High ranking CIA officer endorses Clinton ... (Huge blow to Trump)

Overpressure said:
LOL
It's good by me if we're picking the right targets.
Terrorist camps, meetings. Drone strike them into Bolivian.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bush obviously was kind of a hold over of the Regan era Republicans. They thought it was there responsiblity to kick the crap out of everyone from a moral point of view. I'm fine with the drone strikes too.
 
BKMMAFAN said:
You obviously do not. It's evident because you continuously attempt to rebut the author's arguments by attacking his character and motives rather than actual substance of the arguments themselves.

While not necessarily always fallacious on its face, your stated position that you wouldn't believe a single thing he says and would sweepingly dismiss it as "meaningless driver" is indicative that your ad hominem attack isn't remotely compelling. Even if it was compelling, it is still the EXACT definition of an ad hominem attack. Acquaint yourself with a dictionary before you claim to know what an ad hominem is.

..........(expects upcoming ad hominems on Merriam&Webster)
Click to expand...

I do. I'm not attacking his character, I'm citing facts. Again, you don't even know who he is, do you? "Aquaint" yourself with who this man is before you start preaching about dictionary definitions. Thanks though.
 
lfd0311 said:
So yes, you're just here to troll. It's much clearer now.
Click to expand...
History vs. Historical commentary. Learn the difference. "We're the largest, most powerful military in the world and run by simpering weenies" is commentary. So the next time someone responds to your commentary, pretending it's "factual history" is just going to make you look like a goof ball.
 
silus_2000 said:
History vs. Historical commentary. Learn the difference. "We're the largest, most powerful military in the world and run by simpering weenies" is commentary. So the next time someone responds to your commentary, pretending it's "factual history" is just going to make you look like a goof ball.
Click to expand...

That is factual history. Thanks for yet another attempted language lesson.
 
lfd0311 said:
I do. I'm not attacking his character, I'm citing facts. Again, you don't even know who he is, do you? "Aquaint" yourself with who this man is before you start preaching about dictionary definitions. Thanks though.
Click to expand...

At this point it's pretty pathetic.

Here, you quoted my post and declared you didn't make an ad hominem argument. You actually made multiple ad hominem arguments in the very first post you made in this thread.

I then posted the definition of ad hominem and pointed out why your arguments are indeed ad hominems and instead of actually addressing whether or not you did make such an argument or are even aware of what an ad hominem argument is (you do not), you deflect to questions and accusations regarding my knowledge of the author in the OP.

Just double and triple down on ignorance and deflection. Rinse, repeat.
 
lfd0311 said:
That is factual history. Thanks for yet another attempted language lesson.
Click to expand...
The reason why I put "factual history" in quotes is because there is no such thing as "factual" history. It's just history. So there is another lesson for you.
 
As Donald Trump, I would be getting worried. We all know what happens to people that the CIA deem a "threat to national security".
 
silus_2000 said:
The reason why I put "factual history" in quotes is because there is no such thing as "factual" history. It's just history. So there is another lesson for you.
Click to expand...

There is tons of "factual" history. What you just did there was provide some historical commentary. Which is what happens when you just give a bunch of opinions. There's a lesson for you. One of many you've unwittingly recieved in this thread.
 
BKMMAFAN said:
At this point it's pretty pathetic.

Here, you quoted my post and declared you didn't make an ad hominem argument. You actually made multiple ad hominem arguments in the very first post you made in this thread.

I then posted the definition of ad hominem and pointed out why your arguments are indeed ad hominems and instead of actually addressing whether or not you did make such an argument or are even aware of what an ad hominem argument is (you do not), you deflect to questions and accusations regarding my knowledge of the author in the OP.

Just double and triple down on ignorance and deflection. Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

And I've asked you multiple times if you even know who this man is. You don't seem to want to answer that question, I'm going with the reason for that being because the answer is "no". A main tenent of an ad hominem attack is that it's a baseless personal attack designed to do nothing more than discredit the person making the point, to avoid addressing the point itself. That's not remotely close to what I'm doing, something you'd understand if you simply knew who Michael Morell is. Yet you're completely unaware of who and what this man's direct connection to Hillary and many of the things he talks directly about in the article are. Anyone with just basic knowledge of who he is would understand that. He is the chief author of the talking points memo (something else I'm sure you're ignorant of). He was called before the Senate and drug over the coals. He was forced to retire from the CIA because of it. Again, something else you'd know if you just recognized the name. But put that in your "ignorance and deflection" pipe and smoke it.
 
JonnyRingo84 said:
fair enough.

i dont see why trump would be bad for the military industrial complex though. i mean, hes going to wipe out isis in mere hours apparently.
Click to expand...

You realize that destroying ISIS in hours isn't what the military industrial complex wants, right?
 
snakedafunky said:
Trump might be unqualified and fuck things up. But Hillary has already proven she cant handle it. Iraq war and her involvement in the Arab spring debacle means she is not qualified.
Trump hasn't shown that he can or cant do the job. He might seem unqualified now but from all we know he might be a foreign politic genius, unlikely but you cant simple say he will be a disaster because you dont have any reference points yet, compared to other politicians.
Hillary had the chance and she blew it twice. No one that voted for the Iraq war should be able to become president.
Click to expand...
lol, hilldog already voted for iraq war and armed ISIS, her husband already caused the housing crash, but hey, lets forget these simple facts.
 
Scrody said:
You realize that destroying ISIS in hours isn't what the military industrial complex wants, right?
Click to expand...

yea, but i was exaggerating. everyone knows that isis cant be destroyed that quickly. what they want is boots on the ground.
 
lfd0311 said:
It wasn't just "our" case. It was intelligence that came almost exclusively from the Germans, with a little added independent intel from the English and the Spanish. Then you have other things to add in with it like the "yellow cake" incidents. It was very good intelligence. It just wasn't true.
Click to expand...
Hahaha I nearly spat drink on my monitor thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,962
Messages
55,457,376
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top