Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:16 PM
Where did I say you were wrong for wanting to view all the facts?
You didn't but I am wrong about everything else, so I must be wrong there too.
I feel it is implied. If Obama will not share the info, how will I know if he was Innocent or guilty? Then we go round and round.
What goes around, comes around
I tell you why,
You shot an arrow through my heart!
Round and Round!
Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:25 PM
but I still reserve my right to view all the facts, which makes me wrong, as joker stated clearly to me in another thread.
You didn't but I am wrong about everything else, so I must be wrong there too.
I feel it is implied. If Obama will not share the info, how will I know if he was Innocent or guilty? Then we go round and round.
What goes around, comes around
I tell you why,
You shot an arrow through my heart!
Round and Round!
Jesus Christ dude, one post you state I clearly did it and in the next you say I didn't.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:28 PM
Yes, you stated a 16 year was killed. You did not state how the kid was killed, that is the implied part, that a drone was used. That is my point. My point is you may not say drone, but you inject the 16 year old american into other threads. But I am wrong.
Wow. Do you need notes, may be a diagram to help?
You keep on being right.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM
In this thread
http://www.gathering...head-cia/page-2
Post #57. down...
This is why it is Joker vs Andy because I say stuff and remember it, may be not exactly, but you just do not remember at all.
I found one anomaly in your logic from this thread. Saying you did not say something when in fact you did say it in another thread just as I stated.
but again, I am spewing shit.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:25 PM
In this thread
http://www.gathering...head-cia/page-2
Post #57. down...
This is why it is Joker vs Andy because I say stuff and remember it, may be not exactly, but you just do not remember at all.
I found one anomaly in your logic from this thread. Saying you did not say something when in fact you did say it in another thread just as I stated.
but again, I am spewing shit.
And what did I say you were wrong about?
I'll tell you right now it wasn't that you were wrong about wanting to view all the facts as you said it was in this thread.
Found it
See this is totally different than what you're accusing me of here
"No, I'm saying you're wrong when you say no US citizens are dying."
Edited by Joker, 22 January 2013 - 07:30 PM.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:30 PM
And what did I say you were wrong about?
I'll tell you right now it wasn't that you were wrong about wanting to view all the facts as you said it was in this thread.
I somehow did not get it, doesn't that imply that I am wrong?
Post #57: My response:
While I understand, you haven't provided an alternative. Regardless of how the government runs the drone program.
The only one I have heard in reading many of your threads, is to send in more troops. Now with the Suicide rate higher than the death rate for returning soldiers, I do not think sending troops in is a good idea. Hence me not committing to either side, BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.
Your response:
Oh, I see, because you don't think my alternative is a good idea you just pretend I haven't provided one. Got it.
And if this administration (the "transparent" admin.) has it's way you're not going to know all the details.
THAT is what I have a problem with, they're putting American children on hit lists and assassinating them for God's sake!!!
If you want to sit by and not commit to either side while that happens then that's your choice. I prefer to be on the side looking for answers and calling them out for their actions
This implies you are right and I am wrong.
and later:
Did you bother to read that 2nd piece?
"After Obama’s reelection, the administration’s sense of urgency lessened considerably. Now, with Brennan’s nomination, this urgency may have dissipated entirely. Certainly his elevation suggests that the decision-making process behind drone strikes will remain opaque. The man called “the high priest of targeted killing” will keep his exalted position."
Don't you get it?
They don't want us to know what they're doing. They want to be able to just target and execute anyone they decide needs to be killed. They're assuming people are guilty, blowing them up without being sure anything wrong has been done and they're not answering to anyone. They're in court fighting to keep the information private.
Or do you think it's acceptable as long as it's just Obama doing it?
You can bet your ass that policy would have been completed if Romney had won so there's no excuse for it not being done by Inauguration Day regardless of who won. Well, other than they don't want to have to abide by any actual set of rules that they could be held accountable to.
again, I do not get it, so I must be wrong.
By not getting it, means I must be wrong. As I stated I want to know all the facts and our debate still went on for another 50 posts.
but somehow I am spewing shit.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:44 PM
I somehow did not get it, doesn't that imply that I am wrong?
Post #57: My response:
Your response:
This implies you are right and I am wrong.
No, it doesn't imply you are wrong nor does it mean I'm right because I choose to call them out.
and later:
again, I do not get it, so I must be wrong.
By not getting it, means I must be wrong. As I stated I want to know all the facts and our debate still went on for another 50 posts.
but somehow I am spewing shit.
Again just because I ask "don't you get it?" that doesn't mean I'm saying you're wrong for wanting more information. And it's certainly not clearly stating you are wrong
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:49 PM
No, it doesn't imply you are wrong nor does it mean I'm right because I choose to call them out.Again just because I ask "don't you get it?" that doesn't mean I'm saying you're wrong for wanting more information. And it's certainly not clearly stating you are wrong
Well I take it that way, you may not mean it that way.
I just feel like when ever I debate you, no matter what I do or say I am wrong. So for me to find the exact quote or thread is pointless to me, but I indulged in your game.
Batting 1 for 2 is still .500, not bad IMO.
You did use drones as reference in the other thread, even though you did not say Obama or drones, the 16 year old kid is a drone reference every single time, no matter what the context.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:02 PM
Well I take it that way, you may not mean it that way.
I just feel like when ever I debate you, no matter what I do or say I am wrong. So for me to find the exact quote or thread is pointless to me, but I indulged in your game.
I can't help the way you feel all I know is I would never say someone was wrong for wanting to know more about the subject at hand. Hell, I'm always hoping to learn more in these debates.
Batting 1 for 2 is still .500, not bad IMO.
You did use drones as reference in the other thread, even though you did not say Obama or drones, the 16 year old kid is a drone reference every single time, no matter what the context.
So if half the shit you say isn't true that's somehow acceptable to you?
I referenced the fact our govt. was already targeting Americans if you want to consider that a statement about Obama or drones you go ahead and have a good old time with it.
But if you have to hit off a tee in order to bat .500 then you still have a lot of work to do to before you can play the big leagues 
Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:13 PM
I can't help the way you feel all I know is I would never say someone was wrong for wanting to know more about the subject at hand. Hell, I'm always hoping to learn more in these debates.
So if half the shit you say isn't true that's somehow acceptable to you?
I referenced the fact our govt. was already targeting Americans if you want to consider that a statement about Obama or drones you go ahead and have a good old time with it.
But if you have to hit off a tee in order to bat .500 then you still have a lot of work to do to before you can play the big leagues
Come on now, half the shit I say? I still see me being right, and am batting 1.000 but I will concede to the second one being a little more vague as I felt it was implied that I was wrong. And only 50 posts later did you clarify what I was wrong about. Semantics, oh well.
Beyond that, you are now trying to engage in legit conversation with me, something that was lacking weeks ago because I spewed shit about you.
Only recently have you done so. By not engaging for as long as you did, you left all things out on the table and it took recent conversations to really understand the others point.
Hitting off a tee? I thought that was what you were doing every time you post a drone thread or hi-jack a thread with drone commentary of killing a 16 year old american. You tee'd that one up for me.
BTW, hitting .500 is better than most ball players. When .390+ is the best batting average since 1980.
