people really spend this much time and energy while writing an email?
i mean..ill look over it for glaring misspellings and poor punctuation.
(which you may have guessed i miss often)

i never really considered that someone would struggle with their own expressive nature so much.

and you guys,both @lucky760 and @eric3579,are some of the nicest people i have conversed with online.

as for fretting how someone will receive your words.
you both need to stop.
its a waste of time and here is why:
the very tool you are using to imagine how someone will read your words is your own subjective understanding of that person.

in other words.
to derive the intent of a persons words by using anything OTHER than those actual words is presumption.

we all presume.it is a human trait,and we do so by using our own subjective understanding.

this is why a liar believes everybody lies.
or a cheater is certain everybody cheats.
thieves know everybody steals..
and so on.

you both are pretty genuine.
i bet that if i met you both in real life there would not be any major shocks.
eric would be a tad anxious and unsure.
lucky would be fairly reserved and deliberative (until he got comfortable and then WATCH out).

in my opinion neither of you should devote too much time worrying about such matters.
you both are some pretty genuine dudes who should not have to worry about perceptions of other people.
thats their problem..not yours.

He made some good points here but undid them with his double talk.

A deliberative (not deliberate as Cain said) leader is a good thing. They take information on board and make pragmatic decisions rather than sticking to ideology. This is something that is rarely touted in US politics.

He basically said that he was not in a position to know if it was the right decision. Saying that he mistook the premise of the question which was do you agree that intervention was acceptable which is a much broader question.

You pretend like you would be willing to have a debate, but I can tell by your discourse that you're not

In short - "I don't wan't to talk specifics because that would mean I had to actually argue my case and I'm really only comfortable when I'm lobbing ad hominems safely ensconced in the anonymity of the internet. Now excuse me while I flee ignominiously..."

1. Are you saying that careful planning and getting things done right the first time are bad ways of working out problems?

Not at all. I'm noting with wry irony the hypocritical nature of Obama and his administration in taking a "let's go slow" approach with the military (so to avoid liberal backlack) while advocating breakneck haste and reckless speed with his domestic agenda.

the process of solving one problem does not necessarily logically follow from the process of solving a different problem, therefore your argument is non sequitur. Familiarize yourself with logic and the terms you are throwing around.

So - are you then saying that the issue of Health Care is one that requires no attention, no examination, and no deliberation? You are saying that the request for Afghanistan troops from a top general is SO critical that it requires slow, due consideration. And yet you are also saying that the nationalalization of our health care (the single biggest political issue in decades) is so UNimportant that it can be done with no examination of the bill, no open debate, and with undue haste & speed. I think you need a few lessons in logic yourself before you presume to attempt to instruct me. I was perfectly logical in my application.

3. The issue has been debated since May or possibly sooner. How many months is enough for you? Most of our country has had enough debate. Look at the polls.

Yes I have looked at the polls, and 58% of the country is opposed to Obamacare at last count. Does that mean according to your logic that the plan should be abandoned? Regardless, the 'issue' has been discussed but the SPECIFICS of the plan have not. There are no facts. There is no bill. It is only today that ONE version of the bill was submitted from the Senate - and there are 5 other versions which have never been seen. We can't discuss specifics when no specifics exist. Therefore we have discussed only generalities. That is not good enough. We need the COMPLETE finished bill in its FULL text posted for the entire country to read and deliberate over for weeks - preferably months. Without specificity, there is no 'discussion'.

4. Do you have proof that Obama's process for addressing military issues is more political than deliberative, or are you just vomiting your impressed opinion?

Do you have any information that explains why he will not follow the recommendation of his general and add troops? What other reason is there besides politics. When in a war, you follow the advice of your top leaders. They want troops. What else does he need to 'deliberate' except the political fallout he will suffer with his anti-war supporters? Everyone knows he is playing politics with Afghanistan. During his ENTIRE political campaign in 2008 he was constantly harping on Afghanistan being the 'real war' and Iraq was a pointless Bush distraction. Well, now Afghanistan is all his war and what's he done with it?

5. Let them continue acting the way they do. If health care doesn't pass this year, it will pass in two years after Republicans lose even more seats in congress for acting like spoiled rotten infants.

All the political polling to date shows the Democrat party losing a lot of seats in the house and the senate in 2010. It is kind of early for such polls though. Regardless, your peception of a 'demand' for Obamacare is a false one. Polling shows clearly that the majority of the public is against it. They are more concerned about the national debt. If Obama ramrods in Obamacare and increased our debt even more (which it will) then he faces a crippling backlash in 2010 and 2012. If he wants to be a 1 termer like Carter then he's well on his way.

Since you invited me to, I decided to read this dreck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...weigh every possible angle, and carefully - cautiously deliberate...(1) ...zombie-libs. (2) On one side of the mouth they are demanding action now now now now now instantly without question and without debate of any kind. (3) The other issue they want to stonewall so as to avoid fallout from their kook anti-military partisan factions. (4) So - frankly - there's no reason to listen to Obama's request to grab a mop when he won't so much as pick up a toothbrush. (5)

1. Are you saying that careful planning and getting things done right the first time are bad ways of working out problems?
2. Didn't you say something to me about ad hominem and non sequitur? First, you're a hypocrite to expect no one to respond to your ad hominem with ad hominem, and second, the process of solving one problem does not necessarily logically follow from the process of solving a different problem, therefore your argument is non sequitur. Familiarize yourself with logic and the terms you are throwing around.
3. The issue has been debated since May or possibly sooner. How many months is enough for you? Most of our country has had enough debate. Look at the polls.
4. Do you have proof that Obama's process for addressing military issues is more political than deliberative, or are you just vomiting your impressed opinion?
5. Let them continue acting the way they do. If health care doesn't pass this year, it will pass in two years after Republicans lose even more seats in congress for acting like spoiled rotten infants.

Happy now? Go forth and waste our time.