Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.
Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.
Cheers,
![]()
OH TEH NOESS...Bowfinger doesn't like me....MOMMY!!@1!!!!!![]()
Anyway - The answer is a yes or no answer. It either is or isn't. There is no "kinda" a battleground. Either we are fighting them there or we aren't. So again - In your opinion - Is Iraq a current battleground for terrorism?
You can call names, try to spin and explain, but without knowing your answer to the question we can't put it in context.
So lets break this kerry-esq statement down.
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.
In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.
Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?
See - none of your nuanceanswers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.
Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?
Let me take a page from kerry's book.
HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....
CkG
OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.
