Obama is a war criminal

[DeistPaladin]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[CapnAwesome]

Jesus fuck Christ. Did you complain about me being insulting?? No wonder people don't want to play with you. You think you are some master debater but it's all the same shit. That's not the big leagues, you just have an overinflated ego and that's coming from someone who calls himself Cap'n Awesome. Your whole debate technique is a joke. It's just memes, complaining about logical fallacies (without explanation, despite what you say) whining and linking to videos that you don't have anything to do with. Then you claim it's logical and blah blah. It's just all not true. Like what you say and what you do don't line up and it makes it impossible to engage with. You've just set it up that way so you can feel superior. I'll engage with you when you are willing to drop that crap and have a real discussion (without being insulting yourself.)

[DeistPaladin]

Jesus fuck Christ. Did you complain about me being insulting?? No wonder people don't want to play with you. You think you are some master debater but it's all the same shit. That's not the big leagues, you just have an overinflated ego and that's coming from someone who calls himself Cap'n Awesome. Your whole debate technique is a joke.

...and the cry baby runs away again.

[CapnAwesome]

Jesus fuck Christ. Did you complain about me being insulting?? No wonder people don't want to play with you. You think you are some master debater but it's all the same shit. That's not the big leagues, you just have an overinflated ego and that's coming from someone who calls himself Cap'n Awesome. Your whole debate technique is a joke.

...and the cry baby runs away again.

Dude, you just complained about being insulted. Do you feel no sense of shame or hypocrisy? I don't even know what you want me to reply to. Some video that you didn't even make?

---

It's pretty hard to debate with you, because you resort to ad hominims and changing the goal posts sooo often. If you were willing to intellectually engage I'd be down for that. Instead you just insult and take great umbrage at everything that's said towards you. I'd (and other people) would be willing to engage with you if you cut the ad hominims, the laziness of just posting someone else's videos and arguments, and the annoying writing style of responding to every sentence in a way that makes editing posts too much of a hassle.

Edit: You also used an incomplete sentence when insulting my grammar, you needed a colon or semi-colon at the end of that sentence. Moron.

[Mudhammam]

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.

Obama is worse in certain respects. Yes, Bush's policies were directly responsible for a whole shitload of innocent people getting killed, no doubt many more than Obama. Bush's appointees such as Rumsfeld were also stringing together a foreign policy ad hoc, in the wake of a crisis, whereas Obama has taken those policies, wrapped them up with a bow to make them look nice, and sold them to the Democrats who opposed the war as "smart policy." And he's also made it much more difficult for whistle blowers and journalists to expose corruption. So, in that regards, I think Obama has done more harm in the long run because now we simply accept these atrocities as normal, and we have a "constitutional lawyer" who can speak better than most saying they're legal. These will not change in the foreseeable future, as both parties are basically out to achieve the same goals (i.e. "protect national security" at all costs, even if the costs might be counterproductive), whereas in 2008, I think many of us were hopeful that they would change. There's also trust in government. I think Obama has done more damage to how people, particularly younger voters, perceive politicians and the promises they make, not because Obama is uniquely deceptive, but because he was that much better at coming across as a genuine and concerned person.

[DeistPaladin]

Dude, you just complained about being insulted.

No, fucktard, I accused you of using ad hominems. There's an important difference between an insult and an ad hominem.

If you're really too stupid to know what the difference is, an ad hominem is using an insult in place of an argument. You never offer anything of substance. You're content to just say "nyth nyth, you're a liberal" and think you really nailed it.

I couldn't possibly give less of a shit what a hopeless, willfully ignorant fucktard like you thinks of me, given how you repeatedly demonstrate that you couldn't assemble a logical argument with a detailed blueprint, carefully labeled component parts and a "how to" video to guide you. When I point out your posts consist of ad hominems, I'm not complaining about my hurt feelings but rather exposing their vapid nature.

Here's a link to a definition of what an ad hominem is, in case you need to read it from another source.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

I don't even know what you want me to reply to. Some video that you didn't even make?

I've given you plenty of arguments aside from posted links to 3rd party source material but let that go. Who cares who made the video? A good argument is a good argument no matter who made it. Again, you fail to understand how basic logic works.

I'm amazed I even need to explain any of this to you. This is logic 101. You've just proven that just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're a rational person. However, perhaps I've misjudged you. Maybe it's just that you're too damn lazy to do any better. You have admitted that it's too much work to do any research.

Then again, the ease of "both sides do it" is its greatest selling point. You don't need to do any research. You don't need to figure out what the problems with Washington really are. You don't need to find out who's to blame. You just give a heavy sigh about how "Washington is broken" and assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

This assumption is also a logical fallacy (argument to moderation), by the way.

It's pretty hard to debate with you, because you resort to ad hominims and changing the goal posts sooo often. If you were willing to intellectually engage I'd be down for that. Instead you just insult and take great umbrage at everything that's said towards you. I'd (and other people) would be willing to engage with you if you cut the ad hominims, the laziness of just posting someone else's videos and arguments, and the annoying writing style of responding to every sentence in a way that makes editing posts too much of a hassle.

Psychological projection. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you wouldn't know a logical argument if it jumped off your screen and slapped you in the face and have admitted you're too damn lazy to do any research.

When you muster the energy to do some basic research on logical fallacies, you can get back to me.

[tjakey]

We live in a "post-fallen" America, the failure of American democracy being a thing at least 10 years behind us. We now have a throughly militarized police regularly putting down street protests. Civil liberties have been rolled back for many citizens, and more are in the works. Propaganda rules as both "news" and "entertainment". All of us are continuously threatened by the police on one hand and our fellow, armed, citizens on the other. The flaws in the Constitution have been expertly exploited by those in power, and "democracy" and "liberty" are now words without meaning - but most Americans haven't a clue.

We live with the Chinese curse, "May you live to see interesting times."

I agree with this assessment, but I am not quite so bleak about where it will go. I think the post-9/11 state of things is the last gasp of the Baby Boomers, a generation which has, on the whole, failed this country and its people spectacularly and is trying to destroy any semblance of democracy before Father Time snuffs them all out.

I see the Millennial generation being far more aware, both of themselves and of the consequences of bad behavior. That's not to say they're perfect, because they are by no means, but they are vastly more progressive than any generation before, and a generation of progressives is the only hope we have of not degenerating entirely into a theocorporate neo-fascist hellhole.

Being at the tail end of the Baby Boomers ... I agree completely. I'm not sure what happened to the generation that took to the streets to end the war in "Nam, support the civil rights movement, and support the woman's rights movement. Somehow we went from that to being fucktard right wingers who care only about our big screen TVs and the shit they shovel through them into our living rooms. It is kind of embarrassing to look in the mirror and see one of the bad guys.

A good friend of mind, being both an African-American woman and nearly my age, is a veteran of the Civil Right's and Woman's movements. She now works with various environmental groups trying to both protect National Parks and increase the numbers of minority Americans who visit and support our few remaining spaces. One evening during a wide ranging discussion she asked what I thought the answer might be. I think I stunned her a little bit when I said the answer was simple ...

Never, ever vote for the middle aged or old white guy in any election for any office on any level, EVER. Nothing else matters. If the only non-white or non-old guy on the ballot is a Communist who thinks that Aliens are secretly building a base on the back side of the moon, vote for him/her/it. (It isn't likely a “her” would be that bat-shit.) Hell, I'd stay away from young white guys for a few more years, just to make sure.

There is, in my opinion, no group that has proved itself being less deserving of wielding any type of power than old white guys. We run the corporations, churches, military, and government, with every single one of those institutions being about as fucked up as it is humanly possible to make them. Why the fuck people keep voting for that group is one of true mysteries of history.

Oh, and before someone goes off about Obama, remember, he is half-white. Apparetently a half-white guy in the White House just can't resist his evil side.

[Minimalist]

but aren't you assuming that Obama has sound reasons for keeping it open?

On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

90-6. Do you appreciate what that means? You couldn't get 90 votes in the US Senate to agree that fucking was fun.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, and before someone goes off about Obama, remember, he is half-white. Apparetently a half-white guy in the White House just can't resist his evil side.

Good to know that whites are evil. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Or is it males who are evil? Oh well, what does it matter -- they're both fair game, even under PC.

tl/dr: fuck off.

---

but aren't you assuming that Obama has sound reasons for keeping it open?

On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

90-6. Do you appreciate what that means? You couldn't get 90 votes in the US Senate to agree that fucking was fun.

A fair point, and one that skipped my mind. I stand corrected.