Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[DaShi]

Exactly, it's far too easy to throw you off course. I'm reading through your earlier post in response to Oerdin's article. Wow, there's no coherent flow to it at all. It just comes off as an angry right-winger posting faster than he can think.

[Zevico]

Just one example: If you can't see this, you're hopeless.

This had nothing to do with the question I asked.

Look, I wasn't sure what you were asking; so I made my point as succintly as possible. My point is that there was never a a case, on national security grounds, for war with Libya; that the war was poorly thought out and executed; and that Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed that out.

[DaShi]

Take a clue from DD and TMM. DD knows just to post a snippet from something he read in a conservative blog. TMM just posts the articles. In both cases, they add don't their own commentary which protects them from criticism while covering their obvious flaws (as seen from the few times they do poke their heads out). You could learn from this. They still manage to get some good trolling out of it too.



Edit: Ah so that's why Zevico is still posting. I missed a key word in my advice to him. Good for me.

[Zevico]

Exactly, it's far too easy to throw you off course. I'm reading through your earlier post in response to Oerdin's article. Wow, there's no coherent flow to it at all. It just comes off as an angry right-winger posting faster than he can think.

For goodness' sake. I'm sorry my writing style wasn't up to your exacting standard for internet forum debates.

If you have a view to express on the issues, please make it known. This is a chore.

[DaShi]

Look, I wasn't sure what you were asking; so I made my point as succintly as possible. My point is that there was never a a case, on national security grounds, for war with Libya; that the war was poorly thought out and executed; and that Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed that out.

Who cares? That hasn't been the topic of discussion for sometime. In fact, I'm a bit insulted that you think I would believe this ridiculous excuse.

[DaShi]

For goodness' sake. I'm sorry my writing style wasn't up to your exacting standard for internet forum debates.

If you have a view to express on the issues, please make it known. This is a chore.

After reading Oerdin's post and then yours. I find Oerdin's case the strongest. His article made clear, concise points that you did not actually address in favor of an Obama is always wrong rant.

But I will add, it's just one liberal blogger vs a conservative blogger. So I really don't care what either thinks and am more concerned with the outcome of this rebellion:

TRIPOLI—An uneasy voice inside the head of cheering Libyan rebel Ahmed Jibril reportedly said, "Oh, ****, now what?" Wednesday as the jubilant fighter celebrated the downfall of Muammar Qaddafi. "Uh-oh, what happens now? Seriously, what the **** happens now?" said the interior monologue of the smiling man who stood atop the roof of Qaddafi's former compound screaming "Freedom is ours!" and pumping his fist. "There's a massive power vacuum, and looking around, I don't really see anyone who's going to fill it. It's certainly not going to be me, I'll tell you that much. Is this country going to descend into chaos? Please, please, please don't let that happen. Someone just needs to tell me what our next step is right now or I'm seriously going to flip the **** out." The voice inside the head of the man who exultantly fired three machine gun bursts into the air quickly added, "Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God."

[Zevico]

After reading Oerdin's post and then yours. I find Oerdin's case the strongest.

[q]His article made clear, concise points that you did not actually address in favor of an Obama is always wrong rant.

Thank you. Please quote the points I have not addressed.

[DaShi]

How long was your original response?

[DaShi]

Thank you. Please quote the points I have not addressed.

The whole ****ing thing pretty much. Halfway through you went on a Kurtz asskissing rant.

[Zevico]

The whole ****ing thing pretty much. Halfway through you went on a Kurtz asskissing rant.

Oerdin's article contends that there is no sound case for opposition or criticism of the war effort. Kurz happens to support the war; I happen to think the entire effort was a total waste. Kurtz criticises the conduct of the war--I think that criticism is fair. So do many Democrats--I've referred you to two prominent ones and their articles. In short, if the allegation is "partisan hackery" founds opposition to the Libyan intervention--and that's what Oerdin's article contends--it's plainly an incorrect contention.

[DaShi]

Ah, so the problem is that you can't read.

[Zevico]

Ah, so the problem is that you can't read.

Oh mystic of all matters political, would you deign to explain yourself before me, your humble supplicant?

[DaShi]

Sure. Here's what Oerdin said:

It's been hilarious to watch the Republican wing nuts and their reaction to Libya. In March they were screaming the President wasn't taking enough action and direct military response was needed. In May they were screaming & foaming at the mouth declaring it was unconstitutional for the President to support the NATO operation in Libya without a Congressional declaration of war (even though Bush did the same in Iraq, Clinton in Bosnia & Kosovo, Bush Sr in Kuwait, Reagan in Panama & Granada, etc...), and now that the Rebels have taken Tripoli they declare the whole thing a waste of time and that Obama never had anything to do with the victory. Talk about clueless partisan hacks.

Here's your reponse: "Kurtz criticises the conduct of the war--I think that criticism is fair. "

[Zevico]

No. I also asked him to identify who, exactly, was making all of these allegedly inconsistent statements and to explain why they're inconsistent--and, frankly, I somewhat doubt that he's got the sources to back it up. I mean the article he quoted doesn't even back up his points.

To actually establish a cogent argument about hackery, you need to:
1. Take one writer;
2. Show how that one writer is being inconsistent or intellectually dishonest;
3. Rinse and repeat.
Oerdin hasn't done that.

Nor has the article in question done that. It's whined about Kurtz, and took a look at the front pages of a few websites. Each of them abjectly failed to show what they asserted was true.

edit--I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my initial post btw. I did try.

[DaShi]

....

Seriously? You posted three quotes from the article. In the first, the article addressed the point you made in response to it, which you clearly missed. The second you agreed with. And the third, you went on a tangent about how long the effort took.

The rest was Kurtz asskissing.