don't blame hayes, he's just a foxbot! [added] a couple of months too late though.. http://mediamatters.org/items/200602240003
Why thank you. That was nice. Or how about on a bbs? Video games have too many buttons for me these days. Gimme some old tecmo bowl. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah........no.
Actually, that IS funny. But for the record I don't watch Fox (well I do watch Rescue Me on Fx, but that's different).
this is what all this is to hayes: i hope he keeps responding and exposing himself like the pavlov dog that he is
Pavlov's dog is often used to describe someone who merely reacts to a situation rather than uses critical thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov Cmon, if that doesn't describe Hayes, then I dont know what does! haha
I don't agree with Wiki's popular culture bastardization of environmental triggers. More to the point, though, I don't understand to what Hayes is reacting (you claim illogically) in this thread. To me it appears that he is hustling people into reacting to his question which, again, is unanswerable. People even decided they knew what tv shows he watches.
He's been exposed countless times in this thread (read the whole thing), but continues to make the issue more and more obscure so he can keep on 'arguing,' thus, i feel he is just reacting to the situation as opposed to using critical thinking You should see him in the Iran thread, he takes quotes from this thread and places them over there as kneejerk reactions to my responses his new nickname is pavlov's dog
How aboiut? Did the Holcaust help the Germans and the Jews reach the point they are today where Jews enjoy full rights in Germany?
I wanted to mention that I agree with just about everything Sishir posted in this thread. All kidding aside, what we're seeing today in Iraq is horrific, and it wouldn't be occurring if we hadn't invaded and occupied the country, regardless of what Saddam may, or may not have done, absent our invasion and overthrow of his regime. I'd also add that he wasn't simply a despot. He represented the ascendancy of his tribe in Iraq, despite going over and through various relatives and tribal members to reach the pinnacle of power. He didn't operate in a vacuum. We don't operate in a vacuum, either, although one exists between George W. Bush's ears. Iraq is worse off today, in my opinion, than it was prior to our making war on the country. It's at the edge of spinning off into pieces, with countries like Turkey and Iran looking on, licking their lips with anticipation. Keep D&D Civil.
I'm not sure what this passage is mean to convey. Care to clarify? I'll take that as a 'no.' Thanks for your opinion and participation!
In the spirit of replying in reverse order, here's your own words... "Is a 'civil war' worse than living under a dictator?" My response is yes, not no, you know? As for my comment, it is as I made it. Saddam is portrayed as a dictator who exercised sole power. He's been "demonized," and well deserved, if I may say so, but he didn't exercise his power alone. Saddam, with his family and tribe, were the real rulers of Saddam's Iraq. I'm repeating myself, but he didn't operate in a vacuum. Neither did Bush and his cabal. They knew what they were doing, and went to any lengths, including lying to their own people (us), to achieve their agenda... the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And they had their reasons. I don't believe for a second that this was ever about 9/11. Ask George, Karl, and Dick why they did this, then ask the families of our people, and the Iraqi people, who've had to deal with family members killed and maimed, and who have had to live in constant fear in Iraq, if you are an Iraqi, or a foreign contractor, or a journalist (who mostly sit in hotels, because doing their job is too dangerous). It's really quite depressing. The situations sucks, you know? Thus the attempt at levity. Keep D&D Civil.
I missed it, wnes. Sorry about that. My usage of was an attempt to keep the discussion on track and acknowledge that answering either way was fine. Thanks for your input!
Oops! Yep, you got it right. I reversed it. Ok, gotcha. I'll take that as a yes! OK, still not sure what the point of the Bush/cabal part is - that's not really relevant to the question I asked. As for Saddam - he pretty much did exercise sole power. He frequently executed generals, officials, fellow tribesmen, and family. I'm not sure what the point of that part is either. But I may just be missing its significance. If you think its worth re-re-explaining...
