It's pointless arguing with CsG. He thinks there's enough ambiguity in his posts to give him room to reply however he feels. It's been his m.o. for months and months. You're better off relegating him to the Riprorin ignore list.
Why don't you try reading and attempt to follow along for once?
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, that's awful funny coming from the likes of you conjur. Why do you continually outright dismiss arguements when there is actual discussion to be had? You've shown by this thread that you haven't a clue what this issue is about- yet you sit there and think you know what I'm doing.
Sandorski - you and conjur used to be reasonable at one point too. Too bad you both have such a bad case of RBH that it has blinded you to real discussion. It's really too bad.
Ldir - I understand perfectly what this issue is about. It's people like conjur and his boys that won't discuss the concept of the idea. They dismiss it because it shows kerry for what he is and what they don't want people to see. This concept of passing any sort of global test is dangerous, whether it affects our decision or not. Sadly they have joined you in the Blame America(and Bush) group.
CsG
:roll:
Instead, you just keep diverting.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, that is NOT what it means.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Huh? Didn't conjur just say that the we have to show the world? Wouldn't that mean the world gets to decide if the reasoning is "legitimate"?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?
Still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said ... IN CONTEXT.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your questions remain specious diversions. They have been answered multiple times by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it. We are still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said instead of your Coulteresque cartoon perversion of what you wish he said.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ofcourse your premise assumes the intent was to mislead on both occasions. Yes, I know history will have it's revisionists and claim things were wrong - because the war was "lost" politically - but how exactly is that mislead again? Oh that's right - it's one's opinion. I don't share that opinion and this was most certainly was necessary.
conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.
Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.
Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.
NeoV - No, it doesn't sound like you understand carterism. If you did - you'd see what I'm talking about.
Allies don't make decisions for us. Allies make their own decisions - just like we do. Just because we are allies - doesn't mean we always have to agree or that they have to approve of every decision we make(before OR after). Again, carterism isn't a "talking point" as I haven't heard anyone else who has thought about it enough to make the connection. And no, I'm not the one who doesn't get it
CsG
John Kerry, from the debate:There, I made it easy for you ... again. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them. And repeat them. And repeat them.
- Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said ... IN CONTEXT.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your questions remain specious diversions. They have been answered multiple times by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it. We are still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said instead of your Coulteresque cartoon perversion of what you wish he said.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ofcourse your premise assumes the intent was to mislead on both occasions. Yes, I know history will have it's revisionists and claim things were wrong - because the war was "lost" politically - but how exactly is that mislead again? Oh that's right - it's one's opinion. I don't share that opinion and this was most certainly was necessary.
conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.
Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.
Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.
NeoV - No, it doesn't sound like you understand carterism. If you did - you'd see what I'm talking about.
Allies don't make decisions for us. Allies make their own decisions - just like we do. Just because we are allies - doesn't mean we always have to agree or that they have to approve of every decision we make(before OR after). Again, carterism isn't a "talking point" as I haven't heard anyone else who has thought about it enough to make the connection. And no, I'm not the one who doesn't get it
CsG
John Kerry, from the debate:There, I made it easy for you ... again. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them. And repeat them. And repeat them.
- Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
It's pointless, Bowfinger. You'll never get King Ambiguous to admit he's trolling.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said ... IN CONTEXT.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your questions remain specious diversions. They have been answered multiple times by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it. We are still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said instead of your Coulteresque cartoon perversion of what you wish he said.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ofcourse your premise assumes the intent was to mislead on both occasions. Yes, I know history will have it's revisionists and claim things were wrong - because the war was "lost" politically - but how exactly is that mislead again? Oh that's right - it's one's opinion. I don't share that opinion and this was most certainly was necessary.
conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.
Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.
Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.
NeoV - No, it doesn't sound like you understand carterism. If you did - you'd see what I'm talking about.
Allies don't make decisions for us. Allies make their own decisions - just like we do. Just because we are allies - doesn't mean we always have to agree or that they have to approve of every decision we make(before OR after). Again, carterism isn't a "talking point" as I haven't heard anyone else who has thought about it enough to make the connection. And no, I'm not the one who doesn't get it
CsG
John Kerry, from the debate:There, I made it easy for you ... again. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them. And repeat them. And repeat them.
- Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
That's cute and all but maybe you feel that way because you ASSume too much, no?Tests typically have questions and responses. I believe what Kerry said was a buzz word. By global, he means everyone. Test seems to represent scrutiny. So, he has laid out both the purpose and the subject of the test, just not the actual contents.
Wow! Speaking of irony.
OK, here's my definition of "global test":
The simple fact that it *will* be done is much more comforting than what we see from Bush.
Oh, I know. But he's so much fun to toy with, especially when he's backed hinself into a corner. We all know he never admits he is wrong about anything, but he is compelled to have the last word, so he just gets louder and less coherent. Besides, when a lie is left unanswered, some people may begin to assume it's true. there's too much disinformation out there already.
platitude?
Facebook
Twitter