What's up with Devin Nunes?
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
EzraS wrote:
And yet of course as can be seen in your post below, you asked me to define the word "damage" for you first .
androbot01 wrote:
What do you mean when you are using the term damage?.
I asked you what you mean by it as you seemed to not understand the general meaning. I'm still wondering what you have in mind.
It's a silly word to get stuck on though. But I'll repeat that Trump is damaging America. You can refer back to the previous examples. Perhaps you think that these things are not damaging; if that's the case, I would be interested in hearing your take.
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
EzraS wrote:
If you ever change your avatar, I'm going with Xena next.
Okay, I'll letcha know----but, I think she's extremely cool; so, don't hold your breath!! LOL
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
androbot01 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
You had examples but the way I see it is that your examples need evidence to back them.
You are confusing evidence with argument. The examples are evidence, what was missing was the argument. This was deliberate as I thought it was obvious.
EzraS wrote:
I'm supposedly trolling because I said it's up to you and not me to define a term you chose to use in the post below?
Ezra, if I have to define the word "damage" for you, than I have given you too much credit.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
androbot01 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
I know that's what I am saying. Something that may appear obvious to you may not be to Eras.
Okay, I apologize. I honestly don't know where Ezra is coming from. When I get frustrated, I get snippy.
Its okay.
Interesting how 90% of the snippiness comes from miscommunication however.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Shahunshah wrote:
Interesting how 90% of the snippiness comes from miscommunication however.
That's what I wonder about. Is it down to miscommunication?
Anyway, Chuck Schumer has called for Paul Ryan to ask Nunes to resign his position on the committee. I can't believed he hasn't resigned already.
Shahunshah wrote:
I don't know allot but everyone keeps seeing the US should intervene more in genocide. And I think their right cause genocide bad.
We can't let it happen again because then people who do genocide will get away with it.
We can't let it happen again because then people who do genocide will get away with it.
I don't think anyone is disputing that genocide is bad, the question remains though as to why it's the sole responsibility of the US to stop genocides anywhere in the world at our own blood and expense.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
androbot01 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Interesting how 90% of the snippiness comes from miscommunication however.
That's what I wonder about. Is it down to miscommunication?
Anyway, Chuck Schumer has called for Paul Ryan to ask Nunes to resign his position on the committee. I can't believed he hasn't resigned already.
I would say it is down to miscommunication in that particular part. You got annoyed with Eras over mishearing what he was saying in a way.
What do you think of Chuck Schumer and Paul Ryan?
Dox47 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
I don't know allot but everyone keeps seeing the US should intervene more in genocide. And I think their right cause genocide bad.
We can't let it happen again because then people who do genocide will get away with it.
We can't let it happen again because then people who do genocide will get away with it.
I don't think anyone is disputing that genocide is bad, the question remains though as to why it's the sole responsibility of the US to stop genocides anywhere in the world at our own blood and expense.
Their were moderate forces in Rwanda e.g. the Rwandan Patriotic front and thousands of moderate Hutus who fought against the genocide. If the USA had put forces behind those factions they likely would have been able to create a level of stability in the country. The same goes for Kosovo and Bosnia, the USA was able to achieve an end to bloodshed and peace.
Shahunshah wrote:
If the USA had put forces behind those factions they likely would have been able to create a level of stability in the country. The same goes for Kosovo and Bosnia, the USA was able to achieve an end to bloodshed and peace.
Because that's worked so well for us throughout the Middle East? You still haven't answered my question as to why this duty falls to us, we're geographically distant from all of those places and aren't obligated by any treaty or post-colonial duty. Is the rest of the world so millitarily inept that only the US can act in this peacekeeping role?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
If the USA had put forces behind those factions they likely would have been able to create a level of stability in the country. The same goes for Kosovo and Bosnia, the USA was able to achieve an end to bloodshed and peace.
Because that's worked so well for us throughout the Middle East? You still haven't answered my question as to why this duty falls to us, we're geographically distant from all of those places and aren't obligated by any treaty or post-colonial duty. Is the rest of the world so millitarily inept that only the US can act in this peacekeeping role?
Because the United States has the capacity to do so, the strongest military in the world. The wealthiest country, why can't it do something like that. If they do not hundreds of thousands of people die it is for the greater good.
androbot01 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
And yet of course as can be seen in your post below, you asked me to define the word "damage" for you first .
androbot01 wrote:
What do you mean when you are using the term damage?.
I asked you what you mean by it as you seemed to not understand the general meaning. I'm still wondering what you have in mind.
Good grief. This routine of yours where I'm supposed to be a naive little twit is pure BS. You, like I already said, are the one obligated to define what you mean in your use the word, as it seems to me you are over exaggerating and providing anecdotal examples. Do me a favor and stop pretending that you're smarter than I am.
androbot01 wrote:
It's a silly word to get stuck on though. But I'll repeat that Trump is damaging America. You can refer back to the previous examples. Perhaps you think that these things are not damaging; if that's the case, I would be interested in hearing your take.
The problem with that is, you make it not with trying to have a conversation with you. Many of your replies to me in this thread have been pure nonsense. I think you just like screwing around with people instead of engaging in a straight forward conversation.
Shahunshah wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
You had examples but the way I see it is that your examples need evidence to back them.
You are confusing evidence with argument. The examples are evidence, what was missing was the argument. This was deliberate as I thought it was obvious.
EzraS wrote:
I'm supposedly trolling because I said it's up to you and not me to define a term you chose to use in the post below?
Ezra, if I have to define the word "damage" for you, than I have given you too much credit.
It's a matter of separating hyperbole and anecdotal examples, from something that is truly definitive.
People who have exhibited what's become known as "Trump derangement syndrome", tend to make emotionally driven exaggerated claims. It doesn't appear "obvious" to me because I'm looking at the matter objectively, instead of being swept up in a lot of sensationalism.
Last edited by EzraS on 27 Mar 2017, 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shahunshah wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
If the USA had put forces behind those factions they likely would have been able to create a level of stability in the country. The same goes for Kosovo and Bosnia, the USA was able to achieve an end to bloodshed and peace.
Because that's worked so well for us throughout the Middle East? You still haven't answered my question as to why this duty falls to us, we're geographically distant from all of those places and aren't obligated by any treaty or post-colonial duty. Is the rest of the world so millitarily inept that only the US can act in this peacekeeping role?
Because the United States has the capacity to do so, the strongest military in the world. The wealthiest country, why can't it do something like that. If they do not hundreds of thousands of people die it is for the greater good.
(Hey, Mr. D.! )
Have you checked our debt lately?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
We also no longer have a strong military. HOWEVER, Trump plans to change that.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... s.amp.html
From the article :
"President Trump has pledged to rebuild military units like the 101 and recently announced a $54 billion increase in defense spending. Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including from his own party, say Trump’s plans don’t go far enough to repair the damage."
The US needs to build up its own military just so we can protect ourselves - screw the rest. These other countries have people - they need to make their own armies. We might even be nice enough to sell them some of our guns then they need to go to work. We have more important things to do than protect other countries asses - we have a wall to build! (Maybe 2, depending on how Canada acts). If it was up to me, I'd build a freaking fortress.
_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.