Look Who's Lying NOW

2456789

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Call me when he decides to invade a country without going through the usual channels and against the protest of many ( and the advice of the UN ).



    Libya. Pakistan. Coming soon: Iran.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    "Iraq has WMD"=Left goes bananas. Bushcorp? is lying to start a war for oil. Bush is Hitler.



    "Syria has WMD"=Left yawns.





    How's that for a start?



    It's a pretty shitty start. Yes, that is the most superficial of relationships. Go deeper. Please explain how the two are RELEVANTLY similar.



    Think of it this way. If you needed a blood transfusion and I were the doctor giving it to you, would you be OK with me giving you lobster blood? You have blood. A lobster has blood. How's that for a start? Unfortunately, that would be much too superficial of a relationship and your body wouldn't accept it as a match. At the surface, both do the same thing--transfer oxygen throughout the body. Except, lobsters have blue/green blood because they use copper to transport oxygen while our blood is red because we use iron. Our hemoglobin is bound within our blood cells. Lobster hemocyanin is suspended not in the cells but in the fluid of the blood itself.



    See, two things can at the surface seem similar but it isn't enough to just jump from there and immediately claim they are relevantly similar for the purposes of your argument.



    What was the situation like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the situation in Syria now? Are they politically the same?



    What was the situation like at home during the lead up to war there? What's the situation now? Are they politically, economically, and socially the same?



    What was the history of WMD inspections like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the recent history of WMD inspections in Syria? Are they the same?







    Until you go deeper, you have nothing but a child's argument. Enjoy your lobster blood transfusion.
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Libya. Pakistan. Coming soon: Iran.



    He sent troops in to some small African country too. Drone strike in Yemen on US citizen.



    Where's Code Pink with the Die In?





    Oh wait it was about politics all along!
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Yeah, because these things are exactly like Iraq and Afghanistan. Identical even.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Don't believe everything you see and hear on You Tube.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Call me when he decides to invade a country without going through the usual channels



    He did go through the usual channels.



    Quote:

    and against the protest of many ( and the advice of the UN ).



    The UN doesn't give "advice."



    Quote:

    Obama isn't perfect and he's done plenty of things I don't agree with however he pales in comparison to the drunken coke sniffing frat boy. Also by the title of this thread I guess you're finally saying that Bush was lying!



    Oh look! More double standards: Obama has admitted using cocaine. It's fine though, because he's Obama. Much better thana man who found God and stopped drinking completely. Yes, indeed.



    Quote:



    All I can say is with your flurry of rediculous posts you must be really worried about the election. Well you should be.



    Ridiculous. With an "i." Good lord.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Yeah, because these things are exactly like Iraq and Afghanistan. Identical even.



    That wasn't the question.



    But you may be too busy being an apologist for the police state and war monger president to see this.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    It's a pretty shitty start. Yes, that is the most superficial of relationships. Go deeper. Please explain how the two are RELEVANTLY similar.



    Think of it this way. If you needed a blood transfusion and I were the doctor giving it to you, would you be OK with me giving you lobster blood? You have blood. A lobster has blood. How's that for a start? Unfortunately, that would be much too superficial of a relationship and your body wouldn't accept it as a match. At the surface, both do the same thing--transfer oxygen throughout the body. Except, lobsters have blue/green blood because they use copper to transport oxygen while our blood is red because we use iron. Our hemoglobin is bound within our blood cells. Lobster hemocyanin is suspended not in the cells but in the fluid of the blood itself.



    Oh boy. That must have taken some effort. Well done.



    Quote:



    See, two things can at the surface seem similar but it isn't enough to just jump from there and immediately claim they are relevantly similar for the purposes of your argument.



    What was the situation like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the situation in Syria now? Are they politically the same?



    No.



    Quote:



    What was the situation like at home during the lead up to war there? What's the situation now? Are they politically, economically, and socially the same?



    Irrelevant.



    Quote:



    What was the history of WMD inspections like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the recent history of WMD inspections in Syria? Are they the same?



    You mean Iraq as in "the Iraq that used chemical weapons on its people and then failed to verifiably dispose of its remaining program?" That Iraq? And, you mean Syria as in "Syria, where the administration has presented no evidence of its WMD materials?" That Syria? Got it.



    Quote:



    Until you go deeper, you have nothing but a child's argument. Enjoy your lobster blood transfusion.



    It's not complicated, BR. I realize you wish to make it complicated so that you can attempt to pick apart the comparison, but I'm not going to let that happen. You have an administration that claims Syria has WMD. True, they are not advocating military action as a result, but they make the claim either way. The same claim was made with Iraq, only there was much more evidence of its accuracy. The lefties went bananas with the Iraq claim, and now the lefties are silent. Bush responds to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan with congressional approval...left goes bananas. Obama attacks Libya without congressional consent, and the left is silent. Bush says "all options are on the table with Iran," the left goes bananas. Obama says the same, and the left is silent.



    GO TEAM BLUE!
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Libya. Pakistan. Coming soon: Iran.



    Quote:

    without going through the usual channels and against the protest of many



    Not that I support any of this but not the same thing.



  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oh boy. That must have taken some effort. Well done.







    No.







    Irrelevant.







    You mean Iraq as in "the Iraq that used chemical weapons on its people and then failed to verifiably dispose of its remaining program?" That Iraq? And, you mean Syria as in "Syria, where the administration has presented no evidence of its WMD materials?" That Syria? Got it.







    It's not complicated, BR. I realize you wish to make it complicated so that you can attempt to pick apart the comparison, but I'm not going to let that happen. You have an administration that claims Syria has WMD. True, they are not advocating military action as a result, but they make the claim either way. The same claim was made with Iraq, only there was much more evidence of its accuracy. The lefties went bananas with the Iraq claim, and now the lefties are silent. Bush responds to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan with congressional approval...left goes bananas. Obama attacks Libya without congressional consent, and the left is silent. Bush says "all options are on the table with Iran," the left goes bananas. Obama says the same, and the left is silent.



    GO TEAM BLUE!



    Quote:

    You mean Iraq as in "the Iraq that used chemical weapons on its people and then failed to verifiably dispose of its remaining program?"



    No I think he's talking about the Iraq that didn't have any WMD to invade over in 2003. And I'll give you this you weren't silent when Bush invaded. You were still claiming we'd still find WMD after we invaded but then guess what happened?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    By the way, you know who's lying now? Either that, or just plain blind (most likely willfully ignorant)? Any one of you who still claim that Obama is the 'most Liberal President ever'. Jeez... get a clue. Just get a clue.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    By the way, you know who's lying now? Either that, or just plain blind (most likely willfully ignorant)? Any one of you who still claim that Obama is the 'most Liberal President ever'. Jeez... get a clue. Just get a clue.



    I had a revelation recently, which may not be new to y'all. The centre-left in some ways dictates the actions of the right. Whenever a left government moves to the centre, the right has to either move quite strongly further right, or hold strong on centre-right, leading to the rise of extreme-right elements.



    When the centre-left moves left and stays left, it's easy for the right to move to the centre-right and stay there.



    Just an idea, proably a naive one.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    So Obama is lying, then?



    Truthfully speaking I do not trust one politician. All of them lie and exaggerate the truth.Including Obama sometimes not always.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Please remember that when challenged about whether he can be sure that Iraq has WMD, SDW replied thus:



    "Yes, I can be sure [there are WMD]. Anyone who is not an idiot can."



    And now he's saying:



    "Yes, I can be sure [Iran is trying to get nukes]. Anyone who is not an idiot can."



    Yeah. Right. We'll trust you on this.



    And nice use of the elitist tack there, SDW.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    No I think he's talking about the Iraq that didn't have any WMD to invade over in 2003. And I'll give you this you weren't silent when Bush invaded. You were still claiming we'd still find WMD after we invaded but then guess what happened?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Please remember that when challenged about whether he can be sure that Iraq has WMD, SDW replied thus:



    "Yes, I can be sure [there are WMD]. Anyone who is not an idiot can."



    And now he's saying:



    "Yes, I can be sure [Iran is trying to get nukes]. Anyone who is not an idiot can."



    Yeah. Right. We'll trust you on this.



    And nice use of the elitist tack there, SDW.



    Nice obfuscation...both of you. The issue is not whether Iraq actually ended up having WMD, nor if Syria ends up having the same. It's about reaction to being told that WMD exist. You're both exhibiting the very kind of double standard I'm referencing.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Nice obfuscation...both of you. The issue is not whether Iraq actually ended up having WMD, nor if Syria ends up having the same. It's about reaction to being told that WMD exist. You're both exhibiting the very kind of double standard I'm referencing.



    So you're saying we're stupid for not trusting the respective administrations on these things? Seriously?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    My tolerance for the incessant, pointless bickering between supporters of the establishment parties (Republicans and Democrats) has been decreasing as I continue to learn more about and embrace libertarian and voluntaryist philosophies.



    From my perspective, it’s like 2 riders of a tandem bike - who occasionally trade seats on the bike - fighting with each other over who is responsible for leading them at full speed towards the edge of a cliff, all the while continuing to pedal and not braking or changing direction.



    The truly frustrating and perplexing thing is that whenever someone manages to get their attention and suggests they use the breaks and change direction, they suddenly unite in condemning him, calling him a lunatic for even thinking such a thing. And all the while, the edge of the cliff draws nearer.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Nice obfuscation...both of you. The issue is not whether Iraq actually ended up having WMD, nor if Syria ends up having the same. It's about reaction to being told that WMD exist. You're both exhibiting the very kind of double standard I'm referencing.



    Yes, the most superficial and flimsy of analogies. You have not established the situations as relevantly similar at all. Please, enjoy your lobster blood.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    You are making an analogy. To avoid an analogy flaw, one must demonstrate that the two things you are comparing are relevantly similar. Please provide that evidence of relevant similarity and I will happily participate in your thread and judge your argument on its merits. As it stands, it has no merits.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    Iran has weapons not Syria and your lousy republicans want us to get involved in another war with them as you are HAWKS and Love War.You make me SICK!



    So Sammy and Tonton condemn it. BR and marv go on about bad analogies and Republicans.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    It's a pretty shitty start. Yes, that is the most superficial of relationships. Go deeper. Please explain how the two are RELEVANTLY similar.



    Think of it this way. If you needed a blood transfusion and I were the doctor giving it to you, would you be OK with me giving you lobster blood? You have blood. A lobster has blood. How's that for a start? Unfortunately, that would be much too superficial of a relationship and your body wouldn't accept it as a match. At the surface, both do the same thing--transfer oxygen throughout the body. Except, lobsters have blue/green blood because they use copper to transport oxygen while our blood is red because we use iron. Our hemoglobin is bound within our blood cells. Lobster hemocyanin is suspended not in the cells but in the fluid of the blood itself.



    See, two things can at the surface seem similar but it isn't enough to just jump from there and immediately claim they are relevantly similar for the purposes of your argument.



    What was the situation like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the situation in Syria now? Are they politically the same?



    What was the situation like at home during the lead up to war there? What's the situation now? Are they politically, economically, and socially the same?



    What was the history of WMD inspections like in Iraq during the lead up to war there? What's the recent history of WMD inspections in Syria? Are they the same?



    Until you go deeper, you have nothing but a child's argument. Enjoy your lobster blood transfusion.



    No one can claim Syria has weapons because it is a bad analogy and is like lobster blood. Nice move there Charlie Sheen!!! Instead of arguing about bad analogies, can you address Syria? SDW addressed the fact that we sent troops to help in Libya. The rationale for Libya was much weaker than even possession of WMD's. It was merely claimed that their leader was a threat to his people.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    He sent troops in to some small African country too. Drone strike in Yemen on US citizen.



    Where's Code Pink with the Die In?



    Oh wait it was about politics all along!



    Indeed it was and will be about politics with the left. No more body counts, no allegations of creating worldwide hostility with our mere presence. It is pure hypocritical bullshit.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    By the way, you know who's lying now? Either that, or just plain blind (most likely willfully ignorant)? Any one of you who still claim that Obama is the 'most Liberal President ever'. Jeez... get a clue. Just get a clue.



    Obama is acting exactly as a liberal president would act. He now clearly believes that a central world government coaltion ought to stick it's nose anywhere and everywhere.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    My tolerance for the incessant, pointless bickering between supporters of the establishment parties (Republicans and Democrats) has been decreasing as I continue to learn more about and embrace libertarian and voluntaryist philosophies.



    From my perspective, it?s like 2 riders of a tandem bike - who occasionally trade seats on the bike - fighting with each other over who is responsible for leading them at full speed towards the edge of a cliff, all the while continuing to pedal and not braking or changing direction.



    The truly frustrating and perplexing thing is that whenever someone manages to get their attention and suggests they use the breaks and change direction, they suddenly unite in condemning him, calling him a lunatic for even thinking such a thing. And all the while, the edge of the cliff draws nearer.



    Well as we have discussed, if you can't persuade, if you can't reach critical mass, then there's no point in being correct. Declaring everyone else is wrong and an idiot might make one feel morally superior but stinks as the basis of a governing coalition.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes, the most superficial and flimsy of analogies. You have not established the situations as relevantly similar at all. Please, enjoy your lobster blood.



    #winning!!!
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Well as we have discussed, if you can't persuade, if you can't reach critical mass, then there's no point in being correct. Declaring everyone else is wrong and an idiot might make one feel morally superior but stinks as the basis of a governing coalition.



    Leaders who can't admit they're wrong and make the changes necessary to set things right aren't fit to govern in the first place and should not be supported.
Sign In or Register to comment.