US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: nick1985
No. But I DO think that many posters on this board are happier than pigs in shit when they hear bad news from Iraq.

That is because you are a brainwashed Republican tool. Get a grip.

Yep, Im brainwashed even though a few have even come out and said that. I must be brainwashed so badly I cant even read!

Just admit you got worked over and move on. Your post made no sense, and worst yet you continue to perpetuate the anti-conservative neocon BS about people being happy about bad news in Iraq.

Did you not read? There have been several posters here thay have said exactly that. JohnofSheffield, Jpeyton, Green Bean...and a few others I cant name off the top of my head say that crap all the time. Its not BS if its true.

How are a few isolated posters worth noting in a thread like this that contains none of those posters? Again, admit you were generalizing and venting your hatred for the left (which this thread has nothing to do with and is therefore plainly off topic), and move on.

I was responding to ProfJohns comment, so yes, it had something to do with the thread. Again, learn to read.

Take your own advice; no where did you quote ProfJohn, no where did you indicate you were replying to his post. Your post had nothing to do with this thread and, as you will continue to fail to admit, was just venting your personal hatred for the left.

Just because I didnt quote him doesnt mean I wasnt responding to him. Look at the 7th post in this thread, then look at the 8th.

So yes, it had something to do with the thread, sorry to bust your bubble.

Hate to break it to you, but you made no indication in your first post in this thread that you were responding to the OP. And your post is still off topic and poor generalization either way you slice it.

I believe it is very clear my first post in this thread was a direct response to the comment by Profjohn in his second post. If you cant see it, then I dont know what to tell you. Again, read post #7, then #8. Coincidence? I think not.

Normal people quote posts they are responding to, or they use a "^". You didn't. No reasonable person would have thought you were replying to the OP. But despite how poor your argument for being on topic with that post is, your generalization was still asinine. Get over it and move on.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: nick1985
No. But I DO think that many posters on this board are happier than pigs in shit when they hear bad news from Iraq.

That is because you are a brainwashed Republican tool. Get a grip.

Yep, Im brainwashed even though a few have even come out and said that. I must be brainwashed so badly I cant even read!

Just admit you got worked over and move on. Your post made no sense, and worst yet you continue to perpetuate the anti-conservative neocon BS about people being happy about bad news in Iraq.

Did you not read? There have been several posters here thay have said exactly that. JohnofSheffield, Jpeyton, Green Bean...and a few others I cant name off the top of my head say that crap all the time. Its not BS if its true.

How are a few isolated posters worth noting in a thread like this that contains none of those posters? Again, admit you were generalizing and venting your hatred for the left (which this thread has nothing to do with and is therefore plainly off topic), and move on.

I was responding to ProfJohns comment, so yes, it had something to do with the thread. Again, learn to read.

Take your own advice; no where did you quote ProfJohn, no where did you indicate you were replying to his post. Your post had nothing to do with this thread and, as you will continue to fail to admit, was just venting your personal hatred for the left.

Just because I didnt quote him doesnt mean I wasnt responding to him. Look at the 7th post in this thread, then look at the 8th.

So yes, it had something to do with the thread, sorry to bust your bubble.

Hate to break it to you, but you made no indication in your first post in this thread that you were responding to the OP. And your post is still off topic and poor generalization either way you slice it.

I believe it is very clear my first post in this thread was a direct response to the comment by Profjohn in his second post. If you cant see it, then I dont know what to tell you. Again, read post #7, then #8. Coincidence? I think not.

Normal people quote posts they are responding to, or they use a "^". You didn't. No reasonable person would have thought you were replying to the OP. But despite how poor your argument for being on topic with that post is, your generalization was still asinine. Get over it and move on.

Well if you couldnt grasp the fact that I was replying to post #7 just because I didnt use an "^", then you have some issues. This isnt something that should have to be broken down Barney style to understand, its not rocket science.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: nick1985
No. But I DO think that many posters on this board are happier than pigs in shit when they hear bad news from Iraq.

That is because you are a brainwashed Republican tool. Get a grip.

Yep, Im brainwashed even though a few have even come out and said that. I must be brainwashed so badly I cant even read!

Just admit you got worked over and move on. Your post made no sense, and worst yet you continue to perpetuate the anti-conservative neocon BS about people being happy about bad news in Iraq.

Did you not read? There have been several posters here thay have said exactly that. JohnofSheffield, Jpeyton, Green Bean...and a few others I cant name off the top of my head say that crap all the time. Its not BS if its true.

How are a few isolated posters worth noting in a thread like this that contains none of those posters? Again, admit you were generalizing and venting your hatred for the left (which this thread has nothing to do with and is therefore plainly off topic), and move on.

I was responding to ProfJohns comment, so yes, it had something to do with the thread. Again, learn to read.

Take your own advice; no where did you quote ProfJohn, no where did you indicate you were replying to his post. Your post had nothing to do with this thread and, as you will continue to fail to admit, was just venting your personal hatred for the left.

Just because I didnt quote him doesnt mean I wasnt responding to him. Look at the 7th post in this thread, then look at the 8th.

So yes, it had something to do with the thread, sorry to bust your bubble.

Hate to break it to you, but you made no indication in your first post in this thread that you were responding to the OP. And your post is still off topic and poor generalization either way you slice it.

I believe it is very clear my first post in this thread was a direct response to the comment by Profjohn in his second post. If you cant see it, then I dont know what to tell you. Again, read post #7, then #8. Coincidence? I think not.

Normal people quote posts they are responding to, or they use a "^". You didn't. No reasonable person would have thought you were replying to the OP. But despite how poor your argument for being on topic with that post is, your generalization was still asinine. Get over it and move on.

Well if you couldnt grasp the fact that I was replying to post #7 just because I didnt use an "^", then you have some issues. This isnt something that should have to be broken down Barney style to understand, its not rocket science.

Indeed, it isn't. So it's a wonder you couldn't use the quote hyperlink or a simple "^". It's how conversations are conducted on the Internet.

Btw, it's pretty funny you've failed to man up on your horrid generalization. I wonder if there's such a thing as being in cyber-denial?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: nick1985
No. But I DO think that many posters on this board are happier than pigs in shit when they hear bad news from Iraq.

That is because you are a brainwashed Republican tool. Get a grip.

Yep, Im brainwashed even though a few have even come out and said that. I must be brainwashed so badly I cant even read!

Just admit you got worked over and move on. Your post made no sense, and worst yet you continue to perpetuate the anti-conservative neocon BS about people being happy about bad news in Iraq.

Did you not read? There have been several posters here thay have said exactly that. JohnofSheffield, Jpeyton, Green Bean...and a few others I cant name off the top of my head say that crap all the time. Its not BS if its true.

How are a few isolated posters worth noting in a thread like this that contains none of those posters? Again, admit you were generalizing and venting your hatred for the left (which this thread has nothing to do with and is therefore plainly off topic), and move on.

I was responding to ProfJohns comment, so yes, it had something to do with the thread. Again, learn to read.

Take your own advice; no where did you quote ProfJohn, no where did you indicate you were replying to his post. Your post had nothing to do with this thread and, as you will continue to fail to admit, was just venting your personal hatred for the left.

Just because I didnt quote him doesnt mean I wasnt responding to him. Look at the 7th post in this thread, then look at the 8th.

So yes, it had something to do with the thread, sorry to bust your bubble.

Hate to break it to you, but you made no indication in your first post in this thread that you were responding to the OP. And your post is still off topic and poor generalization either way you slice it.

I believe it is very clear my first post in this thread was a direct response to the comment by Profjohn in his second post. If you cant see it, then I dont know what to tell you. Again, read post #7, then #8. Coincidence? I think not.

Normal people quote posts they are responding to, or they use a "^". You didn't. No reasonable person would have thought you were replying to the OP. But despite how poor your argument for being on topic with that post is, your generalization was still asinine. Get over it and move on.

Well if you couldnt grasp the fact that I was replying to post #7 just because I didnt use an "^", then you have some issues. This isnt something that should have to be broken down Barney style to understand, its not rocket science.

Indeed, it isn't. So it's a wonder you couldn't use the quote hyperlink or a simple "^". It's how conversations are conducted on the Internet.

Btw, it's pretty funny you've failed to man up on your horrid generalization. I wonder if there's such a thing as being in cyber-denial?

Oh gee, I didnt use a fuckin ^. Funny it took bajillion long quote string for you to figure out I was responding to ProfJohn (read the post above mine, duh!). Man, that was tough shit!

As far as my "generalizations". Many liberals try to spin good news to bad news in order to further their agendas. I dont think thats an unfair statement, just look at good news threads in this forum, they all get swarmed with foaming at the mouth liberals spinning away.

But lets keep quoting to make this longer! I mean, if I didnt quote this entire piece, I might lose you and we wouldnt want that!

 

[ProfJohn]

Would you two children take you argument out to the playground and quit messing up my thread.

Military and civilian death toll is down, good news no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Oh gee, I didnt use a fuckin ^. Funny it took bajillion long quote string for you to figure out I was responding to ProfJohn (read the post above mine, duh!). Man, that was tough shit!

^ A waste of time, but it's admirable that you're arguing this long about it, though.

As far as my "generalizations". Many liberals try to spin good news to bad news in order to further their agendas. I dont think thats an unfair statement, just look at good news threads in this forum, they all get swarmed with foaming at the mouth liberals spinning away.

But lets keep quoting to make this longer! I mean, if I didnt quote this entire piece, I might lose you and we wouldnt want that!

Again, your generalization is no more true than my generalization was for conservatives. If you actually want to argue the specifics of it, as you have failed to do in this thread (citing merely isolated posters, one of which came in to defend himself that your contention was flat false), then go ahead. But you will lose because your basic premise is false on its face, based on nothing more than emotional reaction and limited data.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Oh gee, I didnt use a fuckin ^. Funny it took bajillion long quote string for you to figure out I was responding to ProfJohn (read the post above mine, duh!). Man, that was tough shit!

^ A waste of time, but it's admirable that you're arguing this long about it, though.

As far as my "generalizations". Many liberals try to spin good news to bad news in order to further their agendas. I dont think thats an unfair statement, just look at good news threads in this forum, they all get swarmed with foaming at the mouth liberals spinning away.

But lets keep quoting to make this longer! I mean, if I didnt quote this entire piece, I might lose you and we wouldnt want that!

Again, your generalization is no more true than my generalization was for conservatives. If you actually want to argue the specifics of it, as you have failed to do in this thread (citing merely isolated posters, one of which came in to defend himself that your contention was flat false), then go ahead. But you will lose because your basic premise is false on its face, based on nothing more than emotional reaction and limited data.

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall?

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". No need to build up a straw man and tear it down yourself.

And again, however you slice it, your generalization was poor. You can back-peddle as much as you like, or you can just admit you were wrong and move on. I don't know why that's so hard. And please, stop building straw men; people were responding to your initial post which read "Good news in Iraq doesnt mesh with the liberal philosophy of retreat, and since P&N is DOMINATED by liberals it only makes sense that most here dont like seeing goods news in Iraq and therefore rate this thread poorly.", not this revised crap about "Liberals are, uh, spinning stuff man!" you've posted above. If you posted that initially you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

Wrong about what? Many(most) liberals dont like hearing good news from Iraq. You can disagree all you want, but asking me to admit Im wrong about that wont happen, especially based on what Ive seen around here.

 

[WHAMPOM]

How sad you see less deaths as success and our troops coming home as failure.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
How sad you see less deaths as success and our troops coming home as failure.

I see both as a success, its just a matter of how and under what circumstances they come home.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

Wrong about what? Many(most) liberals dont like hearing good news from Iraq. You can disagree all you want, but asking me to admit Im wrong about that wont happen, especially based on what Ive seen around here.

And again, your generalization is just as false as saying neocons care more about being a tough guy than they do about the murders of American soldiers. They're both false generalizations that you can't back up except to post names of three posters, one of which denied your accusation pretty clearly. You're not very good at arguing, FYI.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought, reasoning, or discipline.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion(just like your posts are your OPINIONS) like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.


*edit* Yeah I really backpeddled from "many" to "most", those words are SOOOO different. :roll: get a life

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.

Yes it is your opinion, based on no research, but merely your feelings. I'm glad we agree that your opinion is not based on any disciplined research whatsoever. Most informed people would call that a bunk opinion.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.

Yes it is your opinion, based on no research, and merely your feelings. I'm glad we agree that your opinion is not based on any disciplined research whatsoever. Most informed people would call that a bunk opinion.

Yeah, Im really going to waste my time with "disciplined research" on AT P&N forums, riiight....:roll: Open your eyes and just read the "good news threads", many/most/alot/majority of liberals that I see either spin it to look like bad news, or ignore the good news and point to something that isnt going great. Call me misinformed, call my opinions "bunk", or whatever you want to do, I dont care. I can say the same about your "bunk" opinion about my opinion. See, isnt this fun? I can do it too! Im off to bed, keep fighting the good fight :thumbsup:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.

Yes it is your opinion, based on no research, and merely your feelings. I'm glad we agree that your opinion is not based on any disciplined research whatsoever. Most informed people would call that a bunk opinion.

Yeah, Im really going to waste my time with "disciplined research" on AT P&N forums, riiight....:roll: Open your eyes and just read the "good news threads", many/most/alot/majority of liberals that I see either spin it to look like bad news, or ignore the good news and point to something that isnt going great. Call me misinformed, call my opinions "bunk", or whatever you want to do, I dont care. I can say the same about your "bunk" opinion about my opinion. See, isnt this fun? I can do it too!

No, you can't do it too, because I wasn't asinine enough to make some generalization based on nothing but partisan feelings in this thread, and then pretend that because it's my "opinion" that it actually has any substance behind it. You've seen a small sample of the liberals on this board and drew a conclusion about what most of them believed. We get it, you're partisan.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

I'm off to bed, keep fighting the good fight :thumbsup:

Gee, retreat in a conservative, how typical of you guys.

It's my opinion, it must have substance.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.

Yes it is your opinion, based on no research, and merely your feelings. I'm glad we agree that your opinion is not based on any disciplined research whatsoever. Most informed people would call that a bunk opinion.

Yeah, Im really going to waste my time with "disciplined research" on AT P&N forums, riiight....:roll: Open your eyes and just read the "good news threads", many/most/alot/majority of liberals that I see either spin it to look like bad news, or ignore the good news and point to something that isnt going great. Call me misinformed, call my opinions "bunk", or whatever you want to do, I dont care. I can say the same about your "bunk" opinion about my opinion. See, isnt this fun? I can do it too!

No, you can't do it too, because I wasn't asinine enough to make some generalization based on nothing but partisan feelings in this thread, and then pretend that because it's my "opinion" that it actually has any substance behind it. You've seen a small sample of the liberals on this board and drew a conclusion about how most of them acted.

Actually, yes I can. As I said, ALL OF THE GOOD NEWS THREADS (yes, ALL OF THEM) are dominated by liberals turning good news into bad. The few posters you are referring to are the ones who made anti-military remarks and wished harm to our troops, which is different than the others who make good news bad. Thats how I drew my conclusion. I repeat, EVERY DAMN GOOD NEWS THREAD HERE IS DERAILED. EVERY SINGLE ONE

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

I'm off to bed, keep fighting the good fight :thumbsup:

Gee, retreat in a conservative, how typical of you guys.

It's my opinion, it must have substance.

Yeah, I need sleep. I actually do something with my day that requires lots of sleep. Got a problem with it? :roll:


Way to generalize conservatives...snore.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: nick1985

And you arnt arguing this long about it too, or am I just talking to a brick wall.

Also note that I said 'many' liberals, not all. Seriously, just open your eyes and look at the "good news threads" to see how many spin it into bad news, happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE.

No actually, you said "most" liberals. Besides, I never said you said "all liberals". .

Wow, huge difference between most and many. Are we going to argue the semantics on that now? :roll:

There IS a difference, that's why I used the word generalization. If you had said "A small fraction of loud-mouth liberals on this forum...", you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. Lord, do I have to right it out in crayon. :roll:

But what if I believe its more than a small fraction? Your not very good at arguing, just an FYI

Then you'd be wrong, because you haven't actually done any research, be it polls or general questioning. You can't possibly know all the views of every liberal on this board without having done even the most basic of research. This is why your generalization is false; it's based on an emotional reaction that didn't require any thought or reasoning.

You can think I would be wrong, thats your opinion. As far as all the views of all the liberals on this board...I said many, not all.

But lets keep this debate going, its quite exciting.

Again, you can't possibly know "many" or "most" liberals (whichever word you backpeddled to) without having done any research. You reacted emotionally instead of intelligently. Research and discipline is just a fact of life you'll have to deal with.

Since its unfeasable to scientifically research my opinion on the members on this board it will remain my opinion like it has been from the start.

Round and round we go. Lets keep going IMO.

Yes it is your opinion, based on no research, and merely your feelings. I'm glad we agree that your opinion is not based on any disciplined research whatsoever. Most informed people would call that a bunk opinion.

Yeah, Im really going to waste my time with "disciplined research" on AT P&N forums, riiight....:roll: Open your eyes and just read the "good news threads", many/most/alot/majority of liberals that I see either spin it to look like bad news, or ignore the good news and point to something that isnt going great. Call me misinformed, call my opinions "bunk", or whatever you want to do, I dont care. I can say the same about your "bunk" opinion about my opinion. See, isnt this fun? I can do it too!

No, you can't do it too, because I wasn't asinine enough to make some generalization based on nothing but partisan feelings in this thread, and then pretend that because it's my "opinion" that it actually has any substance behind it. You've seen a small sample of the liberals on this board and drew a conclusion about how most of them acted.

Actually, yes I can. As I said, ALL OF THE GOOD NEWS THREADS (yes, ALL OF THEM) are dominated by liberals turning good news into bad. The few posters you are referring to are the ones who made anti-military remarks and wished harm to our troops, which is different than the others who make good news bad. Thats how I drew my conclusion. I repeat, EVERY DAMN GOOD NEWS THREAD HERE IS DERAILED. EVERY SINGLE ONE

Stop building straw men; your original post read It makes sense that most liberals here dont like seeing goods news in Iraq, not that liberals are in every thread turning good news into bad. It's telling that you think threads are "derailed" when bad news is brought up as context in a good news thread. It happens for a reason; the best analysis is usually made when all factors are taken into account.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why does the lowest death toll in over a year rate only 2 stars?

If the death toll was higher would it rate more stars?

The whole rating system needs to go, its worthless.

Because you are not liked by the democrats.
Therefore every thread you create those people will rate you 0