Posted on 03/04/2016 10:51:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
Here is where you repeatedly and deliberately go off the rails.
Good luck you.
I bow to the reality that we can't fix stupid.
Have a nice evening.
We all know by now how reliable her own "facts" are. Modified, sadly by being a human being burdened by the worst memory of any human being, even 29 years ago.
How many times did she utter some variation of "I don't recall," when under oath, before a Congressional committee?
Hundreds, as I recall...
I can think of at least a dozen Freepers who would not be BS'ed by the Shrillary... and as far as I know, they are not diplomats or foreign affairs experts or military historians (with the possible exception of Victor Davis Hanson; I have no idea if he has a Freeper name.)
Finally; we agree on something.
There definitely is one ignorant closed mind ignoramus in this discussion.
But totally oblivious to the clear difference, using the "intentionally targeting" meme, when no one else but he can see it.
Talk about sick inferences and absolute fail at reading comprehension!
Good night...
Wow.
You really are batshit crazy! Or senile beyond redemption.
At one point in my life I had Hitler's books by my bedside, one of my then 1500 book library (much bigger today.)
And I managed to avoid totally emulating any of the SOBs whose books I read. You never heard of historical research I take it. Or know yourself well enough to avoid the temptation?
Very true. Granted the media will work to give her every appearance of competence while simultaneously trying to amplify Trump’s errors.
At least Trump is a fighter. Based on what I’ve read about him when he sets his mind to accomplish a goal, he has a laser like focus on achieving it. I’m sure his staff has quite the file on Hillary.
And if you are wrong, the results might be equally or more disastrous.
I don't quite have the arrogance you do to treat a future event as a certainty...
Yeah, like Donald Trump would be reading about Hitler's speeches for research.
I never thought of that.
Whatever must have gotten into me to read all those bad bad books.
I never imagined that the toxicity the books contained were that contagious...
Nothing to do with my lifelong profession, either.
I'll get back to you after I consult with a psychiatrist friend...
I’ll let you google it for yourself
There were only THREE actual terrorists who were waterboarded, and all three were reported to have given up the goods after only a few minutes
Among other things, I think you’re describing what’s called the clinical dysfunction of “all-or-nothing thinking” which you get a lot of around here. Probably derives in large part to the intentional failure of government school to educate and actually teach people how to learn. Maybe we can help. It’s about all we can do.
I did and found this:
In 1947, during the Yokohama War Crimes Trials, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for “Violation of the Laws and Customs of War”, asserting that he “did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for” prisoners, but, far worse, that he also “did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture” prisoners of war. The charges against Asano included “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.”[222] The specifications in the charges with regard to “water torture” consisted of “pouring water up [the] nostrils” of one prisoner, “forcing water into [the] mouths and noses” of two other prisoners, and “forcing water into [the] nose” of a fourth prisoner.[223] Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[131]
George W. Bush, and others - you for example - dispute it, but in the long history of waterboarding, it has generally been understood to be torture.
Speaking of “were reported”, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was reported to have been waterboarded 183 times. That does not sound like he gave up the goods after only a few minutes.
Did you want my attention for something? Or did you just not take your prescribed meds, today? Feel free to rant at any imaginary foes you like, of course... but I’d appreciate it if you’d not include me on the ping list of it... thanks!
Trump said:
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"First of all, do you disagree with the quote? If so, please point me to the correct one; if not, then let's continue.
The context in which it was said (according to this very quote) is the fact that "they [the terrorists] say they don't care about their lives"... and Trump is proposing "taking out their families" as an alternative. I read that as "an alternative to taking/threatening the lives of the terrorists themselves"; do you disagree?
If that's accurate, then Trump is proposing a very simple, straight-forward idea of, "Fine: you don't care if YOU live or die, Mohammedan Martyr? Then let's go after your families; maybe you care about THEIR lives!"
I really don't see how "taking the easiest and most common meaning of a phrase" could possibly be called "nit-picking". In fact, the copious spin attempted by pro-Trump people seems to be far more indicative of "nit-picking" and "nuancing" what's otherwise a very easy phrase to understand (which Trump repeated three times in that quote, alone, so it's not likely to be a slip of the tongue).
in fact it sounds like you are arguing with your own fears.
"Fears"? You just conjured that out of thin air, FRiend. I was commenting on Trump's comments, and on the plain meaning of them. You suggest that Trump's meaning is a less obvious, secondary (or tertiary, or quaternary, etc.) meaning? Fine... make your case; but let's not distract the issue with cheap mind-reading and red herrings.
You could argue all day or night whether Trump intends to honor other conditions on the way to this.
I’d have zero problem with a policy that says if you are a family of a known terrorist, you’re going to get watched like a hawk for reasons to “take you out.” Because in fact it’s likely terrorists do operate in families.
Since you seem to be bent on taking this in the most damning way possible, there is no way of convincing you otherwise, and no point in further attempt at argument, which is an attempt to arrive at truth about a larger situation.
And there you go with your own cheap mind reading that insists on no data beyond the quotation being taken into account.
Good grief, FRiend... “no way of convincing you otherwise”? Project, much? You seriously don’t see how you’re twisting yourself into knots, trying to spin Trump’s comments? I’m taking Trump’s comment at face value, using the most STRAIGHTFORWARD and COMMONSENSE interpretation; you seem to be arguing that it was really some sort of colorful metaphor, and that some sort of deep, empathic analysis is needed to discover Trump’s “real meaning” (which is apparently perfectly clear and self-evident to Trump fans).
For the record: if Trump offers a correction to his statement, saying that he “really” meant [x], then fine... but I haven’t seen it yet... and I’ve seen little but wishful thinking on the part of pro-Trump people, on this particular point. It reads very much like pro-Trump people circling the wagons around their favored candidate.
Face it: it was a terrible comment for him to make (tactically, if nothing else). If Trump had meant what you’re suggesting, then he could easily have said it at the time... and saved himself a great deal of reasonable criticism... but he didn’t. If it’s a gaffe which he simply made in the heat of anger, then let’s hear the correction from his own mouth (though that begs further questions about his self-control). But don’t sit here and try to tell me that the “take out their families = threaten their families” interpretation of Trump’s comment, in the context of speaking about the terrorists’ disdain for death, is some sort of “crackpot” interpretation. It simply isn’t... regardless of whether it makes your favored candidate look bad, or not.
No reasonable person could say that those taken aback by Trump’s comment in this case are somehow “stupid”, “unenlightened”, “intransigent”, etc. That’s just ad hominem garbage.
(*sigh*) Can you point to even ONE case of your beloved candidate actually making the clarification that you suggest? Has Trump actually said, publicly, "No, no... of COURSE I wasn't talking about threatening the terrorists' families as a matter of course for the purpose of psychological leverage--what I *really* meant was [x]"...?
If not, then your comments remain not only your raw opinion, but your unsubstantiated and wishful opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.