In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. .

That is because they were split up according to the British and French interests back in the 1920's not the Arab world's boundaries but power of the day.

We should extradite our self from the region and let them fight their Civil war and if need be, then fight the winner.

all your other bs is just chest pounding..."Me and JD have been there..."' bla bla bla.

These fuckers do not give a shit about our way of life other than they do not want us coming to their country and shoving it down their throat...just the same as we wouldn't like them invading here and trying to shove their way of life down ours.

If they didn't have any oil , we wouldn't give two shits about shoving our way of life down their throats. You are nothing more than a tool for special interest (Oil and Defense industries) and to stupid to even realize it.

So in summary you need to not only understand geo politics present but also past. Something you and LexusLover need a refresher course in.

[Yssup Rider]

Yeah, chest pounding, FOX talking points and verbose ranting isn't sending a very good message...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

We should extradite our self from the region and let them fight their Civil war and if need be, then fight the winner.



You are ... to stupid to even realize it.

So in summary you need to not only understand geo politics present but also past. Something you and LexusLover need a refresher course in.

Why don't you "self-extradite" back to Barnes and Noble for a dictionary?

If you would spend more time educating yourself and less time mouthing off in the fictional fabrications you post, not to mention your ineffective tactic of disparaging others' intellectual abilities with your typos, then your contributions might be worth pondering.

But I still celebrate Today your "right" to mouth off even though you know little to nothing about which you verbally defecate .. while "self-indicting"!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is because they were split up according to the British and French interests back in the 1920's ...

Speaking of "geo politics"!!!

What the fuck did the Brits and French have to do with drawing U.S.borders?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Speaking of "geo politics"!!!

What the fuck did the Brits and French have to do with drawing U.S.borders?

I don't think you could be any stupider, LLIdiot! according to herasswipe, you're losing again.

That want what WTF was talking about and you fucking know it.

If not, then you ARE any stupider.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I don't think you could be any stupider, LLIdiot! according to herasswipe, you're losing again.

That want what WTF was talking about and you fucking know it.

If not, then you ARE any stupider.

LLIdiot has been fabricating make believe mountains out of tiny molehills for years.

[JD Barleycorn]

The rulers of Saudi Arabia are afraid of spill over and refugees from Iraq so they sent 30,000 troops to their border. If only Obama would do the same for our border.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The rulers of Saudi Arabia are afraid of spill over and refugees from Iraq so they sent 30,000 troops to their border. If only Obama would do the same for our border.

If you're so concerned, perhaps you should set the example.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If you're so concerned, perhaps you should set the example.

Just like a Osheep... making others protect you.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The rulers of Saudi Arabia are afraid of spill over and refugees from Iraq so they sent 30,000 troops to their border. If only Obama would do the same for our border.

That would just be another example of how Rong he is, when it worked.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

LLIdiot has been fabricating make believe mountains out of tiny molehills for years.

Still making up shit are you?

You still don't have any substance to offer do you?

You and your bunk buddy, YouRong, just attack people personnally, to divert attention away from your lack of substantive contribution to the discussion ... in this thread ... which is about the loss of the war by your ATF President, who is the ATF worse one according to the polls, with which you want to make a wager????

And now YouRong is thinking for WTF ... he needs it ... but he certainly can't get any help out of YouRong ... for "geo political" analysis ...... YouRong can't even read a city map and locate a street on it where his favor Enfield Drug is located.

It's about time you start looking at Hillarious and try to ignore the worse president since WWII.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's about time you start looking at Hillarious and try to ignore the worse president since WWII.

Why do you want me to ignore MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Why do you want me to ignore MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?

You might as well move to Cuba... Shit just got real for you Austin fags... LOL

David Burge @iowahawkblog · Jul 3
Sellers just accepted my offer on a house in Texas. #BOOOOOOOOM

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Still making up shit are you?

You still don't have any substance to offer do you?

You and your bunk buddy, YouRong, just attack people personnally, to divert attention away from your lack of substantive contribution to the discussion ... in this thread ... which is about the loss of the war by your ATF President, who is the ATF worse one according to the polls, with which you want to make a wager????

And now YouRong is thinking for WTF ... he needs it ... but he certainly can't get any help out of YouRong ... for "geo political" analysis ...... YouRong can't even read a city map and locate a street on it where his favor Enfield Drug is located.

It's about time you start looking at Hillarious and try to ignore the worse president since WWII.

How is this any different than what you accuse others, you lying hypocrite?

It isn't. You can't defend your positions... Fuck, you can't even express your position.

No wonder you're the patriarch of the Idjot klan, errr, clan!

Maybe you should have a family reunion ... In Clarksville. That is, if you can find it anymore.

[herfacechair]

Yssup Rider: How elaborate! What a well planned trap. You caught me,

Although this was sarcastic, you were actually accurate with that statement, I did in fact got you with an elaborate plan. More on that later. Your post that I'm applying to right now is exactly what I've predicted you'd do the moment you read my reply. I'll explain more as I hammer the rest of the shit that you vomited on this thread.

Yssup Rider: you back pedaling video zombie.

WRONG, dumbass. Again, I've debated people like you over the past decade. Throughout that time, I've put you people into categories. Every word that I use has a purpose. There was no backpedaling involved. If you find that hard to believe remember this, I know what my cognitive processes are... you don't.

Because I tend to get motion sickness when looking at video games in action, I rarely play video games. I've never played Mortal Kombat, but I've seen parts of that movie. You'd know that if you bothered to know the people that you're arguing against.

I have a very good idea of your psychological makeup based on your replies on this thread and others. Unfortunately for you, you have absolutely no clue about who I am psychologically or otherwise.

But like the others in your side of the argument on this thread, you lack originality.

Yssup Rider: The only rub is that I wasn't arguing with your post or endeavoring to trying to refute any of its highly intelligent points, like we are in mortal combat (lmao) with an enemy that wants to remove our way of living.

Time to use your words against you, this time, they actually apply:

"If you want to make excuses for your mistakes you have two palatable choices: 1) Admit your error or 2) lie about it." -Yssup Rider

You jumped in this thread earlier to argue against a position that had taken on this thread. I argued against that post that you made. Your next reply consisted of attacking me indirectly. As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the opposition.

This may not be mortal combat, but I treat these arguments like a combat operation. I'll keep firing on the opposition until they're "neutralized," the matter how long it takes.

Yssup Rider: I was simply pointing out that your use of video game titles to drive your discussion was and is incredibly juvenile. (REPEAT POINT)

If your repeat point opinion were anything like your marksmanship skills, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you... because that's how far off your repeat point opinion is.

The mere fact that you dismiss this as "incredibly juvenile," quotation marks used strongly, speaks volumes to the fact that the symbolisms I was using in the argument went straight over your head. I was arguing a concept, using that term, to describe the concept that's also being thrown around in think tanks.

If you ever went to a university, don't admit it here. If you've taken university level classes, and you subsequently still feel that that repeat opinion is, "on the mark," quotation marks used strongly, than either you didn't pay attention or your university failed you.

Also, I used a videogame title, not titles, to do both help deliver a message and to measure your desperation.

Yssup Rider: In fact, I didn't even mention you by name, did I? (Actual Back Peddling)

Again, I've debated against people like you over the past decade. Over that decade, I became a good study of peoples' psychological makeup based on their writing. You're trying to come across as somebody that's not exactly trying to take aim at me, as somebody that doesn't exactly stakes a position here, but your writing deceives you.

You corrupted my username in a way that someone would've identified as me... based on part of the username and based on one activity that I listed in some of my reviews... you also made erroneous assumptions about what I was doing, and you attacked me for doing something the other people in the thread were doing.

You didn't do anything different from what the others that I've debated with in the past, who tried to stake a claim of being "in the middle or neutral," yet try to take us swipe at me anyway.

You're not the first one to try these antics, and you not going to be the last one. The fact of the matter is that you were addressing me... the fact that you didn't use "herfacechair" is beyond the point. Your statement is you doing what you erroneously accuse me of doing... back peddling.

Yssup Rider: You chose to launch into a rant attacking me personally. Not for any position of yours I'd contested.

Earlier in this thread, I rebutted a post that you made. That earlier post placed you squarely on the other side of the argument. Your next reply to me, directly, was a rant attacking me as a person. You didn't even address my counter rebuttal to you in that post.

Like the others that I've debated over the past decade, you have a tendency to accuse me of having the very traits that I see you displaying.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

Yssup Rider: Obviously your little "booby trap" was no such thing, but in fact an error about which you are now embarrassed ... And rightfully so.

ERRGGH, WRONG, as usual.

Again, you don't know what my cognitive processes are. I do. I'll tell you the same thing I told people I've argued against over the past decade. There's a purpose behind every word, every sentence, every paragraph, every concept, etc., that I advance an argument.

Unlike the majority of people that post on these message boards, I generate my replies in Microsoft Word. Once I complete my batches, I go through every post reply. I go through and make at least two edit runs. Sometimes more.

I don't correct everything. I leave things alone for two purposes:

One, as I've accurately explained, based on the cognitive processes that I have while generating these replies, is done to measure desperation. People like you, and the losing side of the argument, will do anything and everything to try to settle points. This includes attacking writing errors.

Given that you didn't address my counter rebuttal to you, given that your previous post was mostly as an attack against me, and given your assumptions about my booby trap words, it speaks volumes that you were desperate to settle points.

Two, the second reason I do this is because people like to claim that they don't read my posts. Many of the people that claimed that didn't read my posts, turned around and brought up an erroneous word that I used in the middle of my reply.

How could they claim that nobody reads my posts when they're bringing up word errors in the middle of the post that nobody is supposed to be reading?

Again, there is a function and purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, concept, etc., that I used in a post.

In fact, knowing that you are trying to have it both ways, trying to come across as somebody in the middle while at same time being opposed to me, I had to say something to get you to verify the suspicion for me.

My statements about you having your head up your ass, about you walk around moaning "brain" while looking for your one brain cell, and other things that I did had a purpose. As with the other people that I've debated against over the past decade, those concepts and words worked wonderfully... the reply I'm rebutting in this post is an example of an "impact indicator" that allows me to do "battle damage assessment."

You reacted exactly the way I expected you to react, the result is your sewer post that I'm responding to now.

I'm not embarrassed, never was. To give you an idea of how I reacted to reading the above opinion, imagine that you're driving at the speed limit. You know for fact that you're driving at speed limit.

A cop pulls you over and tries to tell you that you were going 20 miles over the speed limit when you know for fact that you doing the speed limit, and this fact allowed you to tell the truth instead of trying to weasel your way out of it. Imagine your reaction in that scenario... that describes my initial reaction to reading your opinion that I was "embarrassed," quotation used strongly.

I wasn't embarrassed. After that initial reaction, I had the, "finally, someone fell for it," reaction. There's a method to my madness in these arguments.

Again, there's a purpose to everything that I do here. Not only do I treat this like a combat operation, I treat this like a chess game. In both a combat operation and a chess game, there's a purpose behind every move.

You, realizing that you fell for booby trap, were embarrassed and rightfully so. Your arrogance refuses to come to terms with that fact.

Yssup Rider: I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more time reading the high literature on this forum before you start complaining about anything.

First, I'm sorry, doing what you suggest here would require me to do exactly what you're doing. Unfortunately, it's physically impossible for me to put my head up my ass. It's amazing that you could have your head shoved up your ass with ease.

Second, nothing in my posts consist of "complaining," quotation marks used strongly. I'm simply telling it like it is, the way someone would be telling it like it is when they're saying that it's storming outside when it's actually storming outside.

Third, this is an example of what I mean when I say that you don't know Jack about me, psychologically or otherwise. Part of knowing the psychological makeup of other people involves reading their posts months prior to my jumping in to argue against them in a new thread. By the time I jump in to a new thread to argue against somebody, I really have a good, general, idea of how they're going to react to something I say.

Fourth, before you tell somebody to read anything here prior to doing something, you need to do is you preach. Here's what I said earlier in this thread:

"Get over yourself. Even though I don't post here frequently, I do follow the arguments that go on go on. I don't follow a person specifically, but I follow the trend of the arguments. I do this partly to study the opposition. I knew how you'd behave even before I posted on this thread to debate you." -herfacechair

Here's another advantage I have with generating my replies in Microsoft Word... I save my arguments. Prior to these current batches of replies, I had 98 Microsoft Word pages containing my previous replies. With the help of the "Control F" operation, I can find anything I said or that the opposition said that I have in Microsoft Word.

Pulling quotes up becomes easy.

Yssup Rider: Ask your pal IBIdiot about doctoring handles... He'll give you a primer. Judging by your weak attempts to doctor my handle, you could use some help. In fact, believe it or not, IBIdiot's verbal ejaculations are possibly more to the point than yours.

Contrary to what you intended with that statement, your opinion is what I would call an example of an impact indicator (psychological warfare) for battle damage assessment. Yes, my doctoring your handle was intended to get you to react the way you did in the post that I'm replying to.

I could tell, by that specific opinion, that I got you in the jugular with the revised name that I gave you. I can also tell that "IB" got you to the core as well. He got you so good that you're still talking about him in this post.

Based in your reaction, I could tell that I did just fine with the way I changed your name.

Yssup Rider: Next time, realize that nobody cares two shits about your booby traps, how you devised them, why you hide them In your prose and what you're trying to prove. If you want to make excuses for your mistakes you have two palatable choices: 1) Admit your error or 2) lie about it.

Wrong. Once again, there's a purpose behind everything that I do in these posts. This includes mentioning why I create my booby-traps for desperate posters like you. When someone's gonna make an erroneous assumption, just like what you're doing with your assumption that I made a careless, unintended, mistake, talking about the booby-traps I set up, how I devised them, and why I hide them in my replies, becomes extremely relevant.

That's why I went into detail into this strategy in this post.

My explaining that, given the state of emotion that your writing has given away, has a purpose. That purpose worked very well, given your most recent reply.

I'm not lying about the creation of these booby-trapped words or statements. I've given you the facts, given what I know for fact what my cognitive processes were while creating these posts. I'm not going to admit to something that is not the case. I'm not going to lie about a case that didn't happen, as your options in the later part of your opinion insinuate.

I'm simply giving the facts based on what I know goes on in my head while creating these posts.

Again, when I say that I create booby-traps in my replies, when I say that there's a purpose behind everything that I put in these posts, I'm giving you the cold hard facts. I've turned these debates into one art and into a science. The booby trap tactic is part of that art and science.

You made the mistake, not me. You fell for trap, a legitimate one. Instead of admitting to the fact that you fell for the trap, you lied about it and accused me of being a "liar," quotation marks used strongly.

Also, until you take the only palatable option for you in this debate... ceding it on the account that you've been thoroughly defeated... you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that I take one of "two" palatable positions that don't apply to me.

Yssup Rider: Just spare us the fucking War and Peace-length threads, OK. They're all so tedious!

Take it away Yssup Rider!

"I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more time reading the high literature on this forum before you start complaining about anything." -Yssup Rider

Thanks, you're turning out to be one of my best "allies" in this thread. :mrgreen: you're saying that to me wasn't applicable to me, but it's very applicable to you. Just like the others that I have argued against, you have a tendency to erroneously project your own traits onto me.

Now, had you done as you preached, with regards to reading things here before complaining, you would've seen the comment I made in response to I'va biggen earlier in this thread:

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told other people that I've debated against in the past. I don't accommodate people that argue with me." - herfacechair

Meaning, I'm going to do whatever it takes to present a specific type of reply to the opposition. The length of my post depends not only on the length of the oppositions' posts, but on the level of arrogance they display in their replies as well as on other factors.

Your erroneous assumptions about me, to include your ignorant assumptions in the booby-trapped words that I used on you, requires you to receive a lecturing... of the "war and peace" length kind.

If you want to reply to me, directly or indirectly, I'm going to expect you to read my posts in their entirety. If you say something in your reply, that you otherwise would not of said had you read and understood my posts regardless of length, I'm gonna hold you accountable via my response.

You initiated the personal attack on me, and you continued the personal attack on me. Be a man and take what's coming because of that. You could take your demands that I dispense with the length of my posts and shove those demands up your ass. I'm treating these arguments like a combat operation.

Yssup Rider: Oh, and you're not the only Veteran on this board.

Sigh, Yssup Rider, please give him another reminder, thanks. :mrgreen:

"I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more time reading the high literature on this forum before you start complaining about anything." -Yssup Rider

Because if you did what you preached, you would've seen this:

"Notice how we're on the same side, and those opposing us haven't answered my question on who has stepped foot in Iraq. There's a good chance that we have arm chair generals arguing against boots on the ground experience. That even makes them look more stupid. " -herfacechair

And this:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

if you reply to me while failing to answer this question per the parameters that I set, I'm going to consistently ask you these same questions.

Also, this isn't about claiming to be a veteran, this is about pointing out the fact that I'm an Iraq War Veteran on a thread that talks about the Iraq War. That's me slapping my credentials in the faces of arrogant posters that insist that my side of the argument is "wrong."

Yssup Rider: Just one of the most intellectually frustrated and self conscious.

Wrong, as usual. I've based the vast majority of my argument on firsthand experiences and on the extensive research I've done in the topics on this thread. I've argued based on the facts. There's no intellectual frustration there.

However, your failure to address my counter rebuttals and choosing to launch a personal attack on me instead, then complain about me doing that while forgetting that you initiated it, strongly shows that you're intellectually frustrated. Your reaction to the fact that you fell for one of my booby-trapped words shows us how self-conscious you are.

When I ask simple, straightforward questions, that has everything to do the argument, that is not the equivalent of a "got you" question, and when the opposition refuses to answer those questions, you can't honestly assume that I am intellectually "frustrated," quotation marks used strongly.

If I were, "intellectually frustrated," quotation marks used strongly, people wouldn't be avoiding my simple straightforward questions. The mere fact that people avoid answering my questions per to parameters I set speaks volumes of them being both intellectually frustrated and self-conscious. Intellectually frustrated in that they know that commonsense answers to the simple questions I ask destroys their arguments. Self-conscious in that they refuse to answer the questions, or they consistently ignore them, hoping that they'd go away and they wouldn't have to come face to face with the fact that they're wrong.

Your failure to answer my counter rebuttal to your earlier post on this thread speaks volumes about your intellectual frustration. You're complaining about my post lengths speaks volumes about your self-consciousness.

Yssup Rider: Yeah, chest pounding, FOX talking points and verbose ranting

First, don't mistake my putting my credentials on the table, credentials that has everything to do with the topics in this thread, as my "chest pounding," quotation marks used strongly.

If it's blatantly obvious that the opposing side doesn't know what they're talking about, and are insisting that they are right in an argument with a person, or group of people, that have credentials to give them far more credibility than the opposition, then I'm going to shove my credentials in their faces.

If your side of the argument doesn't have the common sense, the decency, the integrity, etc., to bow out of a fight that you guys are losing, a fight where you guys have no clue about what you're talking about, and you refuse to accept the subject matter expertise of those that you are arguing against, then you're going to get reminded in a way that does not rub your ego very well.

Second, I rarely watch television or listen to the radio. Common sense dictates that my first-hand experiences and my extensive research in the topic areas being argued on this thread, are what I am arguing on this thread. If the commenters on Fox News, or any other commentators come up with very similar conclusions to what I'm coming up with, it's because we're looking at the facts and independently coming up with very similar conclusions.

It's like two people that don't know each other describing thunder and lightning. The first person in this example wouldn't be putting forth an observation because he/she heard it from the other person. The first person is simply reciting the facts as he/she sees it. Here's another example, if there's a red fire hydrant on your street, you're going identify that as a red fire hydrant. Another person that you don't know about will come to the same conclusion.

You're pulling shit out of your ass with your assumptions that I am blindly following Fox News or any other conservative commentator.

Third, the length of my posts/replies to you depend on several variables. I've listed some in my reply to you earlier in this post. Another variable is the fact that I'm going to present the amount of argument needed to prove you wrong.

You're not the first one to bitch, whine, moan and groan about the length of my replies. People have been doing that over the past 10 years. One common denominator among those people is that they were predominantly liberal/progressive. On the other hand, those on my side of the argument have praised me in the length of posts that I've used to destroy your side of the argument.

On this thread alone, JD barleycorn stated that I'd stripped the opposition to the bone and flogged them with their own words.

In fact, there were people that were in the opposition at one time, and were my allies at another time. When they were in the opposition, they complained about my lengthy replies. When we were in the same team, they complemented my lengthy replies.

There wasn't that much difference between either reply. Both times, I based my argument in fact, logic, and reason. The difference was perception. When my replies was used against them, it rubbed their ego the wrong way. When my replies were used to support them in an argument, they accurately saw my lengthy argument as based in fact, logic, and reason.

This has been consistent across the decade that I've debated against your side of the argument. When you bitch about my lengthy replies, you're really bitching about the extent I'm using logic to prove you wrong and to force you to see how wrong your argument is. That's the part of you that is speaking when you are complaining about my lengthy posts.

Yssup Rider: isn't sending a very good message...

That's arrogance speaking, not common sense or reason. You don't really care if I'm sending a good message or not when my lengthy posts. You only care about the fact that your ego is taking a trampling seeing your argument getting destroyed in a way that convinces even you to see that you're wrong.

You're attempting a form of propaganda in a futile attempt to get me to change the way I do things here. It's not going to work.

The cold hard reality is that your insistence on debating me here isn't sending a very good message for you. Every time I replied to anybody on your side of the argument, that person loses credibility.

I'm not trying to change the opposition's mind. I already know that the oppositions' minds are already made up. Changing your minds isn't an option for me, never was. Showing a disinterested party that your side of the argument doesn't know what it's talking about, and following that up with destroying your credibility, is part of the message that I'm sending.

AssUp GayRidden: I don't think you could be any stupider, LLIdiot! according to herasswipe, you're losing again.

The only stupid person that I see here is you. LexusLover is on my side of the argument. I've accurately stated that my side of the argument is winning, not losing. Again, you need to do as you preach and read the comments.

Yssup Rider: That want what WTF was talking about and you fucking know it.

WTF wasn't talking about anything relevant to what he was replying to. He created a strawman because he couldn't argue against my argument.

Yssup Rider: If not, then you ARE any stupider.

Spoken like a dummy, a nice touch to your performance elsewhere on this thread.