TOTALLY GEEKED!

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Personally, I don't think any of the candidates would carpet bomb. It's tough talk. It's what the people want to hear. Not the mamsy pansy talk about why can't we all just get along and respect muslim talk we're getting from the other side. So I don't take it literally.

---

 Well then here's the deal.  If they have no intention of doing it but saying it sounds good and gets them a lot of votes then guess what?  They are LIARS and POLITICIANS. 

---

 Or, they get into office and realize they can't, legally or logistically, carry out their promises exactly as proposed.  

Personally, I would rather a leader who led rather than one who lectured.

FNW wrote:

---

It's called puffing, NJN. It's done all the time, in every profession, and in personal life.

---

 So you excuse it in the candidates you like but you call Obama a liar.  It's the same thing.  Call it what it is.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

You entirely skipped over the part where you said you know the candidates are just saying stuff to say stuff. They are saying what people want to hear whether it's true or even possible. That "tough talk" is called LYING. Which makes them no better than the current guys in office.

---

 What did they say that were lies?   Lets hear it.

---

 FNW said they were lying about what they would do to ISIS.  Just telling the public what they want to hear, they wouldn't really do that.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

We have the abilty to take out a building and leave the ones right next to them untouched. I think it's our duty as an honorable nation to try and minimize civilian casualties. We won't be able to avoid all civilian casualties but it should be our objective to at least try don't you think?

---

 Sure--but--let's say we found out that couple in San bernadino was going to carry out the attack before they did it.  Police go to the house and they die in a fiery shoutout, and their baby also died.  What is the greater evil?  Letting 14 people die because we did nothing, or having one "innocent" get killed?

---

 Can you read? I said there would be civilian casualties (their baby) but it's our duty to minimize them. Pretty bloodthirsty of you to call for their deaths when they've done nothing wrong.

---

 i can read just fine.  whether or not you are "innocent" in war isn't whether or not you actively take up arms.  The entirety of Germany was responsible for hitler--not just a few nazis.

 

also, you didn't answer the question.

---

 I did answer the question. If we knew about the San Bernadino killers we should have taken them out but we should have also tried NOT to kill the baby. What is wrong with you that you can so easily think killing people who are not even old enough to wish you harm is ok? Yes all of Germany was responsible (except for young children and those incapable of knowing what their country was doing).

---

 That doesn't answer the question.  I never said we should "try", either (who's having trouble reading now?).  that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not the collateral damage done in order to save many MORE lives is the greater evil, or is the killing of terrorists who will kill tens, hundreds, or potentially thousands the greater good?

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

We have the abilty to take out a building and leave the ones right next to them untouched. I think it's our duty as an honorable nation to try and minimize civilian casualties. We won't be able to avoid all civilian casualties but it should be our objective to at least try don't you think?

---

 Sure--but--let's say we found out that couple in San bernadino was going to carry out the attack before they did it.  Police go to the house and they die in a fiery shoutout, and their baby also died.  What is the greater evil?  Letting 14 people die because we did nothing, or having one "innocent" get killed?

---

 Can you read? I said there would be civilian casualties (their baby) but it's our duty to minimize them. Pretty bloodthirsty of you to call for their deaths when they've done nothing wrong.

---

 i can read just fine.  whether or not you are "innocent" in war isn't whether or not you actively take up arms.  The entirety of Germany was responsible for hitler--not just a few nazis.

 

also, you didn't answer the question.

---

 I did answer the question. If we knew about the San Bernadino killers we should have taken them out but we should have also tried NOT to kill the baby. What is wrong with you that you can so easily think killing people who are not even old enough to wish you harm is ok? Yes all of Germany was responsible (except for young children and those incapable of knowing what their country was doing).

---

 That doesn't answer the question.  I never said we should "try", either (who's having trouble reading now?).  that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not the collateral damage done in order to save many MORE lives is the greater evil, or is the killing of terrorists who will kill tens, hundreds, or potentially thousands the greater good?

---

 It does answer the question. Let me make it clear for you if you're having a difficult time understanding. While yes we should go after the terrorist we should also do everything in our power to avoid killing children. What part of that do you disagree with? Now let's see you answer the question.

---

 I never said otherwise--but you still failed to answer the question. 

Is the collateral damage the greater evil, or killing of terrorists the greater good?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Not all Germans were at fault. Most Germans lived in fear of their own government. Many risked their lives daily to hide and help Jews. The world is not black and white, people. Learn some history.

---

 BS.  The entire society is responsible.  your use of the word "most" shows you have no clue about that part of history.

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I would shoot myself before I'd vote for Trump.

flan

---

But you'd have to get a gun.... 

---

 Yes, and I hate him enough that I would buy one.

flan

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

We have the abilty to take out a building and leave the ones right next to them untouched. I think it's our duty as an honorable nation to try and minimize civilian casualties. We won't be able to avoid all civilian casualties but it should be our objective to at least try don't you think?

---

 Sure--but--let's say we found out that couple in San bernadino was going to carry out the attack before they did it.  Police go to the house and they die in a fiery shoutout, and their baby also died.  What is the greater evil?  Letting 14 people die because we did nothing, or having one "innocent" get killed?

---

 Can you read? I said there would be civilian casualties (their baby) but it's our duty to minimize them. Pretty bloodthirsty of you to call for their deaths when they've done nothing wrong.

---

 i can read just fine.  whether or not you are "innocent" in war isn't whether or not you actively take up arms.  The entirety of Germany was responsible for hitler--not just a few nazis.

 

also, you didn't answer the question.

---

 I did answer the question. If we knew about the San Bernadino killers we should have taken them out but we should have also tried NOT to kill the baby. What is wrong with you that you can so easily think killing people who are not even old enough to wish you harm is ok? Yes all of Germany was responsible (except for young children and those incapable of knowing what their country was doing).

---

 That doesn't answer the question.  I never said we should "try", either (who's having trouble reading now?).  that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not the collateral damage done in order to save many MORE lives is the greater evil, or is the killing of terrorists who will kill tens, hundreds, or potentially thousands the greater good?

---

 It does answer the question. Let me make it clear for you if you're having a difficult time understanding. While yes we should go after the terrorist we should also do everything in our power to avoid killing children. What part of that do you disagree with? Now let's see you answer the question.

---

 I never said otherwise--but you still failed to answer the question. 

Is the collateral damage the greater evil, or killing of terrorists the greater good?

---

 It's not either or. Although I'm sure in your mind it is. Yes killing the terrorist is a greater good but killing innocents is a terrible bad and you're the one who keeps saying how it's "unavoidable". As I said in my first post we can take out a building without touching the one next door so we should be using that option or you can go along with ed and just drop a nuke on them and get it over with. We are supposed to be better than that but if revenge is all you want then I'm glad you're not in charge.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Not all Germans were at fault. Most Germans lived in fear of their own government. Many risked their lives daily to hide and help Jews. The world is not black and white, people. Learn some history.

---

 BS.  The entire society is responsible.  your use of the word "most" shows you have no clue about that part of history.

---

 I obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do.  

---

 No, you don't.  You know almost nothing about history according to what you post.  

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Not all Germans were at fault. Most Germans lived in fear of their own government. Many risked their lives daily to hide and help Jews. The world is not black and white, people. Learn some history.

---

 BS.  The entire society is responsible.  your use of the word "most" shows you have no clue about that part of history.

---

 I obviously know a hell of a lot more than you do.  

---

 No, you don't.  You know almost nothing about history according to what you post.  

 

---

 Husker - I majored in History with an emphasis in Holocaust studies, which is what my senior thesis was on.  I know more about the daily lives of Germans in Nazi Germany than you could ever hope to. 

German parents lived in fear of being reported to the Nazis by their children if they criticized the government.

Owning books not approved by the Nazi regime was traitorous.

Young German woman were whored out to become breeding machines for the Nazis.

Many Germans risked their lives daily to hide and help Jews, and many were killed. But without those Germans, we wouldn't have had even close to the number of Jewish survivors we had.

Any German that was Catholic, homosexual, disabled or otherwise undesirable was killed or sent to concentration camps.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

We have the abilty to take out a building and leave the ones right next to them untouched. I think it's our duty as an honorable nation to try and minimize civilian casualties. We won't be able to avoid all civilian casualties but it should be our objective to at least try don't you think?

---

 Sure--but--let's say we found out that couple in San bernadino was going to carry out the attack before they did it.  Police go to the house and they die in a fiery shoutout, and their baby also died.  What is the greater evil?  Letting 14 people die because we did nothing, or having one "innocent" get killed?

---

 Can you read? I said there would be civilian casualties (their baby) but it's our duty to minimize them. Pretty bloodthirsty of you to call for their deaths when they've done nothing wrong.

---

 i can read just fine.  whether or not you are "innocent" in war isn't whether or not you actively take up arms.  The entirety of Germany was responsible for hitler--not just a few nazis.

 

also, you didn't answer the question.

---

 I did answer the question. If we knew about the San Bernadino killers we should have taken them out but we should have also tried NOT to kill the baby. What is wrong with you that you can so easily think killing people who are not even old enough to wish you harm is ok? Yes all of Germany was responsible (except for young children and those incapable of knowing what their country was doing).

---

 That doesn't answer the question.  I never said we should "try", either (who's having trouble reading now?).  that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not the collateral damage done in order to save many MORE lives is the greater evil, or is the killing of terrorists who will kill tens, hundreds, or potentially thousands the greater good?

---

 It does answer the question. Let me make it clear for you if you're having a difficult time understanding. While yes we should go after the terrorist we should also do everything in our power to avoid killing children. What part of that do you disagree with? Now let's see you answer the question.

---

 I never said otherwise--but you still failed to answer the question. 

Is the collateral damage the greater evil, or killing of terrorists the greater good?

---

 It's not either or. Although I'm sure in your mind it is. Yes killing the terrorist is a greater good but killing innocents is a terrible bad and you're the one who keeps saying how it's "unavoidable". As I said in my first post we can take out a building without touching the one next door so we should be using that option or you can go along with ed and just drop a nuke on them and get it over with. We are supposed to be better than that but if revenge is all you want then I'm glad you're not in charge.

---

 It is unavoidable if we want to actually succeed.  Again you fail to answer a simple question.

---

 I just gave you an example of how it's avoidable. You just keep pretending killing innocent children is the only answer and I'll continue to believe you're completely wrong.I answered the question unless you have a hidden one in there some where...

---

 ???  That doesnt avoid anything.  There is no guarantee that civilians won't be in that building.  In fact, it's almost a guarantee there will be some.  yiu can believe what you want, but you are dead wrong.  Name one war since 1914 where no civilians have been killed.  You can't.

---

 Try reading. I didn't say no innocents would be killed but that we should try to avoid it. Obviously you just want to keep putting words in my mouth so you can argue. Have fun...lol

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

We have the abilty to take out a building and leave the ones right next to them untouched. I think it's our duty as an honorable nation to try and minimize civilian casualties. We won't be able to avoid all civilian casualties but it should be our objective to at least try don't you think?

---

 Sure--but--let's say we found out that couple in San bernadino was going to carry out the attack before they did it.  Police go to the house and they die in a fiery shoutout, and their baby also died.  What is the greater evil?  Letting 14 people die because we did nothing, or having one "innocent" get killed?

---

 Can you read? I said there would be civilian casualties (their baby) but it's our duty to minimize them. Pretty bloodthirsty of you to call for their deaths when they've done nothing wrong.

---

 i can read just fine.  whether or not you are "innocent" in war isn't whether or not you actively take up arms.  The entirety of Germany was responsible for hitler--not just a few nazis.

 

also, you didn't answer the question.

---

 I did answer the question. If we knew about the San Bernadino killers we should have taken them out but we should have also tried NOT to kill the baby. What is wrong with you that you can so easily think killing people who are not even old enough to wish you harm is ok? Yes all of Germany was responsible (except for young children and those incapable of knowing what their country was doing).

---

 That doesn't answer the question.  I never said we should "try", either (who's having trouble reading now?).  that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not the collateral damage done in order to save many MORE lives is the greater evil, or is the killing of terrorists who will kill tens, hundreds, or potentially thousands the greater good?

---

 It does answer the question. Let me make it clear for you if you're having a difficult time understanding. While yes we should go after the terrorist we should also do everything in our power to avoid killing children. What part of that do you disagree with? Now let's see you answer the question.

---

 I never said otherwise--but you still failed to answer the question. 

Is the collateral damage the greater evil, or killing of terrorists the greater good?

---

 It's not either or. Although I'm sure in your mind it is. Yes killing the terrorist is a greater good but killing innocents is a terrible bad and you're the one who keeps saying how it's "unavoidable". As I said in my first post we can take out a building without touching the one next door so we should be using that option or you can go along with ed and just drop a nuke on them and get it over with. We are supposed to be better than that but if revenge is all you want then I'm glad you're not in charge.

---

 It is unavoidable if we want to actually succeed.  Again you fail to answer a simple question.

---

 I just gave you an example of how it's avoidable. You just keep pretending killing innocent children is the only answer and I'll continue to believe you're completely wrong.I answered the question unless you have a hidden one in there some where...

---

 ???  That doesnt avoid anything.  There is no guarantee that civilians won't be in that building.  In fact, it's almost a guarantee there will be some.  yiu can believe what you want, but you are dead wrong.  Name one war since 1914 where no civilians have been killed.  You can't.

---

 Try reading. I didn't say no innocents would be killed but that we should try to avoid it. Obviously you just want to keep putting words in my mouth so you can argue. Have fun...lol

-- Edited by Tinydancer on Wednesday 16th of December 2015 04:46:26 PM

---

 You said it was avoidable.  That means it's possible to conduct it with no innocents being killed.  It's not.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Yes but where did I say it was totally avoidable. You crack me up.

---

 LOL!!!  zero difference.  It's either avoidable or its not.  killing one civilian makes it unavoidable--which it is.  Yiu are back tracking.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I didn't back track anything so go back and read. I said from my very first post that we should TRY to avoid it. Not that we would be able to prevent them all. You're stuck on the fact that it's unavoidable so why should we even try. That is just not right no matter how you spin it husker.

---

 You said it was avoidable.  They are not.  one civilian getting killed means it wasn't avoidable.

therefore, it's unavoidable.  So, is your position now that it is unavoidable?  that is back tracking.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I said some of it is avoidable. Try again

---

 Lol!!!  That is not at all what you said.  i quoted you and the words "some of it" did not appear anywhere in the phrase I quoted.

"It's not either or. Although I'm sure in your mind it is. Yes killing the terrorist is a greater good but killing innocents is a terrible bad and you're the one who keeps saying how it's "unavoidable". As I said in my first post we can take out a building without touching the one next door so we should be using that option or you can go along with ed and just drop a nuke on them and get it over with. We are supposed to be better than that but if revenge is all you want then I'm glad you're not in charge.

husker wrote:
It is unavoidable if we want to actually succeed. Again you fail to answer a simple question.

I just gave you an example of how it's avoidable. You just keep pretending killing innocent children is the only answer and I'll continue to believe you're completely wrong.I answered the question unless you have a hidden one in there some where..."


This is the quote in context. You are arguing in circles. Your brain must hurt from all that spinning.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

You took my quote out of context to make it seem I was saying something I wasn't. Can't you just argue with logic anymore?

---

 You said exactly what I attributed to you.