DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Somewhere in that past 30 years, america (not the citizens) got it in its head that the world can't function without it.

Last time America divorced itself from the world led to WW2.

actually WWII was one of the few times we reluctantly involved ourselves on the world stage. Neutrality was de rigeur for most of modern US history to that point. Which, more than anything else, had a lot to do with a couple of very large corporations supplying materials to both sides in most conflicts.

Spidey wrote:Hillary is in silence mode, in an attempt to control her campaign.

Yea, these kinds of questions should be addressed at a national level, not used as some sort of political stunt.

Nation building…domino effect….pffft both sides have a lot to answer for.

I'm baffled (or maybe saddened) by the way I see the media handling Clinton. I really checked out on her with the E-mail thing... and I can just imagine the way the media would be continuously frying her over it if she was an "R"... but they treat her like she's a rock start or something.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Somewhere in that past 30 years, america (not the citizens) got it in its head that the world can't function without it.

Last time America divorced itself from the world led to WW2.

There's a difference between involvement in world affairs for the benefit of all verses outright meddling in world affairs for just our own gain.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Somewhere in that past 30 years, america (not the citizens) got it in its head that the world can't function without it.

Last time America divorced itself from the world led to WW2.

actually WWII was one of the few times we reluctantly involved ourselves on the world stage. Neutrality was de rigeur for most of modern US history to that point. Which, more than anything else, had a lot to do with a couple of very large corporations supplying materials to both sides in most conflicts.

You're deflecting. Because we weren't involved led to the greatest calamity the world has ever seen.
As Obama divorces our country from reality, the Chi0coms are build bases out in international waters, Russia has invaded the Ukraine and radical Islam has risen to new heights. Yeah, lets pretend nothing bad will happen if America throws a blanket over its head and starts sucking its thumb.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, lets pretend nothing bad will happen if America throws a blanket over its head and starts sucking its thumb.

Woodchip, we are doing airstrikes against ISIS on a continual basis and they are crumbling. The US is doing anything but sucking its thumb. The Ukraine is a highly complicated situation, just like Syria is, so there is no jumping in with guns blazing. Stop letting the news media command your emotions and get a hold of yourself.

woodchip wrote:You're deflecting. Because we weren't involved led to the greatest calamity the world has ever seen.

how so? The world went on as it did, and didn't expect us to do anything. We participated, as did others in the League of Nations, but why was it due to US lack of involvement with Europe when we traditionally never got involved with Europe. Hell, our WWI presence was minimal and we simply armed everyone to the teeth on all sides in every other conflict.

As Obama divorces our country from reality, the Chi0coms are build bases out in international waters, Russia has invaded the Ukraine and radical Islam has risen to new heights. Yeah, lets pretend nothing bad will happen if America throws a blanket over its head and starts sucking its thumb.

this is just such a load of manure it is too time-consuming to address how idiotic it truly reads. I'll leave it for others and see the results of the exchanges next Friday when I return.

woodchip wrote:As Obama divorces our country from reality

Guess what, you gave Obama the ability to divorce our country from reality and mess everything up. Congratulations.

I wonder if anyone besides Woody has seriously used the phrase "Chi-coms" since, oh, 1972 or so.

Woodchip wrote:Last time America divorced itself from the world led to WW2.

Please review a WW2 history book.

It is woodchip we are talking about here, I'm sure his history books somehow read that WWII was Obama's fault.

And your history book would say it was big evil corporations fault.
TG’s book would say it was the bucktoof rednecks fault.
tc’c book would say it was George Bush’s fault.
slick’s book would blame it on the neo-cons.
vision's book would blame it on guns.
ST’s book would blame the Devil.
Will’s book would blame the media.
And TB’s book would blame it on anybody but the Jews.

…Just havin some fun…

I can feel the love.

Spidey wrote:And your history book would say it was big evil corporations fault.
TG’s book would say it was the bucktoof rednecks fault.
tc’c book would say it was George Bush’s fault.
slick’s book would blame it on the neo-cons.
vision's book would blame it on guns.
ST’s book would blame the Devil.
Will’s book would blame the media.
And TB’s book would blame it on anybody but the Jews.

…Just havin some fun…

I approve.

Spidey wrote:And your history book would say it was big evil corporations fault.
TG’s book would say it was the bucktoof rednecks fault.
tc’c book would say it was George Bush’s fault.
slick’s book would blame it on the neo-cons.
vision's book would blame it on guns.
ST’s book would blame the Devil.
Will’s book would blame the media.
And TB’s book would blame it on anybody but the Jews.

…Just havin some fun…

Dammit where'd I put my Orson Welles clapping .gif?

Spidey wrote:vision's book would blame it on guns.

No that was WWI, not WWII.

Just kidding.

Spidey wrote:And your history book would say it was big evil corporations fault.
TG’s book would say it was the bucktoof rednecks fault.
tc’c book would say it was George Bush’s fault.
slick’s book would blame it on the neo-cons.
vision's book would blame it on guns.
ST’s book would blame the Devil.
Will’s book would blame the media.
And TB’s book would blame it on anybody but the Jews.

…Just havin some fun…

Actually, isn't it all of the above?

Krom wrote:It is woodchip we are talking about here, I'm sure his history books somehow read that WWII was Obama's fault.

So why isn't this thread locked because of this comment as it is similar to slicks thread being closed. Or are the mods not being impartial?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:You're deflecting. Because we weren't involved led to the greatest calamity the world has ever seen.

how so? The world went on as it did, and didn't expect us to do anything. We participated, as did others in the League of Nations, but why was it due to US lack of involvement with Europe when we traditionally never got involved with Europe. Hell, our WWI presence was minimal and we simply armed everyone to the teeth on all sides in every other conflict.

Quite simply it was our lack of involvement in Europe's affairs that let Hitler run amok. Try and tell me if we were as involved with world affairs as we were after WW2 was over that Germany would of been as war hungry. It is not what the world expects, rather what free nations need to do. Leadership does not hide behind the Neville Chamberlains of the world. It is precisely because of WW1 that our leadership should of seen what was coming. All the Neutrality Acts we passed, in the end, did not keep us out of the War.

woodchip wrote:As Obama divorces our country from reality, the Chi0coms are build bases out in international waters, Russia has invaded the Ukraine and radical Islam has risen to new heights. Yeah, lets pretend nothing bad will happen if America throws a blanket over its head and starts sucking its thumb.

callmeslick wrote:this is just such a load of manure it is too time-consuming to address how idiotic it truly reads. I'll leave it for others and see the results of the exchanges next Friday when I return.

It is only manure to a sheep.

woodchip wrote:So why isn't this thread locked because of this comment as it is similar to slicks thread being closed. Or are the mods not being impartial?

I don't lock threads over single comments. If I did, then any single side of a debate could take control of the conversation by attacking the other to cause the thread to be closed. I lock them when both sides attack each other because then both sides have thrown in the towel and have abandoned having a meaningful conversation. The thread you're referring to already had six posts removed from it (two of them yours) in addition to the two that closed the thread (another one of them yours).

If you don't want a thread to be closed, then don't attack others and when someone flamebaits you, then don't take the bait every single time. Next time, you can ignore them or reiterate your argument while showing how they dodged your points to take the thread into a better direction.