The Luke: "America has never really won a war"

[Skip8282]

I'm not heaaring a counter-argument... just a whole lotta melting.


The Luke

You have to have an argument before anybody can put forth a counterargument.

All you've offered up is pure sophistry.  Let's take a step back.  The discussion that led to the inception of this thread is here:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=298459.100

Right or wrong, the discussion had turned to military service, and you continued that discussion, bringing up conscientious objectors, and then making the statement:  "Besides, to the best of my knowledge America has never really won a war."

The entire discussion, INCLUDING YOUR RESPONSE, was about MILITARILY winning a war.  Now, after taking days to figure out how to worm your way out, you want to redefine war in terms of economic modeling.

This absurd reasoning gives you an additional out.  Since our justice system is also modeled after the English Common Law system, you could claim that we "really" never won a war. I like drinking Boddingtons too...  Starting to see the absurdity of your claim?

Winning the American Revolution or the War of 1812 does not mean that all vestiges of our English brethren had to be, or even now, have to be eradicated from our society.  Even following your esoteric logic, the most you could conclude was that a battle was won, in terms of banking structure, not a war.

Now, pick another war, and keep to the MILITARY aspects, as that is what YOUR comments and the discussion was premised upon.

[tonymctones]

LOL IM SO GLAD I STARTED THIS FUKING THREAD HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHA 

LOL HAHAHAHAH OMG hahahah luke you are truely a bigger jack ass then i gave you credit for hahahahahahhhahahhhahaha haa

LOL OMG 

[tonymctones]

And now a specail message for Luke

kazan you know they are about to release the sequal to this in October dont you? gonna be a great one

[Skip8282]

Still haven't heard a rational, reasonable, logical, cogent, argument as to how we "really" didn't win the War of 1812.

Do you even know what the word "cogent" means, Luke?  You use it all the time, but I suspect you don't understand it's meaning.  It means, "convincing, forceful".

As in claiming that we didn't win the war just because we have a centralized banking system is not a forceful or convincing argument.  Most reasonably intelligent people wouldn't even consider it an argument at all.

Just take this opportunity to come clean.  Admit that you have a blind hatred of the United States, probably motivated out of sheer envy, and that you can't put forth any type of reasonable logical argument to support your contention.

Save some face, while (if?) you still can.

[headhuntersix]

Good stuff Skip...good stuff. Ok Luke stop changing the debate. I would imagine that if u asked T to start some economic post on US foreign policy aims during the war of 1812 he either would have laughed or it would have died, not gone 8 pages. We're like sharks man..big angry brainwashed patriotic sharks. 

[Kazan]

Good stuff Skip...good stuff. Ok Luke stop changing the debate. I would imagine that if u asked T to start some economic post on US foreign policy aims during the war of 1812 he either would have laughed or it would have died, not gone 8 pages. We're like sharks man..big angry brainwashed patriotic sharks. 

It's almost amusing, his country can't even fully control a landmass the size of Indiana. Whats their claim to fame? drunks and the IRA?

In the immortal words of Bill the Butcher:

"On the seventh day the Lord rested, but before that he did, he squatted over the side of England and what came out of him.... was Ireland."

[Soul Crusher]

Still haven't heard a rational, reasonable, logical, cogent, argument as to how we "really" didn't win the War of 1812.

Do you even know what the word "cogent" means, Luke?  You use it all the time, but I suspect you don't understand it's meaning.  It means, "convincing, forceful".

As in claiming that we didn't win the war just because we have a centralized banking system is not a forceful or convincing argument.  Most reasonably intelligent people wouldn't even consider it an argument at all.

Just take this opportunity to come clean.  Admit that you have a blind hatred of the United States, probably motivated out of sheer envy, and that you can't put forth any type of reasonable logical argument to support your contention.

Save some face, while (if?) you still can.

Skip - after I owned and destroyed Luke on that other thread, I havent even bothered to look at his posts because they are usually nothing more than empty drivel he thinks impresses people.  He lies about topic after topic and runs away or hides behind word games to deflect from his ignorance. 

[headhuntersix]

Its hard to listen to this crap because most Irish don't care, they love this country. My mom has a huge family and they've all come here and I've gone there. My mom just got back from there at the end of August. This guy really ought to turn his angst at the UK if he needs to vent.

[Skip8282]

Skip - after I owned and destroyed Luke on that other thread, I havent even bothered to look at his posts because they are usually nothing more than empty drivel he thinks impresses people.  He lies about topic after topic and runs away or hides behind word games to deflect from his ignorance. 

Yep, he loves semantics.  His way of attempting to avoid the point and use some common sense reasoning.

I think we all pretty much knew when it took him days on end to retort that we wouldn't be seeing any reasonable justification for his comment.  It's still entertaining none the less.

[The Luke]

Well, it seems there still isn't any proper counter argument...

Skip8282 is resorting to context switching:

Right or wrong, the discussion had turned to military service

333386 is admitting he can't engage the debate:

...I havent even bothered to look at his posts...

...and the rest of the comments are like something out of a Roy Cohen, Senator Joe McCarthy love-in.


I'm not dissuaded.


The Luke

[Skip8282]

Well, it seems there still isn't any proper counter argument...

I'm not dissuaded.


The Luke

I'm glad you're not dissuaded because we're still waiting for a valid, reasonable, logical, argument.

[The Luke]

I'm glad you're not dissuaded because we're still waiting for a valid, reasonable, logical, argument.

...I gave my opinion, and my reasons for it.

However, if I'm wrong and America is currently debt-free, solvent, fiscally solvent and free of the machinations of the British Central Banking System (now termed the Neo-Liberal Banking Model)... then I would reconsider my opinion, as America fought the 1812 war to achieve this objective.

I hear lots of mimicking of my writing style, lots of dismissive jeering, lots of patriotic slogans but no counter argument.

Do you want me to continue with the rest of the list?


The Luke

[Skip8282]

Please, continue.

[The Luke]

Please, continue.

...will do tomorrow.

I think I'd prefer to handle WW1 and WW2 together, just for ease.



The Luke

[Kazan]

...will do tomorrow.

I think I'd prefer to handle WW1 and WW2 together, just for ease.



The Luke

Since you don't know shit from shinola, thiought I'd give you some help

[The Luke]

Since you don't know shit from shinola, thiought I'd give you some help

You saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

Andrew Jackson was the pre-eminent hero of the 1812 war, and he stated that the main reason for the war was to extricate America from the British Banking monopolists (and their counterparts in the Second National Bank).

He ran for president on a platform of eliminating America's own cental bank, which he did.

Had America remained free of the Central Banking model (as the framers of the Constitution chided them to) then 1812-1815 would have been a decisive win... but having won out militarily, America lost the war when it succumbed to the agents of the British Banking oligarchy immediately afterwards.

America is now bankrupt thanks to the Federal Reserve and its policies. Thats not winning anymore than a few impoverished Reservations and tacky casinos would constitute a win for Native Americans.

I don't hear a counter argument here... sorry I went to the trouble of linking all those pages and explaining myself in such detail. Maybe I should have just typed some put-downs as that seems to be the level of discourse.


The Luke

[tonymctones]

You saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.
Andrew Jackson was the pre-eminent hero of the 1812 war, and he stated that the main reason for the war was to extricate America from the British Banking monopolists (and their counterparts in the Second National Bank).

He ran for president on a platform of eliminating America's own cental bank, which he did.

Had America remained free of the Central Banking model (as the framers of the Constitution chided them to) then 1812-1815 would have been a decisive win... but having won out militarily, America lost the war when it succumbed to the agents of the British Banking oligarchy immediately afterwards.

America is now bankrupt thanks to the Federal Reserve and its policies. Thats not winning anymore than a few impoverished Reservations and tacky casinos would constitute a win for Native Americans.

I don't hear a counter argument here... sorry I went to the trouble of linking all those pages and explaining myself in such detail. Maybe I should have just typed some put-downs as that seems to be the level of discourse.


The Luke

you saying youre right doesnt make you right

you were talking in the context of military war and yes we won the war of 1812 militarily did we not?

the consequences of the war etc...that are felt for generations to come cant be to measure a military win or loss in that moment....

germany is vastly better off now that hitler isnt in power does that mean they won WW2? No they lost

face it luke youre a jack ass that made an ignorant statement and now are reaching even further to justify your ignorance...

[The Luke]

you were talking in the context of military war and yes we won the war of 1812 militarily did we not?

...you are implying that context to suit your own needs.

It's not uncommon for someone who is losing an argument to fixate upon a contextual ambiguity; seize upon a possible erroneous misinterpretation conflating meaning with what they choose to infer for their own ulterior motives, and use that as means to derail an argument they can't face losing.

That is what is going on here.

It's akin to the reasoning of a child being scolded: Ha-ha! Something you said could possibly be construed as a stupid comment when taken out of context, therefore you are stupid, therefore I win this argument without making my case.

This thread could easily be re-titled: "Luke is a stupid face! 'Cause he just is!"... it reeks of inferiority.


Try showing this thread to friends and coworkers who don't know your username... see who they deem to be making an (albeit unpopular) argument, and who is spewing childish inanities. Better yet, try telling them YOU post as "The Luke" and see what they really think of tonymctones argument.


Even I don't think the Palin-voters actually believe that I was seriously positing that America has never won a military conflict... they just jumped upon the opportunity to collectively CHOOSE to believe that so they can somehow "win" an argument they were losing by dismissing me. Instead of addressing the topic being discussed, they are now deluding themselves with boastful claims of "ownings"...

It's happening here too... lots of personal attacks; lots of insults; NO COUNTER ARGUMENT.


If you REALLY, REALLY believe I was explicitly claiming America never won a military conflict, then all you have to do is re-read that other thread and quote the full posts in their proper context which clearly show such.

You won't and can't do that, because no such posts were made... you just wish they were, because you don't like beig introduced to facts that perturb yor prejudices.



The Luke

[tonymctones]

...you are implying that context to suit your own needs.

The Luke

and your remark about concientious objectors was meant in what context?

face it luke youve been pwned...

[The Luke]

and your remark about concientious objectors was meant in what context?

face it luke youve been pwned...

...quote the full posts in context, that way we aren't all prisoners of your abominable reading comprehension.


The Luke

[tonymctones]

...quote the full posts in context, that way we aren't all prisoners of your abominable reading comprehension.


The Luke

LOL 3333, hh6 and mons were debating mons supposed military service etc and you said:

Mons basically stalked HH6 for months like a jilted lover and claimed that he fought in two wars, Panama and Gulf War 1.  HH6 and others have asked Mons for some type of verification of these claims.

To date, Mons refuses to provide his company and battalion info for HH6 to verify, especially considering that Mons said he wishes us soldiers to be blown up by ied explosive devices. 

^this was the quote you quoted in reponse to your idiotic post...

...Jeebus Hussein Christ.

Don't any of you have the intelligence or courage to be conscientious objectors

The Luke

again just face it luke youve been pwned...

[The Luke]

^this was the quote you quoted in reponse to your idiotic post... again just face it luke youve been pwned...

...again, poor reading comprehension.



The Luke

[tonymctones]

...again, poor reading comprehension.



The Luke

LOL 

[The Luke]

again just face it luke youve been pwned...

...I still don't see a counter argument.

I made a statement, was called on it by those who needed some excuse to back down from their losing argument and so set about explaining my reasoning... faced with a proper argument, all the detractors fell silent.

Sound to me as if you guys misinterpreted a statement; worked yourselves into a frenzy based on miscomprehension, only to have your faulty inferences corrected.

Who's "pwning" who?



The Luke

[tonymctones]

...I still don't see a counter argument.

I made a statement, was called on it by those who needed some excuse to back down from their losing argument and so set about explaining my reasoning... faced with a proper argument, all the detractors fell silent.

Sound to me as if you guys misinterpreted a statement; worked yourselves into a frenzy based on miscomprehension, only to have your faulty inferences corrected.

Who's "pwning" who?

The Luke

you made a statement in regards to military conflict not the idiocy you spewed forth when cornered...