The Resident Gaffes Again
-
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
Please love yourself.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Please love yourself.
-
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
-
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I don’t think this war is going to change much based on anything Joe Biden says, to be honest. It could change if the US decides to actually do something concrete.
It’s not really about Biden.
A shocking concept, I know.
Well, we have a part to play in that Poots is especially pissed that we involve ourselves in European matters. But overall, yes, this isn't our show.
-
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
-
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
Please love yourself.
-
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
What the Commander in Chief says about how America will respond if Russia uses certain weapons seems germane.
Yes but not your personal opinion on a topic that's unique in its complexity of information that you also don't have access to.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
Unfortunately, neither does Biden.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea. And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
The Brad
-
@Horace said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
The appropriate response from Americans is to express support for Ukraine but not support for Anything That Could Risk WW3. No commenting on what Biden does or does not say because it's not about Biden or America. One could admonish Biden for saying anything, since it's not about what he says, but that would be commenting on what Biden says.
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
Also, when weighing nuclear annihilation, chemical weapons, and World War III, fixating on Biden's gaffs seems to be missing the point.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
I just think playing Armchair Commander-In-Chief with respect to a war escalation is pretty much what "hubris" as a word was derived for.
There's no football on at the moment, so people can't opine convincingly about what a hopeless fool Bill Belichick or somebody is.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea. And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
Please love yourself.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
@Aqua-Letifer: We don't need no stinkin' evidence, gringo!
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
-
Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
-
Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
-
Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
-
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
There's room for interpretation when dealing with other languages, but English to English? "In kind" specifically means "in like fashion". The implication is obvious and it's unnecessary rhetoric. If he wants to say that the US will respond with force, then say so. This implies unconventional weapons.
What do you think Biden should have said, and what intelligence briefings have you been in that led you to that conclusion?
I'm not saying Biden isn't a fuckup. But we have absolutely no idea what's going on.
I would not have said in essence "If you use chemical weapons, we use chemical weapons". That's for sure.
How do you know that's the wrong thing to say? Based on what?
Threatening war crimes is never a good idea.
How so?
And judging by how quickly the White House and all of those people that do receive the briefings and have the appropriate training walked back the statement, it would seem that they agree. At least in this case.
If we can presume Trump is smart enough to play 12-D chess without any evidence, then suggesting this might also be a strategy is not out of line. After all, I have just as much evidence for that as you do that he gaffed. Which to say none. Literally at all.
-
Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
-
Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
-
Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Resident Gaffes Again:
- Occam’s razor, dude. The simplest answer is usually the truth. And the simplest answer is Biden’s mouth got away from him. Repeatedly. He kind of has a history.
Yeah, he does.
- Fo you recall me talking about Trump’s brilliant 12 D strategies? I don’t.
I'm just saying, it's possible.
- Basic negotiation principles. Biden is not speaking from a position of strength, here, and his entire strategy has been one of partnership. Being simply a part of a coalition. And I’m not demeaning that strategy at all. But now, all of a sudden he’s going to start getting internet muscles? Weak sauce and unnecessary at this point. And yes, I have studied and know a bit about negotiation and influencing others.
I'm not saying you're bad at that, I'm just saying that you and I don't really know much of anything with respect to what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia at this point. We're criticizing animal formations in the clouds in my opinion.
If we’re going to start stop criticizing or having strong opinions about subjects that we are not completely informed on, we may as well shutter the joint or just restrict threads to funny cat videos…
