Yeah, objecting to dictators using chems = Obamite. Jesus Christ you are retarded.
Yeah, objecting to dictators using chems = Obamite. Jesus Christ you are retarded.I can perform such an evaluation. Take the people who supported Bush and attacking, not because it would solve anything, but they either didn't care or deluded themselves into believing it would.
Then we have the Obamites.
Like this one These little creatures also feed on presidential droppings. Like the Bushites, they defend their hosts by loudly screaming against the other for consuming offal.
It's an almost comedic ecosystem.
As an unbiased middle of the road moderate, I must say that the level of discourse from the left is much more erudite and informed than that of the right.
Yeah, objecting to dictators using chems = Obamite. Jesus Christ you are retarded.
I'm not pretending a damn thing. You said something incredibly stupid and won't admit it. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is why "DC is not for you." "You just want to be able to spew your opinions without being asked to back them up."Are you going to pretend that conservatives don't routinely post that "welfare just creates dependency"? Are you going to pretend that welfare is charactarized as nothing more than an entitlement? How about all the other "entitlements"? Welfare is just one example. How about Obamaphone? Wanna rail against that one?
No, you are being retarded about shira's post, and retarded when you call me immoral. I have never backed any action against Syria. Get that through your thick skull.I object to them being used too. I also object to people who don't know who used them (and german intel suggests they were used without Assads permission) killing Syrians instead of chemical weapons. I object to people who support killing Syrians based on the concept which is completely unproven that it would prevent chemical attacks elsewhere. I object to people who want to kill Syrians claiming to be so moral that they have the right to leave them right where they were, which is being killed in a civil war.
I'm not retarded, you are immoral. I did have some respect for you, but you turned out to be another hack. Too bad. Do whatever you are told, or at least justify it.
Shira is making assumptions here that Assad IS guilty and operating from that viewpoint. If those assumptions turn out to be wrong, I am sure Shira will adjust accordingly. AFAIK, there was more evidence released today supporting that the assumptions were right.My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.
Acting against Assad - a strike that inflicts enough damage that Assad will think a long time before again using chemical weapons - is the principled and correct thing to do.
A 2 second search revealed this thread. Are you now going to pretend I can't find hundreds of similar posts?I'm not pretending a damn thing. You said something incredibly stupid and won't admit it. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is why "DC is not for you." "You just want to be able to spew your opinions without being asked to back them up."
You're so full of shit it isn't even funny.
When you eliminate, truly eliminate, the safety nets, in place for irresponsible people having children people will have less children. Right now there isn't any worry or fear of not having a child taken care of and that gives people a sense of security which allows them to be somewhat cavalier with their reproductive decisions.
For those that truly need help because of unforeseen circumstances and not bad decisions on their own part, there are always going to be charitable people willing to help out.
You're quoting Incorruptible as if this is proof that Republicans want to eliminate welfare? You know, I used to think you were reasonably intelligent...I guess that goes to show you just how wrong a person can be.Here is another post.
No, you are being retarded about shira's post, and retarded when you call me immoral. I have never backed any action against Syria. Get that through your thick skull.
This is shira's post:Shira is making assumptions here that Assad IS guilty and operating from that viewpoint. If those assumptions turn out to be wrong, I am sure Shira will adjust accordingly. AFAIK, there was more evidence released today supporting that the assumptions were right.
If the assumptions are right, there is nothing morally wrong with Shira's stance.
Dude. That was Biff. Do you know how to follow a link?You're quoting Incorruptible as if this is proof that Republicans want to eliminate welfare? You know, I used to think you were reasonably intelligent...I guess that goes to show you just how wrong a person can be.
I stopped at the bolded. Did he? Did he claim everyone else was wrong? I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe he did, but he didn't in the OP. So if you can show me where he did, I will read the rest of this post and give it the respect it deserves. If he didn't, check yourself.Instead of making sure of his facts Shira did EXACTLY what the Iraq war proponents did. He called for war and claimed that everyone else was wrong. If Putin hadn't tossed his tidbit out and Obama struck he would have been claiming the high ground all this time, and right or wrong about Assad, we would have made the decision to kill those Syrians not because of anything other than WE were offended by it. "Nothing morally wrong" with killing. Wonderful.
The dead don't care how they died. How many tens or hundreds of thousands died by more conventional means? Many many more times than by conventional means, but hey, that's OK. We would have splattered brains and bodies over the landscape too but hey it's traditional and that makes things peachy, because if we kill a hundred that way and save one person from chemical weapons that's an equitable trade off. There's a hell of a lot morally wrong with his stance. I suggest if we did or ever do kill he and Obama and Boxer and McCain sit down and write the letters of condolences.
"Dear Kid.
Some bad people in your country gassed over a thousand people. Well we can't have that so we had to strike back. Sorry your dad was in the wrong place but we didn't do anything immoral in killing him. Now you may ask "Who gave you the right", and the answer is that no one did. Well Obama and some other people said we did and since we have the guns and bombs that makes right. You should know that because maybe a couple hundred thousand people are dead by others who have power in your nation. But rest assured we don't care a bit about that. We're just sensitive to chemical weapons, and being in effect all powerful and right we just had to "scratch that itch" to do something about it, and that brings us back to your Dad. Sorry about that."
You? You could add "PS, they are right you know".
Every horror has an apologist. Every attack on another nation has had its backers justifying deaths, and this time when we are not in danger we decide who lives and dies based on OUR sensibilities, OUR desires. Screw that, him and you.
I stopped at the bolded. Did he? Did he claim everyone else was wrong? I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe he did, but he didn't in the OP. So if you can show me where he did, I will read the rest of this post and give it the respect it deserves. If he didn't, check yourself.
I didn't miss it. It doesn't exist. Quote where he said that. Go ahead, quote it.Maybe you missed where he said Obama was right to ignore the people and Congress and that we needed to bomb. We were in the wrong and Obama should ignore us.
Like I said screw that. He openly supported a strike. Nevermind that even if Assad was responsible it wouldn't have stopped the slaughter. Nevermind that there was no compelling reason of self defense. Nevermind that there is absolutely no basis for the assumption that anyone would not use chemical weapons in another place in another time. Kill.
You your credit I don't recall your personal support for the kill, but you just stood up for one who wanted it badly in spite of any consequences or deaths of innocents. Well I've had a bellyful of death and destruction in my lifetime and you think me retarded for it if you want, but I'm going to call a bastard a bastard.
Deal with it or not.
Lol boomer, there are probably 1000 dank69s across the intertubes. That guy is much better looking than I am.Hey dank69, is this you?
http://www.howaboutwe.com/users/dank69
It says you're gay and have no dates. No dates...? With your easygoing sunshiny personality I'm really surprised.
I didn't miss it. It doesn't exist. Quote where he said that. Go ahead, quote it.
I understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong. Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.
The distrust of the American people is a distraction here, and unlike in Iraq, WMDs - WMDs that were actually used - is in fact the main issue here.
My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.
Acting against Assad - a strike that inflicts enough damage that Assad will think a long time before again using chemical weapons - is the principled and correct thing to do
Oh I see, you are looking at when he said the [American public] is wrong about [being sold a Mickey Mouse War] and twisting that to mean that he said every critic of the proposed action is wrong. He even conceded that the public is justifiably skeptical in the same breath. Once again, check yourself.Well we are wrong. We're a distraction and "true leaders" shouldn't be influenced by our ignorance.
There is his explicit call for the kill. The evidence that Assad himself was responsible was accusation. The basis for defense wasn't there."Acting against Assad" is like"acting against Saddam", which means not killing either of them but the people unfortunate enough to be ruled by them. The claim that this would discourage others remains baseless wishful thinking.
Personally I'm glad to have been "a distraction", to be "wrong" and "the lowest common denominator", and have voiced opposition and not have supported the "enlightened" and "moral" call to kill.
Oh I see, you are looking at when he said the [American public] is wrong about [being sold a Mickey Mouse War] and twisting that to mean that he said every critic of the proposed action is wrong. He even conceded that the public is justifiably skeptical in the same breath. Once again, check yourself.
I'm starting to understand why when he said a leader shouldn't be influenced by the lowest common denominator you automatically assumed he meant you.
I didn't say any of those things. He thought we should do something. You assume that will result in loss of life, and you are probably right, but you twist his good intentions into malicious ones. Shira isn't out for blood, and your attempts to characterize him that way is dishonest. The truth is, you just want to rail against anyone calling for war, so have at it. But when you mischaracterize someone's statements I will be right there to point it out to you, and you will be right there assuming that that means I support the war as well.Yeah, keep apologizing. We are justifibly skeptical. We're also wrong. Obama is right to attack. The "ignorant" and "lowest common denominator", which would be those who oppose his "correct" model for death should be ignored. Tell me he didn't say we shouldn't kill. Tell me he didn't agree with those who say we should. Tell me he himself say he didn't call for it.
Good luck.
I didn't say any of those things. He thought we should do something. You assume that will result in loss of life, and you are probably right, but you twist his good intentions into malicious ones. Shira isn't out for blood, and your attempts to characterize him that way is dishonest. The truth is, you just want to rail against anyone calling for war, so have at it. But when you mischaracterize someone's statements I will be right there to point it out to you, and you will be right there assuming that that means I support the war as well.
I also didn't apologize for anything. Are you capable of being honest for two fucking seconds?
I would not be insulted to be compared to CK. We both tend to have positions both far left and far right, and I think he's a pretty sharp cookie. And personally, I miss Steeplerot's posting. Although he's one of our most leftie posters and displays the arrogance and disdain for others with dissenting values typical of the proggie mainstream, he's also smart and articulate and has a very good sense of humor.Oh the ironing. When I read this description of CK, I thought I was reading something I would write about you. You express many over-the-top hyperbolized opinions about libs, but you're also non-doctrinaire and quite reasonable on many specific issues. Your description of him is fairly close to accurate. You guys have some things in common. Not trying to be insulting here at all, just descriptive. You and CK are both interesting to debate at times.
Again, if you are baldly stating that one team is evil, you have a team. Pretending otherwise just makes you look dishonest and/or stupid. There is almost no one here who blindly defends their team no matter what, because almost no one agrees with any party 100% of the time. I for instance have "a team", the right. Even though I disagree with probably 60% of everything the Republicans do and stand for, even though I've been coming down on the left (or at least with the Democrats) on most issues lately, the right is the side with which I most align myself. (Not counting the Libertarians, with whom I share more positions but also have fundamental differences.) I could easily profess my nonpartisan status based on environmental issues, gay marriage, Obama's Syrian performance, parts of Obamacare and a host of other issues.No. Partisan means blindly defending "your team" with no questions asked. CK didn't have a team. He didn't choose a side. He criticized Dems on many occasions. He critcized conservatives much more often because they fuck up much more often. It's as simple as that. Also, I doubt he said "Dems are too nice to Pubs." He probably said Dems cave in to Pubs too often. If my assumption is correct, you just posted another straw man. Grats.
Now lets move on to the insults. Wear my helmet and simply idiotic. The first is completely overused and boring tripe and the second an old stand by. Both uttered by a guy who has been "debating" in the P&N forum for how long now(?) and still doesn't know the meaning of the word "partisan."
That, my friend, is how you do it.
In shira's defense, he may be more like me, not particularly wanting war but willing to take the President's word that he solemnly judges this action to be the best taken. Remember, while war is a horrible thing, it's not the most horrible thing in this world. Syrians are going to die whether or not we strike, and there's no guarantee that by not striking we won't allow even more misery.You say you aren't apologizing. Good imitation. Shira isn't out for blood. He didn't care a bit either way. He doesn't want Syrians killed. He just doesn't care if we kill them. He's an indifferent murderer. His "good intentions" explicitly involving Syria and guess who lives there? Syrians. Assad is responsible? Perhaps. He's gone? Nope. But he doesn't care. He want's an example, like Tex. Tex really doesn't hate Iraqis either.
So without compelling evidence that Assad ordered the strikes, Shira said killing was the right thing to do, and don't say that "strike" doesn't mean just that. You know it does.
If Assad was responsible, killing Syrians punishes him. OK, if you think so. It prevents others from doing the same. Really? Ok, how many Syrians are worth the evidence you have for that? Will Assad have been removed? No. So what happens? Maybe a couple hundred more are killed, but not one with a chemical weapons, assuming that it was Assad to begin with. How comforting.
I am at least honest enough to not defend those of either side who call or called for killing Syrians based on "example" or some perceived notion that we're right on the face of it for murder, but others are wrong, at least if they use chemical weapons. You purposefully ignore his saying that we who oppose that are wrong, that Obama should have killed although none of his contentions could be backed up, but instead that we're entitled to be skeptical because of Bush, but apparently we should have faith and accept Obama. Might as well, because w are ignorant and deserve to be ignored.
That's the part you like to miss.