Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:15:08 PM
Isn't there a rule about mentioning Nuclear Weapons during a 2nd Amendment discussion?
If Obama said ALL Nukes then YES! He`s willing to get rid of ALL Nukes including the ones the USA has. De facto! If ALL nukes were gone, and no more were ever built, the world MIGHT be a sefer place... or it might erupt in "conventional warfare" like it has for the last 3,000 before nukes came about.
The reason it`s a dumb idea to "wish that" is that new nukes could be built (in theory) and whoever had a few of those would suddenly be the most dangerous nation on the planet.
You`d have to destroy all the N-Power plants try to prevent it, but THAT would be a massive environmental disaster! (trying to replace all those GiGWs...)
Still: If he DIDN`T want all the Nukes gone, why "wish for it"? It`s "advocacy" which means it`s a good idea (in the speaker`s mind).
Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:06:06 PM
?? How am I "wrong"? I've acknowledged that it might mean what you say, I don`t deny it "could be taken that way". I do say that even if it does mean what you say, it`s "moot", it doesn`t change me being right in any way. Advocation is a positive statement about someting. Practicality of chance of success are MOOT.
You claimed yet I haven`t once, ONCE, heard someone advocate for all guns being made illegal I said D.Feinstein and 100 others. You said "Oh no, she was being "hypothetical" and that doesn`t count.
Follow the link to the word, again, and find me the "it`s just wishful thinking" exemption from it`s meaning...
Or argue that I`m the one who doesn`t know what a word means, if it makes you "feel good about yourself" even if you have no idea what "advocate" means...
Let's say Obama said "If I could make the world free of nuclear weapons I would". Would you take that as him advocating for the U.S. getting rid of all their nuclear weapons? Or would you simply take it as him talking about a hypothetical situation that would be ideal but clearly not in any way realistic?
Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:55:23 PM
"They would invest in R & D if they had the capitol" SO? Are they advocating FOR or AGAINST "R&D"? Obviously they're advocating FOR it. That`s the word you used: advocate.
THAT is the topic! Not "what she meant" but "did she advocate" for it? Yes, obviously. Unless you claim she was being sarcastic... :rolleyes:
Unless you claim you`ve never heard of Dianne Feinstein before? (I`ve mentioned her several times on IAB... as have others) I`m still correct, no excuses.
Shall I look up "moot point" for you? Hypothetical or not is "moot"...
[quote]...I guess you just affirm what a lot of people on here say about you.[/quote] You`d be happy if I said that about yo mama? I think not.