Cancerous Remnants of the Clinton Era
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
You would garner more respect if you stopped. You can criticise the actions but leave the person alone. Seperate the deed from the doer and leave the superfluous adjectives and descriptors out.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Oh and the " ! " changes the tone of what you post. You'll get fewer aggressive responses if you use that punctuation mark more sparingly.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Oh and the " ! " changes the tone of what you post. You'll get fewer aggressive responses if you use that punctuation mark more sparingly.
bulldogg said:You would garner more respect if you stopped. You can criticise the actions but leave the person alone. Seperate the deed from the doer and leave the superfluous adjectives and descriptors out.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Oh and the " ! " changes the tone of what you post. You'll get fewer aggressive responses if you use that punctuation mark more sparingly.
I have to agree with Bulldogg here. I don't know if something specific happened but I do detect a definate change in the tone of voice. The accusations get more and more hostile and comments get the full Monty. Disagreeing is what we do here, but slam-dunking somebodies opinions isn't the way to win an argument.
Last edited:
Rob Henderson
Banned
hahaha...i was going to say, i think pj made a quote error...lol...but you edited it...lol..Yea, I do agree, the ! has a way of making a post sound calm. to a post sounding like hostile!...see how that works?
phoenix80
Banned
bulldogg said:You would garner more respect if you stopped. You can criticise the actions but leave the person alone. Seperate the deed from the doer and leave the superfluous adjectives and descriptors out.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Oh and the " ! " changes the tone of what you post. You'll get fewer aggressive responses if you use that punctuation mark more sparingly.
Personality has direct relation with action
phoenix80
Banned
Ted said:
Both!
Personality has direct relation with decision making/taking action.
If you (I am not talking about u, it is an example) are a mentally weak and coward person, you can't decide as to what should be done in, lets say, a military conflict.
Most Dem presidents were of this group. Coward and unable to make crucial decisions in time of important crises. i.e Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam conflict, Jimmy Carter during the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis and Bill Clinton through out his entire presidency
Last edited:
phoenix80
Banned
Ted said:
I'd say all of the contemporary Republican presidents were great when dealing with the world issues! They were almost decisive, courageous and bold in their approach to int'l crises.
Among contemporary Dems, Truman was really good. JFK acted very well during the Cuban missile crisis too. But the rest sucked big time. :lol:
phoenix80
Banned
Ted said:Hahahaha, I'll say! Of course the republican presidents were great when it came dealing with international crises..... They caused most of them, so they always has a head start
would you name them?
Almost all military conflicts of the second half of the 20th century was initiated by DemocRat presidents.
FDR = WW II
Truman= Korean War
JFK, LBJ = Vietnam
Carter inability to control Iranian revolution and losing an ally in Iran, led Soviets to occupation of Afghanistan and drew US special ops to Afghanistan and support of mujaheddin as we know today.
Bill Clinton= Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, 1998 Desert Shield ops in Iraq..... Kosovo-Balkan conflict... etc
(( The thing is that I support almost all of these efforts though, but saying that Republicans are warmonger is absolutely pathetic and absurd))
Eisenhower ended the korean conflict, Nixon ended the Vietnam conflict, H.W Bush ended the unjust occupation of Kuwait....
Should I say more?
Last edited: