http://gamingtrend.com
April 18, 2014, 09:13:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Episode V: The Obama Strikes Back...  (Read 7421 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2008, 05:27:12 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: CSL on May 17, 2008, 05:10:37 AM

You could do a damned sight better explaining yourself then.
With regards to looking for Osama, there comes a point where adding additional troops to look for him is no longer useful. Also, someone was cited above saying he just needed 800 more troops and he'd have had Osama. If this were substantive, he'd have had his 800 troops. Bush would have no reason not to comply. His ratings would jump 30% if he found Osama.

Go read the timelines, Mr. History.  The resources were redirected to Iraq.  That's the section of Woodward's book where Tommy Franks, who was then running the Afghanistan campaign, responded "Goddamn, what the fuck are they talking about?"
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2008, 05:29:54 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 05:24:45 AM

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 05:22:11 AM

I can't even tell you how much I wish you were off fighting this war instead of my friend; it's not too late for you to enlist and put your life where your mouth is.  Your cavalier attitude towards human life is sickening.
You forgot to mention that I was right.

With respect to your understanding of politics or world events, I can't think of a single thing that you've been right about.  You're a typical troll, ducking and weaving when confronted with facts, clinging to the next piece of minutiae.  The only citation you've made in this entire discussion is a copy and pasted chain letter.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2008, 05:43:16 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 05:29:54 AM

With respect to your understanding of politics or world events, I can't think of a single thing that you've been right about. 
*sigh* OK, here's a recap:

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 03:39:06 AM

Nope. My strategy here is to argue that both republicans and democrats are responsible for the war.

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 04:01:16 AM

Yeah, let's stamp that strategy "failed."

Quote from: Geezer on May 17, 2008, 04:30:06 AM

It's undeniable that both Rs and Ds bear responsibility for the war.

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 04:35:36 AM

Yes, that's all true
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2008, 05:45:36 AM »

It must be very hard for you to function in the world - what's it like to not understand nuance?
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2008, 06:01:41 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 05:45:36 AM

what's it like to not understand nuance?
It makes cheap wine taste just like the expensive stuff, so it's pretty cool, means I can get the boxed stuff.

And you still need to work on not demonizing your opponent, young Brendan.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2008, 06:54:57 AM »

Yeah, you've certainly given me innumerable reasons to do so, "cheeba".  I'll get on that the minute after you volunteer for military service to go fight your war so that the rest of us don't have to.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2008, 11:55:26 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 06:54:57 AM

Yeah, you've certainly given me innumerable reasons to do so, "cheeba".  I'll get on that the minute after you volunteer for military service to go fight your war so that the rest of us don't have to.
Roll Eyes And since I support abortion rights does that mean I should be performing abortions? At least try to make some sense, "brendan" (why are we putting names in quotes now?). You are aware that the United States military is a volunteer force, right?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3459



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2008, 12:59:54 PM »

Cheeba can't back anything up, so he's trying to reach into his bag of clever retorts with little success.  With nothing to bring to the table and no logical response to facts or logic, he's clinging to all he has left - fear.  Fear is the last refuge for the Neocons because they're intellectually bankrupt and Cheeba's bought into that fear hook, line and sinker.  He's also trying to paint himself as a moderate (50/50 Obama is laughable) when it's obvious that he's an apologist for this administration.  His last 10-or-so posts is exactly what I mean by the "JV debate team" - taking it down to the level of one-liners in hopes of getting the thread locked in order to stop being embarrassed.

Back to the original topic, it's interesting that McCain is slamming Obama for wanting to hold talks with Hamas and Iran.  McCain said they needed to hold talks with Hamas in 2006 after Hamas won the Palestinian elections (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html).  Now he's slamming Obama for wanting to talk with them?  Talk about flip-flopping...seriously, is there any substantial position in which McCain hasn't reversed or contradicted himself?  How would anyone vote for this liar?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 01:02:34 PM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2008, 01:12:21 PM »

Wait, I'm still stuck on the idea that because the Democrats placed their trust in the President of the United States and believed the intelligence his office was providing them, they somehow bear equal responsibility for his dishonesty and ineptitude.

This is probably because *I* believed Bush's claims about Iraq's WMDs.  I watched Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. from start to finish and thought to myself, "Wow, that's a lot of really damning stuff.  Maybe an invasion really is the only way to hold Saddam accountable."  Today, of course, we know that the entire presentation was just an pack of damn lies that our own intelligence services had already throughly discredited, but if Colin Powell, the news media, and the international community didn't know that at the time, how could I?  Are you really saying that in 2002 and 2003, congress and the entire country should have simply *assumed* that the PotUS was a liar?

When a bus driver rams his vehicle into a bridge abutment, I don't think the passengers bear equal responsibility because they trusted that he knew how to drive.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2008, 02:47:01 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 17, 2008, 12:59:54 PM

Cheeba can't back anything up, so he's trying to reach into his bag of clever retorts with little success.  With nothing to bring to the table and no logical response to facts or logic, he's clinging to all he has left - fear.
Uh... wha? How am I trying to scare people?
Quote
Fear is the last refuge for the Neocons because they're intellectually bankrupt and Cheeba's bought into that fear hook, line and sinker.
Nah, I just made a deposit the other day.
Quote
He's also trying to paint himself as a moderate (50/50 Obama is laughable) when it's obvious that he's an apologist for this administration.
I'm not a true independent as I've indicated. I obviously lean conservative and I've said that many times. I am still very strongly considering voting for Obama. Having a black man as president would probably be the best thing in the country for race relations and may just be the strongest weapon against the culture of victimization which plagues urban areas - which is one of the biggest problems I believe the country faces.
Quote
His last 10-or-so posts is exactly what I mean by the "JV debate team" - taking it down to the level of one-liners in hopes of getting the thread locked in order to stop being embarrassed.
No I don't want the thread locked. If I did I would respond to the frequent insults that you and Brendan take part in. The one-liners are because life isn't serious all the time. Even when debating serious issues you can use humor. It's the kind of mechanism which allows me to think of Brendan as probably a pretty decent guy whereas his strong emotional attachment to his arguments requires that he demonize his opposition, thus I'm some inhuman devil just because I disagree with him.
Quote
Back to the original topic, it's interesting that McCain is slamming Obama for wanting to hold talks with Hamas and Iran.
McCain said:
Quote
And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.
He's clearly talking about Iran, not Hamas.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 02:50:10 PM by cheeba » Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2008, 03:49:38 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 02:47:01 PM

Quote
His last 10-or-so posts is exactly what I mean by the "JV debate team" - taking it down to the level of one-liners in hopes of getting the thread locked in order to stop being embarrassed.
No I don't want the thread locked. If I did I would respond to the frequent insults that you and Brendan take part in. The one-liners are because life isn't serious all the time. Even when debating serious issues you can use humor. It's the kind of mechanism which allows me to think of Brendan as probably a pretty decent guy whereas his strong emotional attachment to his arguments requires that he demonize his opposition, thus I'm some inhuman devil just because I disagree with him.

Let's be clear - this is an emotional argument.  There are people in my life who are in danger of being killed, and it's because of people like you, cheeba, people like you whose expectations of combat are derived from playing Star Wars games and watching war movies.  It is not a joke, it's not funny, and it will not ever be funny because of those four thousand new headstones at Arlington.  You owe those dead soldiers an honest appraisal of this stupid war, but your moral cowardice prevents you from admitting the futility and arrogance of it.  And so you sit here in the comfort of home, content to cheerlead for more deaths to quench your bloodlust. 

And now, you're on to your other pedantic defenses of McCain, I see.  You cite a paragraph that mentions Iran, and you ignore the other various McCain statements complaining (erroneously, of course) that Obama is pro-Hamas when, in fact, McCain has argued for negotiations with those same "terrorists".  So, who are you, cheeba:  someone who doesn't read enough, or someone who's dishonestly limiting the context of his argument?
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2008, 04:37:43 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 17, 2008, 01:12:21 PM

Wait, I'm still stuck on the idea that because the Democrats placed their trust in the President of the United States and believed the intelligence his office was providing them, they somehow bear equal responsibility for his dishonesty and ineptitude.
They believed the intelligence the British were providing them as well. They also believed the intelligent the Clinton administration provided them.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2008, 05:13:21 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 03:49:38 PM

Let's be clear - this is an emotional argument.  There are people in my life who are in danger of being killed, and it's because of people like you, cheeba, people like you whose expectations of combat are derived from playing Star Wars games and watching war movies.
So I bear responsibility for the war, while the democrats who voted for it, who still fund it, do not. Wow. That's some messed up logic. And let's be perfectly clear, kiddo... I feel emotion for those who are negatively affected by Iraq. I've had friends who have completed their tour there and have one friend who I believe is going back next month. No where have I minimized their sacrifice. I believe they are doing the right thing. I have contributed a pretty significant amount of not only money but some time as well into an effort to provide local troops with body armor. I have donated both money and resources to efforts to send care packs and gifts to the troops to make their lives a little better. I am not comparing my sacrifice to theirs or saying I've done my part and that I couldn't do more - I am saying that you've no foundation whatsoever to think that I've minimized the contribution of the troops or that I don't care. I just choose to show my care in ways that don't include illogical whining on an internet forum.
Quote
McCain has argued for negotiations with those same "terrorists".
He said, "sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or the other." He later stated in that same "time period" (scroll to the end) that Hamas had to first meet certain conditions before we could begin to talk to them, such as recognizing Israel as a legitimate state.

Having said that, his argument that Obama is pro-Hamas is obviously political pandering, much like Obama equating McCain to Bush.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2008, 06:02:22 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 05:13:21 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 03:49:38 PM

Let's be clear - this is an emotional argument.  There are people in my life who are in danger of being killed, and it's because of people like you, cheeba, people like you whose expectations of combat are derived from playing Star Wars games and watching war movies.
So I bear responsibility for the war, while the democrats who voted for it, who still fund it, do not. Wow. That's some messed up logic.

You are so disingenuous that I'm done interacting with you in this thread - your total contempt for our soldiers sickens me, and you clearly have no interest in discussing actual issues because you continue to throw shit against the wall to see if it'll stick.

Yes, "cheeba", the Democrats now control congress.  Can they override a presidential veto with 51 votes in the Senate?  Can they prevent a filibuster from the Republican enablers in the house?  No, they fucking can't.  But look - they're still trying to move your president off of his throne, but look what your cowardly conservatives did.

Quote from: cheeba
And let's be perfectly clear, kiddo... I feel emotion for those who are negatively affected by Iraq.

You feel "emotion" for those "negatively affected."  You do realize that these servicemen and women are not "negatively affected," they're "dead," right?  Dead.  That means they don't come home to their families, cheeba.  They rot in the ground.  The emotions you should be feeling are rage and anguish.  Rage at this administration for forever tainting the future of this country in a monumental act of hubris, arrogance, and stupidity, and anguish for all of the dead Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis who are "negatively affected."  But you've already made clear that you don't care about being lied to, that you're fine with the bodies piling up in service of, what, exactly? No one is better off than they were before the Bush presidency except Halliburton.

Here's your assertion from a previous thread:

Quote from: cheeba
There were many reasons for going to war. I never thought the WMD thing was the proper argument for the case of war. But now, who cares? We had several good reasons to go, even if one of those reasons turned out to be faulty intelligence.

"Who cares?"  Tell that to a dead soldier's wife, or mother, or child.  "Who cares?"  Are you a sociopath?

Quote from: cheeba
I am not comparing my sacrifice to theirs or saying I've done my part and that I couldn't do more - I am saying that you've no foundation whatsoever to think that I've minimized the contribution of the troops or that I don't care. I just choose to show my care in ways that don't include illogical whining on an internet forum.

You haven't done your part.  You've done no part at all.  You're just another chickenhawk doing as little as possible to salve what little conscience he has left.

Quote from: cheeba
He said, "sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or the other." He later stated in that same "time period" (scroll to the end) that Hamas had to first meet certain conditions before we could begin to talk to them, such as recognizing Israel as a legitimate state.

blah blah blah.  Shifting the goalposts again.  He can't say both "a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas..." and "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them...I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that" without being exposed as a hypocrite, "cheeba".
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2008, 07:27:07 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 06:02:22 PM

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 05:13:21 PM

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 03:49:38 PM

Let's be clear - this is an emotional argument.  There are people in my life who are in danger of being killed, and it's because of people like you, cheeba, people like you whose expectations of combat are derived from playing Star Wars games and watching war movies.
So I bear responsibility for the war, while the democrats who voted for it, who still fund it, do not. Wow. That's some messed up logic.

You are so disingenuous that I'm done interacting with you in this thread - your total contempt for our soldiers sickens me, and you clearly have no interest in discussing actual issues because you continue to throw shit against the wall to see if it'll stick.

Yes, "cheeba", the Democrats now control congress.  Can they override a presidential veto with 51 votes in the Senate?  Can they prevent a filibuster from the Republican enablers in the house?  No, they fucking can't.  But look - they're still trying to move your president off of his throne, but look what your cowardly conservatives did.

Quote from: cheeba
And let's be perfectly clear, kiddo... I feel emotion for those who are negatively affected by Iraq.

You feel "emotion" for those "negatively affected."  You do realize that these servicemen and women are not "negatively affected," they're "dead," right?  Dead.  That means they don't come home to their families, cheeba.  They rot in the ground.  The emotions you should be feeling are rage and anguish.  Rage at this administration for forever tainting the future of this country in a monumental act of hubris, arrogance, and stupidity, and anguish for all of the dead Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis who are "negatively affected."  But you've already made clear that you don't care about being lied to, that you're fine with the bodies piling up in service of, what, exactly? No one is better off than they were before the Bush presidency except Halliburton.

Here's your assertion from a previous thread:

Quote from: cheeba
There were many reasons for going to war. I never thought the WMD thing was the proper argument for the case of war. But now, who cares? We had several good reasons to go, even if one of those reasons turned out to be faulty intelligence.

"Who cares?"  Tell that to a dead soldier's wife, or mother, or child.  "Who cares?"  Are you a sociopath?

Quote from: cheeba
I am not comparing my sacrifice to theirs or saying I've done my part and that I couldn't do more - I am saying that you've no foundation whatsoever to think that I've minimized the contribution of the troops or that I don't care. I just choose to show my care in ways that don't include illogical whining on an internet forum.

You haven't done your part.  You've done no part at all.  You're just another chickenhawk doing as little as possible to salve what little conscience he has left.

Quote from: cheeba
He said, "sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or the other." He later stated in that same "time period" (scroll to the end) that Hamas had to first meet certain conditions before we could begin to talk to them, such as recognizing Israel as a legitimate state.

blah blah blah.  Shifting the goalposts again.  He can't say both "a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas..." and "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them...I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that" without being exposed as a hypocrite, "cheeba".

Dude... Clearly this issue is very personal to you.  FWIW, I feel you, but I might suggest that you are not going to change his mind here and you're doing yourself a disservice in the process.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2008, 07:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 17, 2008, 06:02:22 PM

You are so disingenuous that I'm done interacting with you in this thread - your total contempt for our soldiers sickens me, and you clearly have no interest in discussing actual issues because you continue to throw shit against the wall to see if it'll stick.
You attributed responsibility to the war to ME, yet you absolve the entire democratic party, most of whom voted for the war and voted for the continuation of the war. But that's fine, in your book... so long as someone doesn't think we're doing the right thing in Iraq! Not only must I be evil incarnate if I think we're doing the right thing there, I must by definition hate the soldiers! You sound exactly like those idiot conservatives who questioned others' patriotism after 9/11.
Quote
Yes, "cheeba"
Still don't get the quotes, but whatever floats your boat dude.
Quote
Can they override a presidential veto with 51 votes in the Senate?  Can they prevent a filibuster from the Republican enablers in the house?  No, they fucking can't.
Can they continue to vote against funding the war rather than vote for funding it because of a $25 million deal for spinach?? Yes they fucking can.
Quote
You feel "emotion" for those "negatively affected."  You do realize that these servicemen and women are not "negatively affected," they're "dead," right?  Dead.
Death is a negative affect. So is injury. So is PTSD. So is losing your job or wife, missing out on raising your child and a whole slew of other sacrifices.
Quote
That means they don't come home to their families, cheeba.
That's "cheeba."
Quote
The emotions you should be feeling are rage and anguish.
Rather than pride and honor along with deep sadness and sympathy?
Quote
Are you a sociopath?
Hahahaha. I'm going to start a collection of all the times I've been called a sociopath by some dork on an internet forum. The last time was because I defended ganking noobs in WoW.
Quote
You haven't done your part.
Genius. Were you able to come to that decision from that statement where I said, "I'm not saying... I've done my part?"
Quote
You've done no part at all.  You're just another chickenhawk doing as little as possible to salve what little conscience he has left.
Because you know me, man. You KNOW me! And you possess such skill, such intelligence, such insight that you are able to divine personal traits about someone merely from their disagreeing with you about the war.
Quote
Fatah was not giving them that" without being exposed as a hypocrite, "cheeba".
Yay I'm back to being "cheeba."
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 07:39:31 PM by cheeba » Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2008, 08:29:57 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 07:37:40 PM

Hahahaha. I'm going to start a collection of all the times I've been called a sociopath by some dork on an internet forum. The last time was because I defended ganking noobs in WoW.

Jeebus.  You ARE an a-hole.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2008, 08:38:41 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 04:37:43 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 17, 2008, 01:12:21 PM

Wait, I'm still stuck on the idea that because the Democrats placed their trust in the President of the United States and believed the intelligence his office was providing them, they somehow bear equal responsibility for his dishonesty and ineptitude.
They believed the intelligence the British were providing them as well. They also believed the intelligent the Clinton administration provided them.

This isn't my issue, actually.  IMO, the Dems get a pass on this because they didn't take excessively stupid, irrational action based on this evidence.  They were also, IIRC, amenable to letting Blix & his team have more time to establish a more factual position regarding Hussein's government.  It was Condi and her nonsensical "mushroom cloud" pounding the drum for action NOW.

Likewise, my issue isn't really the continued funding of the war.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the wisdom of the original Iraq action, that' an entirely different question that that of what the correct course of action is today.

What I blame the Dems for was being so spineless, so afraid, and so willing to capitulate to an irrational public in the months after 9/11.  I blame them for being party to the outrageous pandering attempts of each party to outdo the other to "protect our freedoms" that they abandoned our philosophical core because 19 guys got through our defenses once.  And that to this day they bitch and moan about things, yet every time they have a chance to make a substantial stand on the culture of fear they refuse to pull the trigger.  Because next time something happens (and there will be a next time regardless) they want to play the fucking blame game while in the meantime fooling the terrified sheeple into thinking they are taking meaningful steps.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2008, 09:45:26 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 04:37:43 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 17, 2008, 01:12:21 PM

Wait, I'm still stuck on the idea that because the Democrats placed their trust in the President of the United States and believed the intelligence his office was providing them, they somehow bear equal responsibility for his dishonesty and ineptitude.
They believed the intelligence the British were providing them as well. They also believed the intelligent the Clinton administration provided them.

I understand you want to debate that, but I think you know that none of that is relevant to the point I've made twice now: believing something untrue is neither as wicked as inventing the lie, nor as irresponsible as manufacturing a foolish "solution."

In pushing the case for invading Iraq, the Bush administration carefully selected domestic and foreign intelligence favorable to their view, supplemented it with discarded information from known con-artists, insistently repeated falsehoods that our own intelligence community had repeatedly warned them were untrue, and marketed the whole package in a full-out media blitz described in the most dire, fear-mongering terms.

I would like you to explain how, by being tricked, the Democrats somehow shoulder an equal portion of blame for the Iraq War.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2008, 10:03:00 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 17, 2008, 07:27:07 PM

Dude... Clearly this issue is very personal to you.

That's exactly the point - and it should be personal to every one of us, at the very least because those are American soldiers we're sending to die.  Cowards who conveniently ignore the suffering they advocate don't deserve a free pass on their rah-rah rhetoric.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2008, 10:45:01 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 17, 2008, 09:45:26 PM

I would like you to explain how, by being tricked, the Democrats somehow shoulder an equal portion of blame for the Iraq War.
I didn't say they shoulder an equal portion of the blame. I've just argued they share some responsibility and they can't be given a free pass on it. What's more, some of the democrats themselves cite British intelligence. Are you arguing that Bush manufactured that intelligence?
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2008, 10:49:32 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 17, 2008, 08:29:57 PM

Jeebus.  You ARE an a-hole.
Oh come on. I'm making fun of a drama queen on an internet forum. I personally think it's much worse to make vile assumptions about the character of a person solely on the basis of his disagreement with you. I'm not the one crying that my opposition wants to see people dead or doesn't care about the military or their families or other such garbage. He's going to have to face ridicule until he learns to make arguments without such insults and turning it into some drama bullshit.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2008, 12:12:21 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 10:45:01 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 17, 2008, 09:45:26 PM

I would like you to explain how, by being tricked, the Democrats somehow shoulder an equal portion of blame for the Iraq War.
I didn't say they shoulder an equal portion of the blame. I've just argued they share some responsibility and they can't be given a free pass on it.

All right, let's stipulate that as elected representatives of the American people, the Democratic Party technically bears "some responsibility" for the actions of the United States government, even in situations where they are intentionally and maliciously deceived into supporting the wrong decisions.  Let us further stipulate that the same can be said for every American citizen and, to an extent, for every sentient creature on the planet.

Now, either you brought this up to make some point, or your did so to kick up a lot of dust, quibble about semantics, and act deliberately obtuse to try to get a rise out of people.  So I'm going to ask you directly:

What's your point?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2008, 12:23:52 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 10:49:32 PM

Quote from: Geezer on May 17, 2008, 08:29:57 PM

Jeebus.  You ARE an a-hole.
Oh come on. I'm making fun of a drama queen on an internet forum. I personally think it's much worse to make vile assumptions about the character of a person solely on the basis of his disagreement with you. I'm not the one crying that my opposition wants to see people dead or doesn't care about the military or their families or other such garbage. He's going to have to face ridicule until he learns to make arguments without such insults and turning it into some drama bullshit.

You didn't take note of the quote I responded to in saying that, did you.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2008, 12:33:37 AM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 18, 2008, 12:23:52 AM

You didn't take note of the quote I responded to in saying that, did you.
Bah, sorry. Bit too much on the defensive smile.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2008, 01:08:14 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 18, 2008, 12:12:21 AM

All right, let's stipulate that as elected representatives of the American people, the Democratic Party technically bears "some responsibility" for the actions of the United States government, even in situations where they are intentionally and maliciously deceived into supporting the wrong decisions.
You keep pointing back to that. Were they intentionally deceived by British intelligence? Was all the US intelligence pointing to the WMD's a deception? I don't think so. They were just flat out wrong.

The democrats weren't hapless victims of the administration. As you can see from some of the quotes I provided, some of them believed that Saddam would always be a threat with regards to WMD's. This is actually true, as he was waiting on sanctions to pass to rebuild his WMD's.

And if they were deceived, why is it when they took control they not only didn't pull the troops out, but they expanded funding? Perhaps they wanted an unpopular war to continue so they could use it for political gain in the upcoming presidential election?

These are politicians. They didn't vote for the war because they were deceived. They voted for it because they thought it was the right thing to do for their districts and their careers. That's why you get a liberal Californian who votes against war funding every time, until they put in a provision to give his district $25 million for spinach and he changes his vote.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2008, 02:47:30 AM »

Quote from: cheeba
You keep pointing back to that.

The fact that the executive branch of the United States government intentionally mislead the legislative branch, the military, the civilian population, and other governments around the world about what it claimed to be a "global threat" is not a trivial matter.  It becomes especially relevant when the same people who perpetrated the deception are now trying to intimate that political rivals with the temerity to fight back are the modern equivalent of Nazi appeasers -- a position you have spent a great deal of time so far defending.

So yes, cheeba, I do keep pointing back to that.  I take being lied to pretty seriously, particularly when the results are as disastrous as the Iraq War.  The question is: why does an "independent, leaning conservative" like yourself seem so unconcerned by it?

Quote from: cheeba
Were they intentionally deceived by British intelligence?

Yes.

Quote from: cheeba
Was all the US intelligence pointing to the WMD's a deception? I don't think so.

All right, perhaps you can prove it.  The people in this thread have gone to a lot of effort to provide all sorts of external links to back up their arguments, cheeba.  How about you put together a list of all the U.S. intelligence pointing to the WMDs that *wasn't* a deception, and we'll consider what you have to say.

Quote from: cheeba
And if they were deceived, why is it when they took control they not only didn't pull the troops out, but they expanded funding?

Because Congress does not have the power to order the troops out of Iraq, cheeba.  They only control the funding of the war, and in January 2007 -- when the Democrats actually took control of congress -- President Bush stated unequivocally that he was going to order more troops into Iraq whether Congress cut off funding for the war or not.  This tactic would have stranded over 150,000 loyal American soldiers in hostile territory, ordered to hold their positions under penalty of court martial, even as all the logistical and material support required for continued operations was terminated.

I know you believe Bush "really gets it" with regards to our troops because he was allegedly moved to tears on one occasion, but given his administration's long policy on body armor, armored vehicles, medical care, and other benefits for the veterans of this war, I thank God that congress backed down rather than trying to call his "bluff."

-Autistic Angel
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2008, 03:33:25 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 18, 2008, 02:47:30 AM

The fact that the executive branch of the United States government intentionally mislead the legislative branch, the military, the civilian population, and other governments around the world about what it claimed to be a "global threat" is not a trivial matter.
What gets me is why the interrogation of Saddam gets no attention. From the interrogation we know that Saddam was indeed planning on building up his WMD's once the sanctions were dropped. He had his people in place to begin the program again. He even said he needed people to believe he had WMD's so that he could keep his power. (Source.) It's a complex issue. While there was definite mishandling of the WMD information, some misleading, lies, coercion, whatever, I think it's also true that they really believed there to be WMD's or at least a WMD program.
Quote
The question is: why does an "independent, leaning conservative" like yourself seem so unconcerned by it?
Because, as I've said, the WMD issue is one of the weaker arguments for the war. If there was no WMD argument, I would have still supported the war.
Quote
All right, perhaps you can prove it.  The people in this thread have gone to a lot of effort to provide all sorts of external links to back up their arguments, cheeba.  How about you put together a list of all the U.S. intelligence pointing to the WMDs that *wasn't* a deception, and we'll consider what you have to say.
You realize I don't work for the CIA, don't you? I've also provided external links to back up my arguments. The one above with the 60 minutes interview should suffice for this particular point.
Quote
Because Congress does not have the power to order the troops out of Iraq, cheeba.  They only control the funding of the war
Exactly. No funds, no war.
Quote
This tactic would have stranded over 150,000 loyal American soldiers in hostile territory, ordered to hold their positions under penalty of court martial, even as all the logistical and material support required for continued operations was terminated.
And the democrats, going up against the least popular president in a long, long time, in their efforts to end an unpopular war, were unable to do anything but increase funding and give President Bush all the funding he would need for his entire period of administration without so much as a timeline or any conditions.
Quote
I know you believe Bush "really gets it" with regards to our troops because he was allegedly moved to tears on one occasion
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say he "really gets it." He wasn't allegedly moved to tears, he was. There's video of it. I'm not going to get into another stupid argument that he's evil and inhuman and uncaring simply because he believes in a policy you disagree with, so if you want to go down that Brendan Road, you're going without me.
Logged
SuperHiro
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1200

Pants on Fire


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2008, 04:22:32 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 17, 2008, 07:37:40 PM

Hahahaha. I'm going to start a collection of all the times I've been called a sociopath by some dork on an internet forum. The last time was because I defended ganking noobs in WoW.

That was one guy.  Everyone else thought it was hilarious.
Logged

Just Hiro will do.
helot2000
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2008, 05:43:56 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 18, 2008, 03:33:25 AM

Because, as I've said, the WMD issue is one of the weaker arguments for the war. If there was no WMD argument, I would have still supported the war.
Without WMD, what is our causus belli?  What is it about Iraq that demanded we escalate our successful strategy of containment to pre-emptive war?  I'm hoping its something more substantive than enforcing a UN resolution.  If the bar is set that low, we should slap down a mandatory draft, double our taxes and call ourselves the UN Enforcers.  Myanmar, followed by North Korea, Sudan, and Iran....the beat goes on and on.

Logged

Saving the world one post at a time.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2008, 06:35:22 AM »

Quote from: helot2000 on May 18, 2008, 05:43:56 AM

Quote from: cheeba on May 18, 2008, 03:33:25 AM

Because, as I've said, the WMD issue is one of the weaker arguments for the war. If there was no WMD argument, I would have still supported the war.
Without WMD, what is our causus belli?  What is it about Iraq that demanded we escalate our successful strategy of containment to pre-emptive war?  I'm hoping its something more substantive than enforcing a UN resolution.  If the bar is set that low, we should slap down a mandatory draft, double our taxes and call ourselves the UN Enforcers.  Myanmar, followed by North Korea, Sudan, and Iran....the beat goes on and on.

He's already elaborated on this subject; apparently there were "other, better" reasons (that apparently go unstated for fear of being challenged, but I guess involve "strategic importance").  I'm sure you remember that his vision for a democratic Iraq unironically includes BMWs and Miley Cyrus CDs in "10-20 years" which will apparently inflame the good citizens of neighboring countries with a burning desire for western culture, and then they'll throw off the shackles of Islamic fundamentalism.  As soon as they're  able to get to those car dealerships, I'm sure they'll fulfill cheeba's wildest fantasies and convince skeptics like me that the cost was justifiable.

This is all one big game of "the ends justify the means" to him.  The problem, of course, is that we're never going to reach the end that cheebs wants.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2008, 07:50:08 AM »

Quote from: helot2000 on May 18, 2008, 05:43:56 AM

Without WMD, what is our causus belli?  What is it about Iraq that demanded we escalate our successful strategy of containment to pre-emptive war?  I'm hoping its something more substantive than enforcing a UN resolution.
Oil.

And Brendan, I think I can speak for myself without requiring some drama queen interpreter, kk?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 08:00:46 AM by cheeba » Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2008, 07:57:45 AM »

Quote from: SuperHiro on May 18, 2008, 04:22:32 AM

That was one guy.  Everyone else thought it was hilarious.
I think it was 2 guys in the same thread, someone named Gus and also someone else who I won't name for fear of being wrong and unable to verify retard. But yeah I was also frequently called a sociopath in Star Wars Galaxies because I would lead forces in PvP to tear down opposition bases (man that was the most fun I've ever had in an MMO). I was imperial, of course smile.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2008, 08:01:00 AM »

Hack Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: 

Quote
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Friday, 5 years after deposing Hussein's government and preventing "chaos" to the global economy:

Quote
The price of oil rocketed to a record high of 127.82 dollars per barrel on Friday, as US President George W. Bush prepared to urge Saudi Arabia to pump more crude, analysts said.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2008, 08:15:30 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 18, 2008, 08:01:00 AM

Hack Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan
Oh look, someone from the NY Times doesn't like Alan Greenspan! Who'da thunk it?! Are you capable of original thought, Brendan, or do you just recite what every liberal newspaper and blogger writes?
Quote
Friday, 5 years after deposing Hussein's government and preventing "chaos" to the global economy:

Quote
The price of oil rocketed to a record high of 127.82 dollars per barrel on Friday
Think the weak dollar may have anything to do with it? Think the subprime crisis or the crash of the US auto industry wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gone to Iraq?
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2008, 04:26:00 PM »

Quote from: cheeba
What gets me is why the interrogation of Saddam gets no attention. From the interrogation we know that Saddam was indeed planning on building up his WMD's once the sanctions were dropped. He had his people in place to begin the program again. He even said he needed people to believe he had WMD's so that he could keep his power.

That would be a more effective argument if the Bush administration had argued that we needed to charge into war with Iraq right *now* because it was possible that at some unspecified point in the future, years down the road, they might eventually be able to reconstitute some of their weapons of mass destruction development programs, develop some functional weapons, and someday threaten the surrounding region.

Quote from: cheeba
While there was definite mishandling of the WMD information, some misleading, lies, coercion, whatever, I think it's also true that they really believed there to be WMD's or at least a WMD program.

Quote from: Autistic Angel
The question is: why does an "independent, leaning conservative" like yourself seem so unconcerned by [the fact that the Bush administration lied about the quality and content of their intelligence]?

Because, as I've said, the WMD issue is one of the weaker arguments for the war. If there was no WMD argument, I would have still supported the war.

This is very interesting.  You're arguing that the Bush administration really believed that Iraq had WMDs, justifying all their lies and coercion on the topic, and that's all okay with you because the WMDs were never that important?

Tell me, cheeba: under what circumstances would it *not* be acceptable to lie, coerce, or mislead?

Quote from: cheeba
Was all the US intelligence pointing to the WMD's a deception? I don't think so.

Quote from: Autistic Angel
All right, perhaps you can prove it.  The people in this thread have gone to a lot of effort to provide all sorts of external links to back up their arguments, cheeba.  How about you put together a list of all the U.S. intelligence pointing to the WMDs that *wasn't* a deception, and we'll consider what you have to say.

Quote from: cheeba
You realize I don't work for the CIA, don't you? I've also provided external links to back up my arguments. The one above with the 60 minutes interview should suffice for this particular point.

Perhaps you misunderstood the above exchange.  Let's try again.

Thanks to investigations after the start of the war, we now know that the large majority of the intelligence presented by the Bush administration was carefully cherry-picked to filter out dissenting information, and shored up with uncorroborated testimony from known scam artists.  You've even accepted as much in the above quotes.  Still, you insist that you don't think "all" of the intelligence was deceptive.  Either you're just trying to kick up dust and waste time quibbling about semantics again, or you have some credible examples to share.  So I'll ask again:

How about you put together a list of the U.S. intelligence pointing to the WMDs that *wasn't* deceptive, and we'll consider what you have to say.

Quote from: cheeba
And the democrats, going up against the least popular president in a long, long time, in their efforts to end an unpopular war, were unable to do anything but increase funding and give President Bush all the funding he would need for his entire period of administration without so much as a timeline or any conditions.

You seem to have overlooked the bulk of my post.  I'll reprint it here:

"[Congress] only control the funding of the war, and in January 2007 -- when the Democrats actually took control of congress -- President Bush stated unequivocally that he was going to order more troops into Iraq whether Congress cut off funding for the war or not.  This tactic would have stranded over 150,000 loyal American soldiers in hostile territory, ordered to hold their positions under penalty of court martial, even as all the logistical and material support required for continued operations was terminated."

Under those circumstances, cheeba, what would you have recommended that the democrats do?  Specifics count.

Quote from: cheeba
I'm not going to get into another stupid argument that he's evil and inhuman and uncaring simply because he believes in a policy you disagree with, so if you want to go down that Brendan Road, you're going without me.

We are not discussing whether or not President Bush is evil, inhuman, or uncaring, cheeba.  If you'd like to start a new thread about what a good, kind, virtuous human being he is, be my guest.

The topic here is President Bush's suggestion that his political rivals are modern day versions of Nazi appeasers.  You chose to defend his unconscionable behavior by touting his policies in Iraq and excusing the disastrous consequences there by pinning blame on the Democrats for not successfully opposing his policies in Iraq.  So far, you have confessed your ignorance of pre-war promises by this administration, attempted and failed to deflect responsibility, and finally admitted that the Bush administration intentionally mislead the country into this war.  Now I'm looking forward to your explanation of why an "independent, leaning conservative" like yourself feels it's okay for the government to lie to the people.

I honestly can't tell if you think the debate has been going your way so far, but one way or another, we're nearly to the end now....

-Autistic Angel
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 04:29:50 PM by Autistic Angel » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3459



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2008, 04:49:45 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 18, 2008, 08:15:30 AM

Think the weak dollar may have anything to do with it? Think the subprime crisis or the crash of the US auto industry wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gone to Iraq?

Depends on whether the US Government printed so much money that they had to stop publishing the M3 rate in 2006.  Depends on whether the US Government started to pay attention to the true inflation rate rather than the made-up one that started in 1996. 

Cheeba will latch onto any excuse to make the end justify the means.  This statement proves it:

Quote
Because, as I've said, the WMD issue is one of the weaker arguments for the war.

This was the entire rationalization for the war.  Well, this and the "Saddam and 9/11 ties" that anyone who did even small bit of research would know were bogus.  So to make excuses now - oil (hmmm...how many deaths is a barrel oil worth, cheeba?), "BMWs and Miley Cyrus CDs", a "new base of operations" and so forth - is all an exercise in making the ends justify the means.  They're excuses, nothing more and nothing less.  But that's why it's useless to debate cheeba - he's bought into an ideology so deeply that he'll latch on to any excuse proffered up in order to avoid conflicts with that ideology.  But since there's been no personal analysis, there's nothing to debate - there's just the surface excuses that have been offered up in 10 second sound bites on Fox News.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3522


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2008, 06:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar
But that's why it's useless to debate cheeba - he's bought into an ideology so deeply that he'll latch on to any excuse proffered up in order to avoid conflicts with that ideology.

I disagree that it's useless to debate with cheeba; he's really given up *tremendous* ground.  Put together his posts in this thread and look at where his position stands:

-----

President Bush really believed that Iraq had WMDs.  Therefore, it was okay for his administration to fabricate and manipulate intelligence to make it sound true even though it was all false.  Or almost all false...maybe they had better intelligence that we just don't know about yet.  And Saddam might have developed WMDs someday!  Bah, that doesn't matter because the *real* objective was to secure the oil and spread democracy, and if you don't like how that's been going, remember there's plenty of blame to put on the Democrats for getting suckered by the President's lies!  If they really opposed the war, they would ignored Bush's threat to leave the troops in an active warzone and cut the war funding anyway!

-----

I'd say debating cheeba has accomplished quite a bit.  Imagine his future on the board after a performance like this.  Who would take him seriously again?  Even other conservatives will treat him as a pariah.

Remember: you never have to question the integrity of someone who's already confessed to having none.

-Autistic Angel
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 06:17:24 PM by Autistic Angel » Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2008, 06:26:53 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 18, 2008, 04:26:00 PM

That would be a more effective argument if the Bush administration had argued that we needed to charge into war with Iraq right *now* because it was possible that at some unspecified point in the future, years down the road, they might eventually be able to reconstitute some of their weapons of mass destruction development programs, develop some functional weapons, and someday threaten the surrounding region.
Goes to show a good reason why they thought there'd be WMD's there, though. That's what Saddam wanted everyone to believe.
Quote
This is very interesting.  You're arguing that the Bush administration really believed that Iraq had WMDs, justifying all their lies and coercion on the topic, and that's all okay with you because the WMDs were never that important?

Tell me, cheeba: under what circumstances would it *not* be acceptable to lie, coerce, or mislead?
Yep, that's pretty much what I'm arguing. Would I rather they have not lied? Perhaps. But I think we had legitimate reasons for going and that it was the right thing to do, so I understand the need to sell it. As far as what circumstances would it not be ok to lie, etc... I can't really answer that. Really I think it's most dependent on how blatant the lie is and whether the lie is proven and how much it sticks. For example, Clinton's lie was a lot more blatant and less subjective than Bush's lie.
Quote
Still, you insist that you don't think "all" of the intelligence was deceptive.  Either you're just trying to kick up dust and waste time quibbling about semantics again, or you have some credible examples to share.
I think it's reasonable to conclude that if Saddam wanted people to think he possessed WMD's then he would have some evidence leading to the conclusion that he, in fact, had WMD's. And of course there are a ton of theories.

Quote
You seem to have overlooked the bulk of my post.  I'll reprint it here:

"This tactic would have stranded over 150,000 loyal American soldiers in hostile territory
Yes, I overlooked it, because nothing of that sort has ever happened in US history. It's ridiculous to think that 150,000 troops would be stuck in hostile territory with no support whatsoever.
Quote
We are not discussing whether or not President Bush is evil, inhuman, or uncaring, cheeba.
Truly? You argue that he "allegedly" cried. You argue that he's the kind of person who would leave 150,000 troops stranded with no support.
Quote
excusing the disastrous consequences there by pinning blame on the Democrats for not successfully opposing his policies in Iraq.
Because I haven't said they bear partial or some responsibility enough? How many qualifiers do you need in a sentence before it sticks? Some = not all. The democrats have not acted like they want to end the war. They've failed to enact any legislation against it. In fact, the only thing they have done is increase funding for it. They bear SOME responsibility for the war. This does not mean they are equally to blame or they are 30% to blame or they are completely responsible for the war. This means they share SOME responsibility for it.

Quote
So far, you have confessed your ignorance of pre-war promises by this administration
Wow. I didn't remember if anyone gave a timeframe, so I asked if someone would provide a cite for it. How dare I ask a question?! This is an internet forum, not a place to learn from others!
Quote
attempted and failed to deflect responsibility
Amazing that you still can't grasp the simple concept of shared responsibility. There's no deflection of responsibility, there's addition of responsibility. Imagine if responsibility were a number. Both you and I can agree that Republicans bear a number, say 6, for the war. I'm saying Democrats are also responsible and they bear 2 responsibility. That gives us 8 responsibility. See how that works? It takes no responsibility from the republicans but it does give some responsibility to the democrats.
Quote
Now I'm looking forward to your explanation of why an "independent, leaning conservative" like yourself feels it's okay for the government to lie to the people.
Because the other 10 times I've explained it isn't enough?
Quote
I honestly can't tell if you think the debate has been going your way so far, but one way or another, we're nearly to the end now....
This is dumb. There's no "way" for the debate to be going. There are no winners and losers, unless someone Godwins it. This is a forum where all sorts of people get to express their opinions. It is the exchange of opinion that is the goal - to think of it as some contest where there's winning and losing and "pwning" or whatever is just flat out immature.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2008, 06:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on May 18, 2008, 06:14:04 PM

President Bush really believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Yes.
Quote
Therefore, it was okay for his administration to fabricate and manipulate intelligence to make it sound true even though it was all false.
It was not all false.
Quote
Or almost all false...maybe they had better intelligence that we just don't know about yet.
Um, yeah, government tends to have better access to intelligence than the public, did ya know?
Quote
And Saddam might have developed WMDs someday!
He *was* going to develop WMD's. That was his plan.
Quote
Bah, that doesn't matter because the *real* objective was to secure the oil and spread democracy
You want to care about Bush lying about WMD's, go right ahead. Let me know where that leads you when you get there. You want to impeach him? Go for it. You want to shout, "that's not ok!" Knock yourself out.
Quote
and if you don't like how that's been going, remember there's plenty of blame to put on the Democrats for getting suckered by the President's lies!
Whee, you still don't think they share any responsibility. Way to stick to that partisanship.
Quote
Imagine his future on the board after a performance like this.  Who would take him seriously again?  Even other conservatives will treat him as a pariah.
This is easily the stupidest thing I have ever read on the GT forum. And that's saying a hell of a lot.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 06:37:11 PM by cheeba » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.207 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.041s, 2q)