- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We are about to take Maduro out..
Posted on 10/19/25 at 10:51 am to Toomer Deplorable
Posted on 10/19/25 at 10:51 am to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
So when will we launch a regime change operation in Canada?
India way ahead of us
But in the interim the tariff war is certainly Trumps way of putting Canada on notice that all the fentanyl coming through their ports is unacceptable.
1
Posted on 10/19/25 at 10:54 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
The billionaires will make billions.
They would anyways. Those guys know how to make money. They can park it in banks and end up making billions.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 12:56 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Since you believe the United States has been divinely ordained by the cosmos to “intervene” in the internal affairs of other nations from time to time
I don’t believe that. Your premise is wrong just as your conclusions are.
But keep meme’ing; it’s the one talent you seem to have.
This post was edited on 10/19/25 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 10/19/25 at 12:58 pm to Lakeboy7
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:07 pm to Penrod
quote:
I don’t believe that.
You don’t?
You are the one who said “…we have to intervene some” as if it is an obligation or duty.
Are you now retracting that statement?
This post was edited on 10/19/25 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:21 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
You are the one who said “…we have to intervene some” as if it is an obligation or duty
I can see why you “win” so many arguments. You get to assign meaning to your interlocutor’s statements.
I think we should do what is in our best interests. Sometimes that means intervening in other nations’ politics. I don’t think we are “divinely ordained” to do so; I don’t think it is an obligation nor a duty. These are the three motives or justifications you have falsely assigned to me…so far.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:33 pm to GooseSix
quote:
Regime change is coming to Venezuela.
More than that, it would kick the Chinese out. They control Venezuela's oil right now -- and they need oil.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:34 pm to SlayTime
quote:
But in the interim the tariff war is certainly Trumps way of putting Canada on notice that all the fentanyl coming through their ports is unacceptable.
How much was coming through?
Why arent we stopping it at our border? If we cant, how do we expect Canada to?
This post was edited on 10/19/25 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
How much was coming through?
Enough to kill tens of millions of Americans.
quote:like all border issues, we are doing much better the last 10 months vs the 4 years
Why arent we stopping it at our border?
quote:
If we cant, how do we expect Canada to?
Again, we are doing much better, but Canada can do much better policing their ports and now allowing drug cartels to allow the flow of drugs through their ports.
I know libertarians like yourself are big proponents of letting the drugs flow freely but it’s a problem we need to fix.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 1:59 pm to GooseSix
Cali Cartel saying....."Do It!!!!!!!......yeah it's Venezuela....it's always been Venezuela!!!!"
Posted on 10/19/25 at 2:03 pm to SlayTime
quote:
but Canada can do much better policing their ports
"Hey, its not our job to keep drugs away from our citizens, its Canadas!"
Posted on 10/19/25 at 2:39 pm to Penrod
quote:
I can see why you “win” so many arguments. You get to assign meaning to your interlocutor’s statements.
You act as if I am assigning random meanings to your words. I am not.
I have never been a grammar or spelling snob and I understood that misspellings and misstatements occur because of the real-time nature of message boards such as this. With that said, words have definitions and words strung together in a sentence impart a particular meaning.
quote:
I don’t think it is an obligation nor a duty. These are the three motives or justifications you have falsely assigned to me…so far.
You thus retract your previous statement? Fair enough.
Yet for the record, in no way did I assign a false meaning to the statement: “We intervene too much, but we have to intervene some.”
The first clause of your sentence certainly provides a critique of excessive intervention, yet the second clause of your sentence — by use of the phrase “we have to” — introduces the necessity to intervene in some situations. The phrase “have to” serves as modal, a form of verb which carries with it a sense of obligation or necessity.
Based on the definition of words and the rules of grammar, your sentence had a definitive meaning and you clearly stated that you believed it is necessary for the United States to sometimes intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations. A final word of advice: someone who has penchant for calling other posters “idiots” should perhaps be especially careful in their choice of words.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 2:50 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
You thus retract your previous statement? Fair enough.
I didn’t retract anything. Again, you are bold to declare victories you haven’t earned.
quote:
Based on the definition of words and the rules of grammar, your sentence had a definitive meaning and you clearly stated that you believed it is necessary for the United States to sometimes intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations.
What I meant was what I wrote, that we should act in our own interests, and that means intervening sometimes.
The only way we are “obliged to” intervene is if we are “obliged to” act in our own interests. It is “our interests” that makes us intervene, not an outside interest, which is what you implied when you wrote (going by memory here) that we have a divine mandate, obligation or duty. We don’t. We have selfish self interest.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 3:05 pm to Penrod
quote:
I didn’t retract anything.
So you do believe the United States has an obligation to sometimes intervene into the internal affairs of other nations? So my initial reading of your quote was correct?
quote:
What I meant was what I wrote
I believe you. And here we are back to square one!
This post was edited on 10/19/25 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 10/19/25 at 3:42 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
I didn’t retract anything. So you do believe the United States has an obligation to sometimes intervene into the internal affairs of other nations? So my initial reading of your quote was correct?
No. I never said that; I don’t believe that; so there is no need for me to retract that. You are being disingenuous.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 4:33 pm to Penrod
quote:
No. I never said that; I don’t believe that; so there is no need for me to retract that.
Again, you most certainly said we have to intervene some, thus indicating a necessity, duty, or obligation to do so.
The words say what they say.
quote:
You are being disingenuous.
This post was edited on 10/19/25 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 10/19/25 at 7:52 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Again, you most certainly said we have to intervene some
I did. This is different from…
quote:
So you do believe the United States has an obligation to sometimes intervene into the internal affairs of other nations?
You are apparently too stupid to tell the difference…or too disingenuous.
I have explained it to you very clearly, this being the third time, that we are only guided by our own self interest, which is not a duty, or obligation, nor is it a “divine guidance” or whatever your third appellation was. I see now you have a fourth, “necessity”. You keep adding them and you’ll get there.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 9:10 pm to Penrod
quote:
You are apparently too stupid to tell the difference…
Hi Kettle! I’m Pot. Pleased to meet your acquaintance!
You said what you said and I have correctly described the meaning of your words by logically applying the rules of grammar to your statement.
Yet lest I be accused of taking your words out of context, here is a screenshot of your post for anyone else who might be following along at home:
I explained above in simple and easy to understand language why your use of a modal verb in the clause “but we have to” expressed an obligation or necessity to sometimes intervene into the domestic affairs of other nations.
In short, modal auxiliary verbs communicate a condition about the mood of a verb:
Now, it is not a particularly hard concept to grasp yet I can’t make you understand this — that is upon you!
Yet again, after so fully displaying your abject ignorance on this matter, I do recommend that you not so readily accuse other posters of being idiots.
It is not a flattering look for you, especially since you seem to be so willing to unintentionally revel in your own ignorance.
Since we both are repeating ourselves at this point, you may have the last word if you so choose.
Posted on 10/19/25 at 9:14 pm to GooseSix
Maduro stole the election, like his predecessor, so we should definiely correct that
Posted on 10/19/25 at 9:15 pm to riccoar
Because CIA media told you that?
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News