Politics
Out of context: Reply #14518
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- luckyorphan0
A week ago, chill posted this:
Iraqi soldiers shoot 3 U.S. soldiers in back!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/201…...
I asked why he posted the image of the President and Secretary Gates with the story. He responded in usual fashion by calling me a moron. So I asked him to explain it anyway. To which there was no response.
So, I'm deciding to ask again. chill, why on earth would you post their picture?
Are you suggesting, as the Fox article seems to suggest that Iraq is still incredibly deadly, and that the President's plan to withdraw troops is a mistake? Or are you perhaps suggesting that we should have been out of there a long time ago since we did not find any WMDs there, and you believe that a better use of $720 billion per day would be to put people in America to work, pay down the deficit and provide universal health care?
If you think we should be there, then you'd clearly accept the deaths as a cost of the war. If you don't think we should be there, then you'd be for the President's desire to pull the troops out. So which is it?
Of course, the Fox article suggests that these killings make last month "one of the deadliest days for the U.S. in months"...all while disregarding that the annual U.S. death toll last year in Iraq was not 904 (2007), not 822 (2006), not 846 (2005), and not even 486 (2003). No, last year the U.S. death toll was 60.
So apparently, if you want less U.S. deaths in Iraq, be thankful for President Obama. Because since his election and decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, the death toll has continued to plummet.
So chill, please enlighten this moron, and clarify your intentions. But if that's too much to ask, then I'd be good if you could just please stop posting misleading, factually incorrect articles. You might be surprised by how much you'd learn in one day by thinking clearly.
- Not that I expect a rational response.luckyorphan
- is he not ultimately held accountable or is that just when there is a Republican in charge?********
- is that rational enough for you fucktard?********
- I don't know where you're getting your statistics but stop with the assumptions********
- Which statistics are you suggesting are incorrect?luckyorphan
- Why would they be held responsible for the act of one man in Iraq who betrayed the trust of the troops?luckyorphan
- i agree with lucky. its not there fault for actions of others. same with the palin bs and that jared kid. if its in mockery to other posts should be said bluntly********
- post should be said so no confusion and furthering to the team nonsense********
- only way t counter nonsense is with nonsense. so every post out of context to jab at a side, create necesity to fight back with nonsense********
- with the same kind of nonsense. both fight each others nonsense while both are the doign the same.********
- Not sure I follow, db.luckyorphan
- when one makes irrational assumpuptions or try to sway a person irrationally, it tends to get the same reaction but opposite motive********
- opposite motive. beck making false claims on one side the post writes a dumb article on the other. no sense in either. generlizing of course********
- its the whoel palin think with jared. links to hes is tea party or other side. all irrational but balacnce each other on dumb scale********
- scale. .. ive never been good at explaining what i know... damn words and how to use them for understanding...********
- the reaction to posts that insenuate isnt to counter with logic, peopel liek spectactle.********
- it is obviously leading ppl to accept it that chose that side. so natural counter would be to post same type of thing opposite side********
- opposite side. you can counter with rationality but it does no good when ppl want irrationality. jerry springer stuff********