- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
Right ok chief, you've got me today. I'm at my desk rather than splayed on my couch like Johnny Vegas on my phone. I'll put a bit of time in and we can move right on.
I framed Iran in terms of them nuking us because that's how you have been framing their threat for posts upon posts now. Since I'm at my desk, I've taken the chance to have a peek back through and retrieve some of those posts, in case you wanted to disagree:
post-2219976
post-2219883
post-2219955
Honestly man I know this patronising stuff is just your bag, you enjoy it, you get a buzz, but maybe, honestly, try laying off it for a while. Having folk exasperate in convo with you isn't really conducive to good debate. I know I do tongue-in-cheek a lot, but I don't believe that jabs at folk in the same way this angle does.
Anyway, as much as I thought this was obvious and you were trolling, you do seem to be insistent, so lets do it - my statement about deciding that if leaving Iran alone would mean they nuke us down the line, and accepting that as a result of not intervening, related purely to Iran and the choices in front of us right now.
You reading that, then attempting some god-awful 'gotcha' about ha, so you'd let Hitler win! screams far more of daft student politics than what I've said dude. I mean really? I put it down to your dental anaesthetic last night if I'm honest, hence my chuckling.
Right, please can you let this one go. I am not complaining. The wee thing I said was, that when you gave your first ever confirmation of your stance on the go/no go for the US, you caveated it by saying your previous on-the-fence statements should have conveyed that stance already. I was saying it did not. But no biggie man, none at all. Was good just to get your out-in-the-clear stance.Again, what is your complaint? When you suggested it was unclear I clarified. Would that you would do likewise with your grand statements which you rarely explain.
This one is more about you than you realise.You've reached new heights here with your preference for being nuked.
I framed Iran in terms of them nuking us because that's how you have been framing their threat for posts upon posts now. Since I'm at my desk, I've taken the chance to have a peek back through and retrieve some of those posts, in case you wanted to disagree:
post-2219976
post-2219883
post-2219955
It was you that said it dude. Not for the first time it seems there was nothing behind the statement. You keep chortling, it seems to be a go to.
It's pretty laughable in itself, but also not really funny. You're too smart to be following student dafties and media poppets and left unable to explain yourself once their slogans have run out. But social approval is I guess a powerful incentive.
Honestly man I know this patronising stuff is just your bag, you enjoy it, you get a buzz, but maybe, honestly, try laying off it for a while. Having folk exasperate in convo with you isn't really conducive to good debate. I know I do tongue-in-cheek a lot, but I don't believe that jabs at folk in the same way this angle does.
Anyway, as much as I thought this was obvious and you were trolling, you do seem to be insistent, so lets do it - my statement about deciding that if leaving Iran alone would mean they nuke us down the line, and accepting that as a result of not intervening, related purely to Iran and the choices in front of us right now.
You reading that, then attempting some god-awful 'gotcha' about ha, so you'd let Hitler win! screams far more of daft student politics than what I've said dude. I mean really? I put it down to your dental anaesthetic last night if I'm honest, hence my chuckling.

