(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe you are just determined to misinterpret what I said. I have explained it several times and see no use in doing it again. Tired of repeating myself to deaf ears. It’s all there in the record. Go back and read it again.

Ok, here is everything I could find:

(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump.

(01-05-2020 09:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who are the “people here” that you’re referring to?

The ones who oppose strong action against terrorists. (Don’t hurt them, don’t capture them, don’t hold them, you might make them mad)

The ones who support the Iranian nuclear deal.

The ones who would prefer to see a softer, more apologetic approach to Mid East relations - more Obama like, lessTrump like. (Please stop what you doing, we will give you money.)

If none of this applies to anybody here, then I am not referring to them.

(01-05-2020 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2020 10:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're literally equating having a different approach to foreign policy to directly supporting people shouting death to America?

Indirectly.

(01-06-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody opposes getting out of the Iran Permission Deal, then IMO they are supporting terrorists. If they oppose it just because Trump does it, even worse. Same with a lot of Trump’s antiterrorist policies and actions. Sometimes opposing Trump means favoring terrorists. Face it.

(01-06-2020 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don’t think you are a direct terrorist sympathizer. You are not sending money to Hamas. But I think you support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists, by supporting certain Dem policies and actions.

So I actually made a couple errors.

First, you said we were supporting terrorists. I was the first one to use the word "sympathizer." To me, they are essentially the same thing and equally offensive.

Second, and more significantly to me, you wrote "indirectly" and I somehow morphed it into "inadvertently". I'm less offended by "indirectly", even though it is an entirely BS argument IMO. So my bad on that.

Here's the thing (and feel free to correct me if I am mischaracterizing your beliefs).

You believe that not being aggressive enough with terrorists equals appeasement. Appeasement leads to emboldened terrorists who engage in more attacks on USA citizens and USA interests. You think the policies I support are not sufficiently aggressive and therefore I indirectly support terrorists.

I believe that being aggressive in the wrong, non-strategic ways enrages people who aren't terrorists. This makes it easier for terrorists to recruit more terrorists which leads to more attacks on USA citizens and USA interests. I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists. Note that I am not at all against all aggressive acts (and neither was Obama or almost any other Democrat/liberal/progressive). Just ones that I think do more harm to the USA cause then good.

The key difference - I don't call you a terrorist supporter while you call me a terrorist supporter "indirectly". I believe the result of your policies helps terrorists and you believe the result of my policies helps terrorists. But I know that is not the intent of your policies so I would never call you a terrorist supporter, directly or indirectly. I think that would be offensive because that is obviously not where you are coming from. You don't seem to have the same qualms about calling me a terrorist supporter, which I think is a if we are going to have intelligent or productive discourse. It sidetracks us from the substantive issues.