Bismarck.Josiahfk said: »
Disagree Hard: Agree to Disagee Hard.
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your statements, like usual. And as usual, you are failing. There is no hypocrisy. You think that the president shouldn't go to an event in response to an occurrence, an event that most world leaders were invited to attend, including the president. Your reasoning is that the event was planned in less than 48 hours. You fail to realize that another event occurred where the president did attend with planning in less than 120 hours (in reality, the event was planned with less than 72 hour notice). This happened in December 2013. The hypocrisy is that you don't believe that the president should attend an event in such short notice, but you have previously applauded him attending the event that was planned in such short notice. Did that help you at all, or should I write it in crayons next time?
[+]
Do you get a special tickle comparing two things that are in no way alike?
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Do you get a special tickle comparing two things that are in no way alike? Vic's excuse was only the time factor. I showed him where he is being hypocritical on his response. I know you are being obtuse on purpose, but try to not make it so obvious next time, ok? The problem is, that regardless of if he went or not in an event planned in less than 48 hours notice, there would have been people bitching that he went into an area where known terrorists were still on the loose, or that he wasted taxpayer money in order to go on such short notice (because it costs more to attend with less time to prepare crews/bodyguards/etc.)
[+]
So now you're going to pretend the point you're making isn't actually the point you are making.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your statements, like usual. And as usual, you are failing. There is no hypocrisy. You think that the president shouldn't go to an event in response to an occurrence, an event that most world leaders were invited to attend, including the president. Your reasoning is that the event was planned in less than 48 hours. You fail to realize that another event occurred where the president did attend with planning in less than 120 hours (in reality, the event was planned with less than 72 hour notice). This happened in December 2013. The hypocrisy is that you don't believe that the president should attend an event in such short notice, but you have previously applauded him attending the event that was planned in such short notice. Did that help you at all, or should I write it in crayons next time? 24 hours = 1 day (assuming no one sleeps). The average time it would take to 1) Create a security detail 2) run through that detail effectively 3) create contingency plans, escape routes, etc. Will take longer than a day, much less two. 120/24= 5 (assuming no one sleeps) which is adequate time assuming the area isnt entirely hostile, etc. Then, theres assuming that the ONLY way to show ones support is to gather all the world leaders into the justice league and walk through the streets. Which its not, many world leaders didnt attend and instead decided to call and give support via condolences and other things we may not be privy to. Which in your mind, is weakness: Which many countries apparently showed weakness by doing so, not just the US. Also, the gunmen are still assumed to be at large broski, meaning (Thats right folks) the area is still under a high risk of threat. The president also then can dos what he wants cause hes the president, and he dont need no country telling him what he gon do. Cause he dos as he pleases. Bloodrose said: » The problem is, that regardless of if he went or not in an event planned in less than 48 hours notice, there would have been people bitching that he went into an area where known terrorists were still on the loose, or that he wasted taxpayer money in order to go on such short notice (because it costs more to attend with less time to prepare crews/bodyguards/etc.) Additionally, many of the world leaders who were in attendance, were already there on business of some kind already, or had high profile people there to represent them in their place.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » So now you're going to pretend the point you're making isn't actually the point you are making. If he doesn't go he's shirking his duties. If he does go then he's bowing to the evil eruopean overlords! Weak either way.
[+]
Dunno why everyone is so mad at the President for not representing the USA.. I mean come on guys, he just got back from a 15 day Hawaii vacation and needed to rest up for some rounds of golf.
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » If he doesn't go he's shirking his duties. If he does go then he's bowing to the evil eruopean overlords! Weak either way. A weak President is weak no matter what he does.
[+]
It's a two parter.
Disagree Hard 7: The Compromise leads into Disagree Hard 8: Compromise Down.
[+]
[+]
Enuyasha said: » Disagree Hard 8: Bitching Just to *** The posters of FFXIAH will set Hollywood on its ear by collectively winning best supporting act.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » If he does go then he's bowing to the evil eruopean overlords! Weak either way.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Dunno why everyone is so mad at the President for not representing the USA.. I mean come on guys, he just got back from a 15 day Hawaii vacation and needed to rest up for some rounds of golf. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » If he doesn't go he's shirking his duties. If he does go then he's bowing to the evil eruopean overlords! Weak either way. A weak President is weak no matter what he does. Disagree Hard 10: Broken Middle Eastern Promises aka For the Feels.
Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Can we just agree that this line of discussion is fruitless and meaningless to continue gents? It's not like you two will learn or discover anything by furthering it right? If you use that logic, P&R is going to close down.
[+]
I have to agree, that is a pretty huge leap in logic.
WE could argue whether or not he's weak or erring on the side of caution, because who seriously wants Jo Biden as President? But paying homage to the loss of lives in France would in no way be weak (unless doing so specifically for political reasons). Anyone making that kind of assumption should check themselves at the door. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Can we just agree that this line of discussion is fruitless and meaningless to continue gents? It's not like you two will learn or discover anything by furthering it right? If you use that logic, P&R is going to close down. Plenty of things going on or other angles of this. Wait, wtf happened to Disagree Hard 9?
Edit: God damn you Zero and your ninja edit.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » So now you're going to pretend the point you're making isn't actually the point you are making. Asura.Kingnobody said: » The hypocrisy is that you don't believe that the president should attend an event in such short notice, but you have previously applauded him attending the event that was planned in such short notice. Bloodrose said: » But paying homage to the loss of lives in France would in no way be weak (unless doing so specifically for political reasons). Nobody would have said that, you are just trying to create an argument where none existed. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Altimaomega said: » Dunno why everyone is so mad at the President for not representing the USA.. I mean come on guys, he just got back from a 15 day Hawaii vacation and needed to rest up for some rounds of golf. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » If he doesn't go he's shirking his duties. If he does go then he's bowing to the evil eruopean overlords! Weak either way. A weak President is weak no matter what he does. 
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.