(May 7, 2014 at 12:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh, if you want to criticize Obama for continuing and sometimes even expanding the Bush policies of drone strikes, secrecy and illegal detention, including failing to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo, I'm right there with you. I've posted many times on this forum that Obama is a profound disappointment and he is not my man by any means.

If you spend any time on a liberal forum, you'll find that we're bitterly divided between the "purists" who want a real liberal in office even if it means a 3rd party, the "realists" who say we need to vote the lesser evil because the GOP is worse, and the "Obamabots" who insist that Obama is a great president and any of his failures are only because we didn't support him enough.

I'm in the middle category. I pragmatically hold my nose and vote Obama even though he sucks only because the GOP has lost its mind. At the same time though, I have no patience for the self-righteous Obamabots who wag their fingers at everyone else on the left and hold Obama to be blameless and pure.

By focusing on the hypocrisy of the GOP, you and miminalist are just rationalizing supporting a lying piece of shit for a president.

(May 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: By focusing on the hypocrisy of the GOP, you and miminalist are just rationalizing supporting a lying piece of shit for a president.

You...
have...
not...
proven...
he...
lied

And HOW DARE YOU call the president of the United States a piece of shit?

I'm rather happy that American fascists are once more focused on the Benghazi farce. It is a tacit admission that they understand that running on a platform of sentencing thousands of Americans to death and millions to staggering debt by denying them affordable healthcare is not going to win elections outside of the most deeply-inbred districts come November.

(May 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm)A Theist Wrote: Yup. The ol' Tu quoque diversion, (DP loves throwing that one around everytime someone calls out the hypocrisy of the left...but he sure doesn't hesitate to use the "you too" tactic himself).

Typically, you misinterpret the nature of the fallacy.

An ad hominem is an insult in place of an argument, not the use of an insult in an argument.

The Tu Quoque defense is where you use it in place of a defense, not in pointing out hypocrisy in addition to providing a defense.

(May 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: By focusing on the hypocrisy of the GOP, you and miminalist are just rationalizing supporting a lying piece of shit for a president.

Seems that works in reverse, too, only in your case, you have a lying piece of shit who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

(May 7, 2014 at 9:32 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: By focusing on the hypocrisy of the GOP, you and miminalist are just rationalizing supporting a lying piece of shit for a president.

You...
have...
not...
proven...
he...
lied

And HOW DARE YOU call the president of the United States a piece of shit?

I call him a lying piece of shit because:

I think he lied about Benghazi.
I think he lied about not raising taxes on the middle class.
I think he lied about having a transparent administration.
I think he lied about If you like your health plan you can keep it.

How dare I call the president a lying piece of shit? This is America....we can do that. Its part of what makes our country great...we can be critical of our leaders and direct harsh words to them. Of course with Obama in office, I now run a greater risk of having my tax return audited.

You know another thing that really disturbed me. The video that Obama used as a scapegoat for the Benghazi attack. The man who made the video.....this administration investigated him and put him in jail. This administration investigates people for exercising their free speech.

(May 7, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: How dare I call the president a lying piece of shit? This is America....we can do that. Its part of what makes our country great...we can be critical of our leaders and direct harsh words to them.

I know. I'm just paying back for all the times I was called a "traitor" by Republicans for 6 years for daring to criticize Bush during his administration. It felt cathartic.

(May 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: By focusing on the hypocrisy of the GOP, you and miminalist are just rationalizing supporting a lying piece of shit for a president.

Seems that works in reverse, too, only in your case, you have a lying piece of shit who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

I knew the selling of the war was lie from day one. But I think the war was justified because:

A)We had a moral obligation to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
B)An endless quasi-war and endless sanctions against the Iraqi people needed to stop.

I was hoping an occupation of Iraq would turn out like Germany or Japan. I also thought it would be a good idea to surround Iran.

I see two distinct issues that you lefties conflate.
1)How the war was sold to the American public.
2)Was the war justified.

I have a problem with the way Bush sold the war to the American people. I don't have a problem with the decision to escalate hostilities. You lefties seem to think that since Bush lied about the reason for going to war....the war itself was unjustified.

(May 7, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: A)We had a moral obligation to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

We had a moral obligation not to put the fucker in power and prop up his regime in the first place. Seems like we are awfully choosy about which moral obligations we care about.

Quote:B)An endless quasi-war and endless sanctions against the Iraqi people needed to stop.

Could have done that by simply walking away from the whole mess and letting it sort itself out, which was exactly what ended up happening anyway, if you ignore the few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and the few thousand dead American servicepersons.

(May 7, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: We had a moral obligation not to put the fucker in power and prop up his regime in the first place. Seems like we are awfully choosy about which moral obligations we care about.

Negative Ryantology....if you were paying full attention you would have seen that in this thread I have already expressed my disdain for our past support of Hussien and listed that fact as why we had a moral obligation to remove him even if it meant shedding some of our own blood.

(May 7, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

Quote:B)An endless quasi-war and endless sanctions against the Iraqi people needed to stop.

Could have done that by simply walking away from the whole mess and letting it sort itself out, which was exactly what ended up happening anyway, if you ignore the few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and the few thousand dead American servicepersons.

After screwing the Iraqi people over by supporting Hussein, we had an obligation to at least give them a chance for peace and freedom. You would have us just walk away without any attempt to remedy the situation....which is reprehensible.