Saying The Pearl would give a Pearling is an endorsement of what again? You sure know how to read things that are there. Your assumptions are continually the cause of your own misunderstanding and resulting board clutter. I have fun playing off of that.
Yeah, but just to act like an arrogant prick and get you off my back about it. You keep pestering and pestering and pestering based on your faulty insinuations.
Anyway, my only goal was to keep your attention inside this thread so you wouldn't pollute the rest of the board as much. I think I succeeded.
Now check my signature.
Franklin you have done everyone else a service. I salute you.
Oh and I never read Unibrow's comments, but seeing it here I will respond.
If you go back far enough, oh he of the single brow, you will see that I qualified my list clearly stating I was making that list
based on body count alone. This is one way to discuss ruthless tyrants and it is the measure I chose since I originated the argument. If you choose to take the argument in another direction, feel free to come up with a standard of your own and argue that. But don't try to argue that my point is invalid since there are other ways to measure it, when I identified in the first place that I chose to measure it in that way for the purposes of this discussion. If you can come up with an objective way to differentiate blood-thirstiness then lay it out there. If not, then it is all purely speculation on your part.
Also the only reason it went there anyway is I was pointing out that the reason given by another poster for attacking Lybia was to oust Ghadaffi due to
bloodshed he is causing. That is used as a reason to support this military action. But the poster also made it clear he did NOT support the war in Iraq, ignoring the fact that Saddam was a far bloodier dictator than Ghadaffi ever hoped to be.
So can you argue the original post? Is Ghadaffi so much more ruthless than Saddam that he needs to be ousted for no other reason as he has broken no UN resolutions, and has not developed and used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, etc. Since the acceptable reason is his volume of bloodshed it is valid to compare his ousting to that of Saddam.
You can choose to respond or not. I won't see it unless someone else quotes it. But don't insinuate things about Franklin claiming he is ignoring or misreading other posts when you misread and/or ignored the qualifying statement in the original argument you butted into.
