View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 31 of 111 FirstFirst ... 212728293031323334354181 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    232

    Default

    [QUOTE=BigLutz;15201581]Yet there is also a breaking point with people in which they will tell you correct information just to make it stop. Furthermore if you are correct and these people live in fear their whole lives. Then what is stopping their torturers from coming back and exacting retribution for false information? You would think it would be prudent on their part to tell them correct information the first time and not fear the retaliation that will come when the information is found out to be false. Again I point back to the interrogation techniques at Gitmo as proof.[/qupte]

    In KSM's case, they already knew he was guilty. They weren't forcing a confession.


    You were speaking of U.S. Military officers, which specifically.
    No I wasn't? I was talking about anyone who lives in the middle east or works for the army realizing that any random accusation is enough to allow this to happen to them.



    Your article shows one member of the security force shooting a protester, now do you have any proof that Murbarak ordered the attack? That he told them to open fire? Is it not also just as likely of some one being spooked firing on the protesters? Also your timeline is a bit skewed, the protests started on the 25th, within 8 days Obama was suggesting that he should step down. Furthermore you have no proof of any behind the scenes pressure put on by the White House for him to step down.

    Those cables are dated from 2009, as such I cannot see how they can be used in any way to indicate support for a protest happening two years later, especially on the weapons point.
    The only thing that happened was that 8-days after the protests started, he stopped supporting Mubarak as actively and as publicly as he normally did.

    Mubarak has been all about torture and murdering political enemies and anyone who dares to insult him from the very first day he became president, and he's had tons of support for it.
    They were supporting him in 2009 when those papers were published, when he was killing his enemies then, and there's no reason to believe that they ever stopped supporting him until the protesters forced Obama to condemn him in a purely political and symbolic way.

    Seeing how the Shah was on the verge of falling by the time the coup happened, there is no reason to assume they remain a threat. And if they believed the staff would help in a further coup, then they should shut down the embassy and release them to the U.S. as they cannot help with another coup if they are no longer in the country. Again so far you show no indication of a immediate threat as what happened in Iraq. Argument Failed.
    They obviously believed that he, and the embassy, were still a threat. Whether or not you think they were 30 years later is not the point. Hamoodi turned out not to be a threat, but that's really not the point. Your argument is that what they did was justified because they legitimately believed that he was at that time, and that they did what they had to do to stop said threat.

    Co-ordination for an attack, and the emergence of another coup, was still a threat, and a pretty big possibility. Heck, the fact that Carter DIDN'T respond with an attack was a huge controversy at that time, it's still seen as the reason that he failed as a president. Plus, the same dictator was still being harbored. What if Bin-Laden was being harbored in canada? You don't think he would be considered dangerous? Sure he's just a useless old man without the influence, but he'd still be the criminal, and he'd still be dangerous.

    When the Anglo persian oil company looked like they were losing power in '53, they just had the president killed. There is a reason they were paranoid. Excessively so? Of course. In violation of international law? Extremely. But the whole point is that they legitimately believed that they were in danger because of the Shahs continued power, and the continued influence, and they believed that they could stop it by taking hostages..


    So I ask you again, do you still think that their taking whatever action they could to stop that threat is legitimate?

    No as there is no proof they were spies, unlike what happened here, and there is no proof that any country they support was planning a invasion. Having a spies in your country does not immediately mean a invasion is happening, if so the USSR should have invaded the U.S. and vice versa during the Cold War.
    Right, they had no proof that they were spies, but neither did West on Hamoodi.

    WHETHER OR NOT AN INVASION HAPPENED IS IRRELEVANT.

    One is definitely being planned or otherwise prepared for, and the whole point of that argument is that they had a good reason to THINK they were in immediate danger, which they clearly did. You've argued that believing that you're in immediate danger is a good enough reason to torture someone into confessing.

    And seeing how your arguments have largely failed, and you have fallen back on the tactic of "What ifs"....
    Your entire argument is that because they "could" have been in danger, and that they thought they were, it's a good enough reason for them to torture someone into confessing.

    That's fine, but you also glossed over what said interrogation involved and insisted that it was no big deal. I'm trying to show you what that interrogation actually means by asking you to look at it from the interrogees point of view, but you've done nothing but dodge questions.
    Last edited by Ipwnyou; 7th October 2012 at 6:11 AM.

  2. #752
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    In KSM's case, they already knew he was guilty. They weren't forcing a confession.
    They were not trying to get a confession here either, they were trying to get information based on a terror attack they believed was targeting them. The same goes for KSM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    No I wasn't? I was talking about anyone who lives in the middle east or works for the army realizing that any random accusation is enough to allow this to happen to them.
    So I ask you have proof that every single person who lives in the Middle East or works for the army believes this? That this one incident is enough to make them believe that every single Army Company would do this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    The only thing that happened was that 8-days after the protests started, he stopped supporting Mubarak as actively and as publicly as he normally did.

    Mubarak has been all about torture and murdering political enemies and anyone who dares to insult him from the very first day he became president, and he's had tons of support for it.
    You do realize that even if they do not support some one publicly, that they can still pursue them privately to do something correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    They obviously believed that he, and the embassy, were still a threat. Whether or not you think they were 30 years later is not the point. Hamoodi turned out not to be a threat, but that's really not the point. Your argument is that what they did was justified because they legitimately believed that he was at that time, and that they did what they had to do to stop said threat.
    Except they represent two different types of threats. Hamoodi was believed to have active terrorist ties with other terrorists planning operations in the vicinity, the same cannot be said for the hostages. Especially if they were returned to their country and the embassy shut down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Co-ordination for an attack, and the emergence of another coup, was still a threat, and a pretty big possibility. Heck, the fact that Carter DIDN'T respond with an attack was a huge controversy at that time, it's still seen as the reason that he failed as a president. Plus, the same dictator was still being harbored. What if Bin-Laden was being harbored in canada? You don't think he would be considered dangerous? Sure he's just a useless old man without the influence, but he'd still be the criminal, and he'd still be dangerous.
    Another failed anology, Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization, can the same be said for a embassy staff? That they had any influence at all? No of course not don't be stupid. If they were worried about another coup from the American Government they could remove American personal from their country and continue with the draconian measures they put in place to prevent such a thing. The U.S. cannot just remove all of the Iraqis in a town from the area to prevent a terror attack against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    When the Anglo persian oil company looked like they were losing power in '53, they just had the president killed. There is a reason they were paranoid. Excessively so? Of course. In violation of international law? Extremely. But the whole point is that they legitimately believed that they were in danger because of the Shahs continued power, and the continued influence, and they believed that they could stop it by taking hostages.
    And by removing the Americans from the country they would no longer have to be afraid correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    So I ask you again, do you still think that their taking whatever action they could to stop that threat is legitimate?
    No as it does not meet my test: A: It does not directly involve the immediate danger of human lives. B: The threat can be resolved through other means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Right, they had no proof that they were spies, but neither did West on Hamoodi.
    They were given a list of names by a informant of names of terrorists involved in the terrorist attacks targeting him and his men, including a IED attack that happened earlier. Hamoodi's name was on that list

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    WHETHER OR NOT AN INVASION HAPPENED IS IRRELEVANT.
    Actually there is, for a terror attack there is a larger clear and present danger, if there is no suggestion of a invasion then there is no such danger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    One is definitely being planned or otherwise prepared for, and the whole point of that argument is that they had a good reason to THINK they were in immediate danger, which they clearly did. You've argued that believing that you're in immediate danger is a good enough reason to torture someone into confessing.
    My argument is if human lives are in danger, if there are no immediate signs of a invasion such as destroyers amassing, a increase of troops, etc etc, then there is no reason to believe a invasion is about to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Your entire argument is that because they "could" have been in danger, and that they thought they were, it's a good enough reason for them to torture someone into confessing.

    That's fine, but you also glossed over what said interrogation involved and insisted that it was no big deal. I'm trying to show you what that interrogation actually means by asking you to look at it from the interrogees point of view, but you've done nothing but dodge questions.
    I have answered every question you presented, you have been the one dodging questions especially the one of the value of human lives. I have no doubt the interrogee was scared and I do see his point of view. But may I ask, is that not worth it to save multiple human lives? Or do you choose one man's comfort over the actual lives of numerous men? Answer me that, do not dodge, answer it.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 7th October 2012 at 6:26 AM.

  3. #753
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post

    So I ask you have proof that every single person who lives in the Middle East or works for the army believes this? That this one incident is enough to make them believe that every single Army Company would do this?

    Ok, if they don't believe this, then it's because they haven't realized that this can happen to them yet.

    You do realize that even if they do not support some one publicly, that they can still pursue them privately to do something correct?
    I think you mis-understood my argument completely...

    The point is that they DID help Mubarak, and that if someone was to use someones support of him to justify arresting them.
    But thanks for dodging my question by insisting that all of the danger in said scenario is extremely real.
    I'll be borrowing quotes from you when you realize your mistake and change gears to dodging the question by insisting that there is absolutely no danger and that it doesn't apply here.

    And even that's besides the point, the point is that if someone in Egypt felt like they were in danger because of some security personnel working in Egypt, and that they were arrested and treated in a similar way, then I doubt you would treat the situation like it was such a small deal. That's all I want you to admit, unless you'd really be willing to say that an American soldier being treated that way would be fine with you.

    Except they represent two different types of threats. Hamoodi was believed to have active terrorist ties with other terrorists planning operations in the vicinity, the same cannot be said for the hostages. Especially if they were returned to their country and the embassy shut down.
    Right, but they were BELIEVED to be behind another threat.

    I really don't think you understand how fearful everyone was of the Shah, especially considering how the first revolution that installed the Shah went in the first place. He killed hundreds of people in the process of taking over, and he killed thousands more to stay in power. Anything and everything that could have made him a threat was extremely terrifying.

    And whether or not you think there was a threat as you read about it on the internet 30 years after it happened is irrelevant regardless. They weren't psychic, but their reasons for being fearful where real, and they had a good reason to THINK that they were in danger, which you've already established is a good enough reason to arrest someone.


    Another failed anology, Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization, can the same be said for a embassy staff? That they had any influence at all? No of course not don't be stupid. If they were worried about another coup from the American Government they could remove American personal from their country and continue with the draconian measures they put in place to prevent such a thing. The U.S. cannot just remove all of the Iraqis in a town from the area to prevent a terror attack against them.
    Thee embassy staff isn't Bin-laden in this analogy... The Shah is.

    And by removing the Americans from the country they would no longer have to be afraid correct?
    Considering how the 1953 coup went, no.

    Plus, the official foreign policy of Carters cabinet at that time was to... Oh yeah, advocate another coup in Iran with Irans military.

    They still would have had the Shah and all of his supporters just sitting aacross the border getting ready to have another coup, just like they did before.


    Actually there is, for a terror attack there is a larger clear and present danger, if there is no suggestion of a invasion then there is no such danger.
    But the terror threat in this case never happened either. They didn't see any weapons or direct threats either. The point is that they clearly BELIEVED that they were in danger of said threat, and they would have been stupid to just look at the intelligence they were given and decide that "gee, there really is no immediate threat here".

    No as it does not meet my test: A: It does not directly involve the immediate danger of human lives. B: The threat can be resolved through other means.
    Your argument for both situations hinges on the assumption and insistence that there is no actual threat.

    Do you see the problem with that?

    In Wests case it turned out that the threat wasn't real, but it really doesn't matter. They had a good reason to believe that they were in danger, and they would have been stupid not to act on it.

    I'm asking you how you would react if someone else also thought that they were in danger, and took similar actions.

    I have answered every question you presented, you have been the one dodging questions especially the one of the value of human lives. I have no doubt the interrogee was scared and I do see his point of view. But may I ask, is that not worth it to save multiple human lives? Or do you choose one man's comfort over the actual lives of numerous men? Answer me that, do not dodge, answer it.

    No you haven't, you just keep dodging them by pointing out superficial differences, and insisting that they mean that every situation except this any action is unjustifiable. And I've already answered this. I believe that they abused their power here, and the way that you insist that this was really just some minor discomfort that really isn't a big deal bothers me, and I doubt you would still think like that if it actually happened to you.
    Last edited by Ipwnyou; 7th October 2012 at 1:25 PM.

  4. #754
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Ok, if they don't believe this, then it's because they haven't realized that this can happen to them yet.
    We are talking about a tiny minority almost impossibly small. I mean by your logic everyone in the U.S. should live in fear from Police Brutality because it can happen to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    I think you mis-understood my argument completely...

    The point is that they DID help Mubarak, and that if someone was to use someones support of him to justify arresting them.
    But thanks for dodging my question by insisting that all of the danger in said scenario is extremely real.
    I'll be borrowing quotes from you when you realize your mistake and change gears to dodging the question by insisting that there is absolutely no danger and that it doesn't apply here.

    And even that's besides the point, the point is that if someone in Egypt felt like they were in danger because of some security personnel working in Egypt, and that they were arrested and treated in a similar way, then I doubt you would treat the situation like it was such a small deal. That's all I want you to admit, unless you'd really be willing to say that an American soldier being treated that way would be fine with you.
    The only way I would feel the same way for an American Soldier to be treated that way would be if similar circumstances were given. So far you have not reached a compelling scenario in which that happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Right, but they were BELIEVED to be behind another threat.

    I really don't think you understand how fearful everyone was of the Shah, especially considering how the first revolution that installed the Shah went in the first place. He killed hundreds of people in the process of taking over, and he killed thousands more to stay in power. Anything and everything that could have made him a threat was extremely terrifying.
    In which kick the people out, if you believe they are part of a plan for another coup then remove them from the situation. They have the American Documents, the country is a thousand miles away, kick them out and do not let them return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    And whether or not you think there was a threat as you read about it on the internet 30 years after it happened is irrelevant regardless. They weren't psychic,
    Ironic coming from you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    but their reasons for being fearful where real, and they had a good reason to THINK that they were in danger, which you've already established is a good enough reason to arrest someone.
    Except they have all the American Employees that could be behind a possible coup, if they were fearful of the threat then remove it through deportation. They did not have all the terrorists behind the terror attacks that happened to LTC West, thus they could not remove them, so again your analogy fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Thee embassy staff isn't Bin-laden in this analogy... The Shah is.
    In which we would demand extradition for him as they did, I do not see how we would hold a embassy hostage for someone that has no connection to the hostages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Considering how the 1953 coup went, no.

    Plus, the official foreign policy of Carters cabinet at that time was to... Oh yeah, advocate another coup in Iran with Irans military.

    They still would have had the Shah and all of his supporters just sitting aacross the border getting ready to have another coup, just like they did before.
    The Shah was dying of cancer and actually died early on in the hostage crisis. As for his supporters, even if there was another coup attempted, again with the embassy staff removed you lower the chance of them attempting a coup inside of the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    But the terror threat in this case never happened either. They didn't see any weapons or direct threats either. The point is that they clearly BELIEVED that they were in danger of said threat, and they would have been stupid to just look at the intelligence they were given and decide that "gee, there really is no immediate threat here".
    That would be a lie, LTC West's convoy was targeted by a IED explosion just days after they received the intel that there was a assassination plot against them. He only survived because the army advocated that he switch cars before he left. So to say there was no direct threat against him would be a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    Your argument for both situations hinges on the assumption and insistence that there is no actual threat.

    Do you see the problem with that?

    In Wests case it turned out that the threat wasn't real, but it really doesn't matter. They had a good reason to believe that they were in danger, and they would have been stupid not to act on it.

    I'm asking you how you would react if someone else also thought that they were in danger, and took similar actions.
    Difference is that in those situations there are other circumstances and information provided to show there is no threat. With West's case, the IED explosion, and information from trusted sources saying there was a threat was indication enough to take it seriously. In the case of the hikers there is no additional information such as a build up of forces to suggest that there is a invasion about to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ipwnyou View Post
    No you haven't, you just keep dodging them by pointing out superficial differences, and insisting that they mean that every situation except this any action is unjustifiable. And I've already answered this. I believe that they abused their power here, and the way that you insist that this was really just some minor discomfort that really isn't a big deal bothers me, and I doubt you would still think like that if it actually happened to you.
    I have already answered how I would feel if it happened to me, by the way saying they abused their power is not a answer. Do you believe that momentary discomfort ranks higher than human life? Yes or No.

  5. #755
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Romney has made his foreign policy speech today and he said he is going to be more assertive in his foreign policy. We all know how that really worked well the last time under a certain previous President.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

  6. #756
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Romney has made his foreign policy speech today and he said he is going to be more assertive in his foreign policy. We all know how that really worked well the last time under a certain previous President.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics
    Want to talk about Foreign Policy? Lets talk about Foreign Policy and the problems of a non assertive President. This comes from CBS News

    Quote Originally Posted by CBS News
    ATTKISSON: Do you feel like there was a disconnect between what you saw on the ground and what the State Dept. folks thought was going on in Libya?

    WOOD: There was certainly no disconnect in our transfer of information to them. They were getting the information on the situation on the ground. We sent it up through State Dept. cables and I sent it up to the military side on the D.O.D. side. So, there was awareness of what the situation in Libya was about.

    ATTKISSON: How did you get the word that your team would not be allowed to stay?

    WOOD: We knew that was coming through the cables and the draft cables that were going back and forth. The requests were being modified to say ‘don’t even request for D.O.D. support’.

    ATTKISSON: So State Dept. was telling the folks on the ground in Libya ‘don’t continue to ask for this help’?

    WOOD: Correct.
    http://www.therightscoop.com/cbs-new...Right+Scoop%29

    Is that the Foreign Policy you want to re-elect? The one that tells are diplomats "We are sick of hearing your pleas for help, go and die already!"

  7. #757
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Want to talk about Foreign Policy? Lets talk about Foreign Policy and the problems of a non assertive President. This comes from CBS News


    http://www.therightscoop.com/cbs-new...Right+Scoop%29

    Is that the Foreign Policy you want to re-elect? The one that tells are diplomats "We are sick of hearing your pleas for help, go and die already!"
    And you want to elect the guy who insulted our allies, has a Cold War mindset, has most of the same foreign policy team that worked with Bush, and his idea on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to kick the ball down a bit and hope for the best?

  8. #758
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    And you want to elect the guy who insulted our allies,
    You mean like choosing Argentina over Britain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    has a Cold War mindset,
    Because Russia is acting so much like a ally with Syria and Iran correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    has most of the same foreign policy team that worked with Bush,
    Better than to have a foreign policy team that leaves Americans out to die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    and his idea on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to kick the ball down a bit and hope for the best?
    That is a mischaracterization of his views. He wishes to have the Palestinians finally come around and want peace. You cannot have peace when one side does not desire it.

  9. #759
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You mean like choosing Argentina over Britain?

    Because Russia is acting so much like a ally with Syria and Iran correct?

    Better than to have a foreign policy team that leaves Americans out to die.

    That is a mischaracterization of his views. He wishes to have the Palestinians finally come around and want peace. You cannot have peace when one side does not desire it.
    And what makes you think Romney's foreign policy will be better than Obama's? Every President has their good and bad moments during their terms and if you want to hammer Obama on this one mistake? Well here's a mistake a U.S President made, Reagan funded the Taliban.

  10. #760
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    And what makes you think Romney's foreign policy will be better than Obama's? Every President has their good and bad moments during their terms and if you want to hammer Obama on this one mistake?
    Obama made many mistakes, but this one they lied, attempted to cover up, and worst of all ignored all the warnings and requests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Well here's a mistake a U.S President made, Reagan funded the Taliban.
    No not really, he funded the resistance against the Soviet Union by Afghan locals, there was no Taliban at the time. Now granted we left Afghanistan alone afterwards and allowed a power vaccum to occur, but to compare that to this incident is insane.

  11. #761
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Obama made many mistakes, but this one they lied, attempted to cover up, and worst of all ignored all the warnings and requests.
    So has Bush. Your point?

    No not really, he funded the resistance against the Soviet Union by Afghan locals, there was no Taliban at the time. Now granted we left Afghanistan alone afterwards and allowed a power vaccum to occur, but to compare that to this incident is insane.
    That's the problem. You are not looking at this in a long-term view.

  12. #762
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    So has Bush. Your point?
    Any specific thing you wish to compare it to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    That's the problem. You are not looking at this in a long-term view.
    Really? Who could predict that the next few Presidents would ignore Afghanistan and allow a power vaccum to form, or that such a Government that formed would eventually ally themselves with a terrorist villain who had not even risen to power yet, and would eventually be sent back to Afghanistan after Clinton refused to take custody of him.

  13. #763
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Any specific thing you wish to compare it to?
    Maybe oh I don't know, ignoring the warnings of the 9/11 attacks?!

    Really? Who could predict that the next few Presidents would ignore Afghanistan and allow a power vaccum to form, or that such a Government that formed would eventually ally themselves with a terrorist villain who had not even risen to power yet, and would eventually be sent back to Afghanistan after Clinton refused to take custody of him.
    Or who could predict that two wars in the Middle East would raise the deficit and many lives lost due to chaos?

  14. #764
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Although not directly related, John Stewart and Bill O'Reilly had a debate on Saturday that covered some pretty important politics. Here's the full video. I'll probably have to update the link when that version gets deleted.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  15. #765
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Maybe oh I don't know, ignoring the warnings of the 9/11 attacks?!
    That largely happened in a pre terrorism mindset, you cannot equate that to Obama ignoring the warnings here in Libya. Furthermore it does not reach the bar I set, in that the Libya attack they lied, covered up, ignored the warnings, and ignored requests by those on the ground for help. Granted Bush ignored the warnings ( Despite the fact that there was largely nothing he could have done to stop it ) you do not rise to the level of lying, covering up, and 'ignoring warnings on the ground for help' when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Or who could predict that two wars in the Middle East would raise the deficit and many lives lost due to chaos?
    And may I ask what does that have to do with the subject of Libya? It seems like you are desperately scrambling to defend Obama
    Last edited by BigLutz; 9th October 2012 at 7:35 AM.

  16. #766
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    ( Despite the fact that there was largely nothing he could have done to stop it )
    Except, I dunno, evacuate the buildings and those surrounding it...? I'm not sure how much info he had, but he could have done something. Warn the country, I dunno.

    It seems like you are desperately scrambling to defend Obama
    I hate these arguments. They're childish and to be honest, not even good arguments. More insults that debates really. No offense to you, but seriously.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  17. #767
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Can't wait till the VP debate. Ryan against Biden? That is going to be hilarious. Ryan is going to eat Biden

    "What good is it for a man to gain the world, yet forfeit his soul?"

  18. #768
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    Except, I dunno, evacuate the buildings and those surrounding it...? I'm not sure how much info he had, but he could have done something. Warn the country, I dunno.
    A: They had no idea it was going to be the World Trade Center

    B: They honestly believed the attack would happen on July 4th, when that came and went they believed they were in the clear. And honestly going out and warning the country would have done what exactly? Create alot of hysteria, probably grounded the airline industry to a halt, for something they largely could not defend against.

  19. #769
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWatersGreatGuardian View Post
    Can't wait till the VP debate. Ryan against Biden? That is going to be hilarious. Ryan is going to eat Biden
    I cant wait for it either. The fact checkers are going to go insane of Ryan's arguments, just you wait.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  20. #770
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    I cant wait for it either. The fact checkers are going to go insane of Ryan's arguments, just you wait.
    I dont know about that Ryan is usually a budget wok with a very good grasp of the numbers, probably even more so than the fact checkers. Its largely Joe Biden that tends to make up crap on the spot, including and not limited to plagiarizing in previous debates.

  21. #771
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I dont know about that Ryan is usually a budget wok with a very good grasp of the numbers, probably even more so than the fact checkers. Its largely Joe Biden that tends to make up crap on the spot, including and not limited to plagiarizing in previous debates.
    The problem is that Ryan lies about things people can look up on the internet. Like his marathon times. It's not important really, but it says something about integrity.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  22. #772
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    The problem is that Ryan lies about things people can look up on the internet. Like his marathon times. It's not important really, but it says something about integrity.
    Yes and Obama lies about Romney's budget. Thing is no one cares about some one's marathon times, things like some one's budget, or with Biden, completely copying some one else's history and speech, is a much larger problem.

  23. #773
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    543

    Default

    I am voting for Obama.

  24. #774
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Yes and Obama lies about Romney's budget. Thing is no one cares about some one's marathon times, things like some one's budget, or with Biden, completely copying some one else's history and speech, is a much larger problem.
    During the debate, Obama didn't lie, him and along with everyone else thoroughly believed that was his plan, because of the way Romney was preaching it beforehand. Ryan had even said that the plans were 20% tax cuts across the board. That would indeed cost 5 trillion. It isn't Obama's fault that suddenly Romney decided to switch gears on him.

    And I know it doesn't matter, but if he's lying about something small like that, he's most likely lying about bigger things as well, and obvious things at that.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  25. #775
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    During the debate, Obama didn't lie, him and along with everyone else thoroughly believed that was his plan, because of the way Romney was preaching it beforehand. Ryan had even said that the plans were 20% tax cuts across the board. That would indeed cost 5 trillion. It isn't Obama's fault that suddenly Romney decided to switch gears on him.
    Umm no, even the person who reviewed Romney's budget who Obama is using as a source, has said Obama is lying.

    "I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. "

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_653917.html

    And as mentioned when CNN fact checked it, they found Obama to be lying, and even Obama's own campaign staff admitted it was a lie

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0g8COdYcU0

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    And I know it doesn't matter, but if he's lying about something small like that, he's most likely lying about bigger things as well, and obvious things at that.
    By that logic, because Biden lied in the past with plagiarism, and Obama lied about big things like Romney's budget, both are probably lying about even bigger things as well!

Page 31 of 111 FirstFirst ... 212728293031323334354181 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •