or suggesting that someone you have a disagreement on policy with a supporter of terrorists. Personal attacks bother me more then an offensive screen name. I'm less concerned with the profanity and more concerned with how the profanity is being directed.

(01-10-2020 08:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is interesting to me that liberals divide the world into good and bad based on ONE point of data. Racism.

The guys marching to keep statues were all bad.

The guys wearing masks and attacking people were all good.

For example

I prefer a more general approach.

I don't understand what your link has to do with the events in Charlottesville or Trump's "very fine people on both sides comment." The event in the video you linked took place in Portland, OR. Moreover, I already acknowledged there were bad people on both sides. Antifa sucks. White supremacists and Nazis and anti-Semites suck. I'm not talking about the old lady who crosses the street when she sees a couple teen boys with dark skin walking down the sidewalk toward her. I'm talking about the actual bad guys who were actually protesting in Charlottesville.

(01-10-2020 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "One side was all bad people".

So *everybody* who marched against tearing down the statues, and *everybody* who went to the protest and was against tearing down the statues is a 'bad person'. Got it.

Wow, that is some pretty fing potent kool aid you got going there.

As a lawyer, you actually should be cognizant of 'extreme' words like "all". Apparently either you arent, or you actually think that drivel.

As a lawyer, I am very cognizant of "extreme" words like "all". Given the context of the specific rally, I feel comfortable with the conclusion that all the protestors on the "right" were white supremacists, Nazis, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, or otherwise fell within the same basket of horribleness. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, though I am happy to consider anything you have.

Until then, the defense of Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment only works if there were actually very fine people on both sides. I met and worked across from very fine people who protested the removal of confederate statues in New Orleans. None of them would be caught dead associating with the protesters on the "right" in Charlottesville and I remember at least one of them talking about how racist protestors undermine the efforts of protestors who are genuinely trying to preserve the statues as historical or cultural items.

(01-13-2020 03:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Given the context of the specific rally, I feel comfortable with the conclusion that all the protestors on the "right" were white supremacists, Nazis, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, or otherwise fell within the same basket of horribleness.

As I said earlier, and you confirm above, the judgement of whether or not somebody is very good or horrible is based by you and many other Democrats on one attribute, and one only: perceived racism.

As I said, for me it takes more points of reference: is an anti Semite who takes care of his widowed mother, pays his taxes, contributes to charities, etc, “horrible”, while a person who is unprejudiced racially but commits fraud and theft “fine”?

I don’t think it a good thing to be racist. But it is not the only thing a person should be judged on. I doubt that will be the only thing that matters on Judgement Day.

I disagree that you can discern the character of everybody in the march. You make assumptions and then condemn based on those assumptions. You cannot prove that everybody marching was a racist, but demand proof that some were not.

I presented the actions in Portland, wanting to know which group you would see as “fine”: the nonracists attacking the journalist ,or the right wing journalist being attacked. Guess you didn’t pick up on that.


I also find it interesting that there are antisemites in Congress and they are Democrats. Omar and Tlaib.

(01-13-2020 02:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 05:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, you complained of some language usage. Does Foff's screen name offend you?

Haha, until you wrote this post, I was pronouncing it as foff in my head and hadn't given it a second thought.

To answer your question, not as much as referring to a specific person as a skank or suggesting that someone you have a disagreement on policy with a supporter of terrorists. Personal attacks bother me more then an offensive screen name. I'm less concerned with the profanity and more concerned with how the profanity is being directed.

Your response indicates you see varying levels of horribleness. Yet most of your posts on this matter seem very black and white.

This terrorist supporter thing is so old now I don't remember the post that set you off, but was it directed at you personally or was it a generic charge that you took personally? If the former, I would appreciate the post number.

Who called who a skank? Not this

I wonder if this legislation would have prohibited the Iran Deal

(01-13-2020 04:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 03:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Given the context of the specific rally, I feel comfortable with the conclusion that all the protestors on the "right" were white supremacists, Nazis, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, or otherwise fell within the same basket of horribleness.

As I said earlier, and you confirm above, the judgement of whether or not somebody is very good or horrible is based by you and many other Democrats on one attribute, and one only: perceived racism.

As I said, for me it takes more points of reference: is an anti Semite who takes care of his widowed mother, pays his taxes, contributes to charities, etc, “horrible”, while a person who is unprejudiced racially but commits fraud and theft “fine”?

I don’t think it a good thing to be racist. But it is not the only thing a person should be judged on. I doubt that will be the only thing that matters on Judgement Day.

I disagree that you can discern the character of everybody in the march. You make assumptions and then condemn based on those assumptions. You cannot prove that everybody marching was a racist, but demand proof that some were not.

Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

Someone’s character is obviously built and determine by many of their actions and characteristics, but what you fail to recognize is that certain actions or characteristics can taint someone’s character, regardless of the redeemable qualities they have.

By your initial logic Nazi’s, war criminals, cartel leaders, and so on could make you feel sympathetic towards their character if they were nice to their own mother and donated to charity.

(01-13-2020 05:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 02:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 05:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, you complained of some language usage. Does Foff's screen name offend you?

Haha, until you wrote this post, I was pronouncing it as foff in my head and hadn't given it a second thought.

To answer your question, not as much as referring to a specific person as a skank or suggesting that someone you have a disagreement on policy with a supporter of terrorists. Personal attacks bother me more then an offensive screen name. I'm less concerned with the profanity and more concerned with how the profanity is being directed.

Your response indicates you see varying levels of horribleness. Yet most of your posts on this matter seem very black and white.

This terrorist supporter thing is so old now I don't remember the post that set you off, but was it directed at you personally or was it a generic charge that you took personally? If the former, I would appreciate the post number.

Who called who a skank? Not this

I wonder if this legislation would have prohibited the Iran Deal

Regarding the Gillum supporter:

Quote: Gillum’s campaign said in a written statement that “the Mayor and our campaign denounce name-calling, and we agree with EMILY's List on that point. Our supporters should stick to the Congresswoman's record.”

Regarding Gabbard’s bill: it passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act at the end of 2019.

Also, ironic that you don’t remember calling people who happened to question POTUS’ judgement on the strike as terrorist sympathizers.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16591399

(01-13-2020 02:59 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 08:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is interesting to me that liberals divide the world into good and bad based on ONE point of data. Racism.
The guys marching to keep statues were all bad.
The guys wearing masks and attacking people were all good.
For example
I prefer a more general approach.

I don't understand what your link has to do with the events in Charlottesville or Trump's "very fine people on both sides comment." The event in the video you linked took place in Portland, OR. Moreover, I already acknowledged there were bad people on both sides. Antifa sucks. White supremacists and Nazis and anti-Semites suck. I'm not talking about the old lady who crosses the street when she sees a couple teen boys with dark skin walking down the sidewalk toward her. I'm talking about the actual bad guys who were actually protesting in Charlottesville.

"some very fine people on both sides"

Be sure not to omit the word "some" from the quote, because that word clearly implies that there were also some on both sides who aren't/weren't "very fine." It's pretty clear that there were people on both sides who came wanting a rumble, and it's pretty clear that's what they got.

Suppose Trump had said instead, "there were some terrible people on both sides." Would you agree or disagree with that? I would agree, and that is in effect what he said if you read the entire statement. IIRC the preceding comments talked about the bad people on both sides, and this was more in the context of noting an exception. The "there were some very fine people on both sides" comment has clearly been taken out of context, and misleadingly so.

Trump's bombastic style leaves him open to having things he says taken badly out of context, and I think this is one of those times.

(01-13-2020 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

Actually, that is just the opposite of what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that it is only one of many that determine character.

But it seems to be the only one that many on the left seem to care about. And it's one that they interject at the drop of a hat into any argument, particularly one that they seem to be losing.

(01-13-2020 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

Actually, that is just the opposite of what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that it is only one of many that determine character.

But it seems to be the only one that many on the left seem to care about. And it's one that they interject at the drop of a hat into any argument, particularly one that they seem to be losing.

Do you live for fighting OO’s battles?

From OO:

Quote: As I said, for me it takes more points of reference: is an anti Semite who takes care of his widowed mother, pays his taxes, contributes to charities, etc, “horrible”, while a person who is unprejudiced racially but commits fraud and theft “fine”?

How is that not a straw man? Did anyone here suggest that someone who wasn’t racist yet committed multiple crimes was fine? OO is literally resulting to making up a position no one has taken, and asked it to be defended.

(01-13-2020 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

Actually, that is just the opposite of what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that it is only one of many that determine character.
But it seems to be the only one that many on the left seem to care about. And it's one that they interject at the drop of a hat into any argument, particularly one that they seem to be losing.

Do you live for fighting OO’s battles?
From OO:

Quote:
As I said, for me it takes more points of reference: is an anti Semite who takes care of his widowed mother, pays his taxes, contributes to charities, etc, “horrible”, while a person who is unprejudiced racially but commits fraud and theft “fine”?

How is that not a straw man? Did anyone here suggest that someone who wasn’t racist yet committed multiple crimes was fine? OO is literally resulting to making up a position no one has taken, and asked it to be defended.

OO does not need me to fight his battles. He can hold is own. His comment and your follow-up touched on a point that matters to me, so I commented. Last I heard, this was still a free country.

He posed it as a hypothetical question, which as nearly as I can tell, you have not answered. Posing a question does not strike me as creating a straw man. I would infer from your comments that your answer to the question is "no." I would also infer from comments of others that they might answer there question "yes." There are certainly those on the left who do consider racism is the mortal sin, from which there is no forgiveness. For that matter, they also consider anything short of total buy-in into the race baiting agenda to be racism. And many of those same folks will turn around and blame crimes like theft on society, and argue for leniency for the perp.

Trump the magician:

"And now for my next act, I will make the Democrats defend Iran"