Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 1/28/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Labeling people as liberal or conservative is just as bad and unproductive as labeling them Republican or Democrat. The vast majority of people are not 100% liberal or conservative anymore than they are (or should be) 100% Republican or Democrat. Can't a liberal Democrat from California have a different viewpoint than a liberal Democrat from Maine? There is just no freakin' need for everyone to be identified by labels or their party. It's divisive and counterproductive.

I think most people, at least people who pay attention and have an opinion on political and social issues self identify as one or the other. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but it isn't a problem with identification.

"Obama is a centrist. If you think he's too liberal, you aren't a Democrat." -BL 9/23/15

Posted by moy23 on 1/28/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 1/28/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Labeling people as liberal or conservative is just as bad and unproductive as labeling them Republican or Democrat. The vast majority of people are not 100% liberal or conservative anymore than they are (or should be) 100% Republican or Democrat. Can't a liberal Democrat from California have a different viewpoint than a liberal Democrat from Maine? There is just no freakin' need for everyone to be identified by labels or their party. It's divisive and counterproductive.

I think most people, at least people who pay attention and have an opinion on political and social issues self identify as one or the other. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but it isn't a problem with identification.

"Obama is a centrist. If you think he's too liberal, you aren't a Democrat." -BL 9/23/15

He's a moderate (or centrist) Democrat. Democrats don't complain about Obama because he's too liberal. They complain about him because he isn't liberal enough. He isn't anywhere close to Sanders (or even Warren) on the ideological spectrum. He's LBJ or Eisenhower (to give a comparable from the right).

You label people so you can dismiss their opinion without having to consider their viewpoint.   Then you can lump them all together, take the most extreme opinion and say "See?   They're ******* crazy."

It's as simple as that.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/28/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Spin it however you want, arguing for boots on the ground is arguing for war.

BL, figuring out the super secret hidden meanings behind what others post in the forums.

Yes, there are so many possible hidden meanings to "boots on the ground. We go in after them."

That definitely doesn't mean war.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2016 2:38:00 PM (view original):
You label people so you can dismiss their opinion without having to consider their viewpoint.   Then you can lump them all together, take the most extreme opinion and say "See?   They're ******* crazy."

It's as simple as that.

Yep

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/28/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Spin it however you want, arguing for boots on the ground is arguing for war.

BL, figuring out the super secret hidden meanings behind what others post in the forums.

Yes, there are so many possible hidden meanings to "boots on the ground. We go in after them."

That definitely doesn't mean war.

This is the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation, in your little brain?

Give me another possibility.

Because you can't?

Correct. To me, "boots on the ground. We go in after them," means going to war. And nothing else.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Correct. To me, "boots on the ground. We go in after them," means going to war. And nothing else.

Classic BL. 

Claims to know what you're thinking, what you mean, what you believe, etc., better than you do.

Person: "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100.  I'm writing it down on a piece of paper".

BL: "It's 67."

Person: "No, sorry.  It's 43."  Shows BL the piece of paper with the number 43 written on it.

BL: "You were thinking of 67, but you wrote down 43.  So I'm right."

Person: "Um, no."

BL: "Here's a link to a forum thread where you used the number 67.  That's your number.  You think of it all the time.  I'm right"

Rather than being an insulting *****, how about you explain what you meant by boots on the ground?

And make it at least remotely feasible that you're not 100% full of ****.

Would the Seal team that got bin Laden be considered "boots on the ground"?    They certainly had boots on the ground.    Was that a declaration of war on Pakistan?

I'm pretty sure the US runs clandestine operations on the regular.   That said, I have no idea what BL/tec are arguing, nor do I want to, so that may not apply. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/28/2016 9:33:00 PM (view original):
Rather than being an insulting *****, how about you explain what you meant by boots on the ground?

And make it at least remotely feasible that you're not 100% full of ****.

I already explained in the thread that BL referenced.  Go back and read it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2016 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Would the Seal team that got bin Laden be considered "boots on the ground"?    They certainly had boots on the ground.    Was that a declaration of war on Pakistan?

I'm pretty sure the US runs clandestine operations on the regular.   That said, I have no idea what BL/tec are arguing, nor do I want to, so that may not apply. 

I'm not arguing anything.  BL's arguing that I apparently am in favor of a massive ground war in the Middle East.  Which is news to me.