1) There wasn't anything wrong with what was before. It wasn't codified.Chizzang wrote:Um...
Just so we're clear here - Joe successfully defended "keeping in God We Trust" up on Federal property
He did nothing to explain what was wrong with what was there before
why it's a good idea they replaced what was there before
or the state of our country during the swap out
However:
On the points he cleverly chose to argue he did win (No question)
and like a good lawyer he avoided what needed to be avoided to win
Only you can admit defeat, and yet make it into a fait accompli victoryChizzang wrote:Um...
Just so we're clear here - Joe successfully defended "keeping in God We Trust" up on Federal property
He did nothing to explain what was wrong with what was there before
why it's a good idea they replaced what was there before
or the state of our country during the swap out
However:
On the points he cleverly chose to argue he did win (No question)
and like a good lawyer he avoided what needed to be avoided to win
Look here Mister...CID1990 wrote:Only you can admit defeat, and yet make it into a fait accompli victoryChizzang wrote:Um...
Just so we're clear here - Joe successfully defended "keeping in God We Trust" up on Federal property
He did nothing to explain what was wrong with what was there before
why it's a good idea they replaced what was there before
or the state of our country during the swap out
However:
On the points he cleverly chose to argue he did win (No question)
and like a good lawyer he avoided what needed to be avoided to win
Like any good lawyer, Joe knows his strengths and sticks to them. He knows the religion stuff cold, but he won’t take on CID in foreign policy, or Flaggy in stock picking, or Andy in whatever Andy does...Chizzang wrote:Look here Mister...CID1990 wrote:
Only you can admit defeat, and yet make it into a fait accompli victory
Joe is a smart son of a bitch
and he knows how to win an argument even when he's wrong
he's been doing it here for a decade
I got hammered I'll admit it
Because he was successful at removing context and debating "at this moment in time"
Which is a strong move...
Why would I debate foreign policy with guy who has spent his entire career in foreign service?Ivytalk wrote:Like any good lawyer, Joe knows his strengths and sticks to them. He knows the religion stuff cold, but he won’t take on CID in foreign policy, or Flaggy in stock picking, or Andy in whatever Andy does...Chizzang wrote:
Look here Mister...
Joe is a smart son of a bitch
and he knows how to win an argument even when he's wrong
he's been doing it here for a decade
I got hammered I'll admit it
Because he was successful at removing context and debating "at this moment in time"
Which is a strong move...
93henfan wrote:That they do, but it's a fairly niche market for them. And they're overpriced. They're the GA version of MD's LWRC. Btw, I just purchased another AR from FN on Wednesday. They're overpriced too, but I got the military discount (my ID has indefinite expirationBaldy wrote:
Daniel Defense just outside Savannah. They make one of the finest AR's on the market.
https://danieldefense.com/). Trying to stock up on as many as I can before the big ban goes through here. It won't be long.
That was my point, Perry Mason.JoltinJoe wrote:Why would I debate foreign policy with guy who has spent his entire career in foreign service?Ivytalk wrote: Like any good lawyer, Joe knows his strengths and sticks to them. He knows the religion stuff cold, but he won’t take on CID in foreign policy, or Flaggy in stock picking, or Andy in whatever Andy does...
I speak when I can; and listen and learn when I can. Being smart means knowing when to shut up, listen, and then think it over.
Ivytalk wrote:That was my point, St Joseph.JoltinJoe wrote:
Why would I debate foreign policy with guy who has spent his entire career in foreign service?
I speak when I can; and listen and learn when I can. Being smart means knowing when to shut up, listen, and then think it over.
I was just trying to expand the idea for those here who speak on everything. There are a lot sharp guys here who are worth listening to.Ivytalk wrote:That was my point, Perry Mason.JoltinJoe wrote:
Why would I debate foreign policy with guy who has spent his entire career in foreign service?
I speak when I can; and listen and learn when I can. Being smart means knowing when to shut up, listen, and then think it over.
“Experts” are often over-rated...including lawyers, layman priests, and golf pros.JoltinJoe wrote:I was just trying to expand the idea for those here who speak on everything. There are a lot sharp guys here who are worth listening to.Ivytalk wrote: That was my point, Perry Mason.
Yes but...CID1990 wrote:I'm no foreign policy expert. There's way too much deference to "expertise" in government, which is largely BS.
Common sense can safely and reliably inform 80% of every governmental decision
unfortunately we dont do it that way
Overly humble but we’ll said.CID1990 wrote:I'm no foreign policy expert. There's way too much deference to "expertise" in government, which is largely BS.
Common sense can safely and reliably inform 80% of every governmental decision
unfortunately we dont do it that way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I was a little off topicChizzang wrote:Yes but...CID1990 wrote:I'm no foreign policy expert. There's way too much deference to "expertise" in government, which is largely BS.
Common sense can safely and reliably inform 80% of every governmental decision
unfortunately we dont do it that way
The road to Salvation cannot be achieved through the use of common sense
And such are the mysteries of Salvation...
Yer killin' me...CID1990 wrote:Yeah I was a little off topicChizzang wrote:
Yes but...
The road to Salvation cannot be achieved through the use of common sense
And such are the mysteries of Salvation...
common sense is different from person to person - which differentiates it from logic
to many people, the idea that biological specialization - like stick bugs - cannot be explained away as random... so to those people, that's common sense that a higher intelligence must be involved
but it's not logic
The definition of an expert is somebody located at least 150 miles away from the problem.kalm wrote:“Experts” are often over-rated...including lawyers, layman priests, and golf pros.JoltinJoe wrote:
I was just trying to expand the idea for those here who speak on everything. There are a lot sharp guys here who are worth listening to.
