Gasp! Did you just say basically the same thing that Qatarlson did? Regardless of whether you're being paid or not, you're clearly sucking Qatari dick!
It's an observation. I may say that Al Qaeda in Syria is a close US ally. That is not praise. I think both the US government and Al Qaeda are contemptible.
And whatever the hell "riding their dick" means.
Don't you for a moment consider that you're gone off the track when you're attacking Tucker Carlson of all people, in defense of war and absolute mayhem?
I can call out Tucker for cucking to a terrorist government just fine, and still oppose us playing in the sandbox.
Or do you think we should just have to agree with everyone 100% on everything, or 0%? I know you're not that retarded, but you're trying to prove me wrong here.
I can call out Tucker for cucking to a terrorist government
The 'terrorist government' that you yourself just called a US ally? Gosh man, of all the things to be concerned about, I'd be more concerned about the US coddling terrorist governments (in Syria, and in Qatar according to you), than about Tucker pointing that out.
Or do you think we should just have to agree with everyone 100% on everything, or 0%? I know you're not that retarded, but you're trying to prove me wrong here.
It's one thing to disagree. It's quite another to make highly personal attacks that elide the substance. I'm sure you know the difference, because you're quite often the target of the latter here, because you don't agree with the Hivemind on Israel.
Former: "You're wrong for reasons X and Y."
Latter: "You're riding Israeli dick Schlomo."
Gasp! Did you just say basically the same thing that Qatarlson did? Regardless of whether you're being paid or not, you're clearly sucking Qatari dick!
I'm not calling them 'one of our closest allies' and riding their dick.
It's an observation. I may say that Al Qaeda in Syria is a close US ally. That is not praise. I think both the US government and Al Qaeda are contemptible.
And whatever the hell "riding their dick" means.
Don't you for a moment consider that you're gone off the track when you're attacking Tucker Carlson of all people, in defense of war and absolute mayhem?
I can call out Tucker for cucking to a terrorist government just fine, and still oppose us playing in the sandbox.
Or do you think we should just have to agree with everyone 100% on everything, or 0%? I know you're not that retarded, but you're trying to prove me wrong here.
The 'terrorist government' that you yourself just called a US ally? Gosh man, of all the things to be concerned about, I'd be more concerned about the US coddling terrorist governments (in Syria, and in Qatar according to you), than about Tucker pointing that out.
It's one thing to disagree. It's quite another to make highly personal attacks that elide the substance. I'm sure you know the difference, because you're quite often the target of the latter here, because you don't agree with the Hivemind on Israel.
Former: "You're wrong for reasons X and Y."
Latter: "You're riding Israeli dick Schlomo."