Well, you two spent 2-3 pages going back and forth over the course of a couple of hours.    That's pretty long for agreeing with one another.

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. 

yep - you are the only one making sense of this.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/28/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'm not saying you're in favor of a massive ground war. Just a war, as evidenced by "boots on the ground."

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. 

Probably not, and even the touchier Middle Eastern governments would probably let that go.  But Tec wasn't talking about going after one guy in the original thead.  He was talking about going after thousands of ISIS militants.  You can't eliminate thousands of armed militants with clandestine operations.  That's a military action, as hard as tec might try to talk his way around it.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/27/2016 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Raucous, I'm honestly on your side in this, but you just sounds so stupid it's borderline unbelievable...

Not only do you not know the laws regarding insurance coverage, BL told you what they were and you just ignored it and continued to spew utterly incorrect bullshit...  No wonder so many of my friends who lean left are convinced Republicans are stupid...

In Massachusetts anyway, if your house catches fire and there major damage then you file your claim with the insurance company.  The first thing they do is cancel your insurance. If you want to get insurance back again you have to pony up at least double the amount that you were paying before, because they see you as a high risk of placing another claim.

If you are in a high crime area, your rates are higher.

I am not a Repug because I am not a liberal.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 12:29:00 PM (view original):
I think dahs' point stands if you replace "Republicans" with conservatives.

Reugs are not conservatives.  They may be more conservative than socialists Democrats, but any party that is to the left of JFK is not conservative in any manner.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

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).

Right. Obama is only a socialist, where Sanders and Warren are Communists.  At least we know what Democrats really are...

By the way, I love the idea of Commieland. I love the idea of everyone having the things they want and everyone works just as hard and college would be free (yada, yada, yada), but it isn't reality and it doesn't work because people are who they are. Some people will be greedy, lazy and corrupt.  It does not work.

HE CAN HE SEE RUSSIA FROM HIS BACK PORCH!!!!

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 12:58:00 AM (view original):

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. 

Probably not, and even the touchier Middle Eastern governments would probably let that go.  But Tec wasn't talking about going after one guy in the original thead.  He was talking about going after thousands of ISIS militants.  You can't eliminate thousands of armed militants with clandestine operations.  That's a military action, as hard as tec might try to talk his way around it.

Another idiot who "knows" what somebody really meant.

Good job.

Please show me where that says "massive ground war".

To be honest, I was all ready to give tec **** when I started reading that quote but this, The way to handle the terrorist organization, like ISIS, is to go in after them, hunt them down, and eradicate them, could certainly be done with small teams.    Designate the target, send them in, take them out.   Unless, of course, tec sees a group of 500 and designates that as the target.   Snipers taking out leaders would work in that situation.  

Posted by bad_luck on 1/28/2016 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/28/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'm not saying you're in favor of a massive ground war. Just a war, as evidenced by "boots on the ground."

Tec