(January 4, 2015 at 11:14 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: My point about him being a war criminal is that maybe you guys shouldn't be supporting a war criminal.Is this the best you can do? W Bush lied us into a war. McCain would have likely taken us into a new war with Iran. Romney would have take "doubled Guantanamo" and might have taken us into a new war if it were profitable. Obama's crimes consist of covering for the previous occupants and continuing some of their policies. He's bad. They're worse. Your both sides argument fails.
Quote:You literally said there was no reason for people to hate Obama to the extent that they do and now you are admitting that he is a war criminal?Stop using the word "literally" unless you mean word-for-word with no metaphor this is what happened.
Your grammar is as sloppy as your thought process.
There is no reason for conservatives to hate Obama to the extent they do. Conservatives don't hate him for his failure to end torture or his drone attacks. They think he's projecting weak weakness all over the world by going on an "apology tour" (which never actually happened anywhere except in their minds).
This entire thread you created failed before it even posted. Your entire premise that Obama's drone strikes or failure to end torture is the conservative's justification for their psychotic hatred of Obama is laughable. Did you even think at all before you hit the "post" button?
Quote:I don't find any of that to be true. You are offering mostly propaghanda [sic] and calling it logical. I don't know what you want me to reply to even? [sic]If it is propaganda, just refute it. "X" isn't true because of "Y". It's called debate. It works better than saying "you're just an ideologue" and running away. If you don't know how to debate, stop throwing down the gauntlet. Throwing down the gauntlet and running away only makes you look silly.
Quote:A lot of what you ask for is way too specific or just requires too much work.Awwww. Poor baby.
Buck up. Debates require you to be informed of the subject matter you're debating. Maybe if you were better informed of what you're writing about, you wouldn't cling so hard to this "both sides" drivel.
And you know what, "google" or whatever search engine you prefer, makes it so damn easy. But if you're too lazy, then go watch some cat videos and leave the mental heavy lifting to those of us who want to put in the effort.
Quote:Also when I say anything you cry fallacy, don't even reply to my points and rinse and repeat.When I point out logical fallacies, I explain why. For example, you like to use the ad hominem where you just call me an "ideologue" and act as if this is an argument. It's not. It's an insult used in place of an argument. It's not up to me to prove I'm not an ideologue. It's up to you to show that my arguments are wrong. Now this requires you to construct a logical counter-argument and research a few facts to back it up. Now, boo hoo, that requires some work. I know it's easier to insult people but in an internet forum like this one, that's not going to cut it.
Quote:It's not really something that I feel like engaging in.Then stop throwing down the gauntlet. It makes you look silly when you do and then keep running away.
Quote:Can you understand why? Also when do I call you names? I call you liberal and left wing. I don't say that with any sort of malice. You are liberal and left wing. It does bias your viewpoint. That's not name calling."Ideologue" is an insult but regardless, even calling me "liberal" is not an argument. You are simply making a statement about my political affiliation and then thinking your job is done. You still need to provide an argument and back it up with some facts before you've even offered anything coherent against what I believe.
Quote:Don't be so fucking sensitive.This is not about my feelings. This is about your total failure to provide a coherent argument and thinking that name calling is sufficient. The "ad hominem" isn't classified as a fallacy because it's not nice. The ad hominemn is classified as a fallacy because it's not a logical argument.
Don't be so fucking irrational (or lazy).
Quote:Also I have to go to multiple threads because getting you to answer direct questions is like pulling teeth.This smacks of psychological projection to me. I'm pretty direct in my response to challenges and questions while you're the one that keeps running away and posting irrelevant threads like this one.
If you are too lazy to spend the effort to research your own opinions, then my advice to you is to not throw the gauntlet down with me and spend your time engaging someone else. You get into my ring, you're in the big leagues, boy. Come prepared or stop wasting my time and making yourself look like an idiot.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist