Obama lied about Gruber, What else is new?

[RandFan]

That wasn't what you said. Quite the opposite, you said you would support (vote) for him despite the fact that he had killed innocent Americans.
Maybe we differ here, but I'd call supporting someone you know to be a liar and a murderer of innocents as somewhat fanatic.

I'd call it an honest acceptance of reality.

 

[bit_pattern]

Reason: made it funnier - IMO

Glad you find genocide so funny but I thought we were discussing political affiliation, not individuals.

To bring it back to Chuck's argument, all US presidents have killed innocent civilians, it kind of comes as part of the package. In light of that, one has to decide how to best direct their vote, or not vote at all. There are plenty of reasons to support a party and/or candidate over another for a bunch of reasons that don't involve their killing of civilians - even if it comes down to a lesser of two evils. Unless you guys are prepared to accept that you too are fanatics, it is laughably hypocritical to declare RandFan a "fanatic" because he supports one leader over another whilst still acknowledging the fact that they kill innocent civilians. It's not a complicated line of reasoning.

 

[The Big Dog]

For those who don't know, I was an advocate of the Invasion. I defended it here on this forum. Later, while I was still a Bush supporter (I voted for him twice), I changed my position. Especially when I learned of the lies.

The notion that, "it's okay, we didn't kill as many Iraqis as Saddam would have killed" strikes me now as incredibly fatuous and hollow.

I do not believe that anyone is claiming that Obama lied about "the Invasion."

Obama lied about his being the most transparent administration in history. In fact, I believe that his is the least transparent administration in history.

 

[coalesce]

I do not believe that anyone is claiming that Obama lied about "the Invasion."

Obama lied about his being the most transparent administration in history. In fact, I believe that his is the least transparent administration in history.

And I believe I'm the King of France. My belief doesn't make it anymore true.

Michael

 

[RandFan]

And I believe I'm the King of France. My belief doesn't make it anymore true.

If you have the facts go with the facts. If you don't then go with your belief. Works for theists.

 

[The Big Dog]

And I believe I'm the King of France. My belief doesn't make it anymore true.

Michael

Wait, are people claiming that Obama lied about the Iraq invasion? If so that is pure applesauce.

Although I will cheerfully amend my statement as follows, to wit:

"Obama lied about his being the most transparent administration in history. In fact, his is the least transparent administration in history."

Thanks for your comment.

 

[coalesce]

Wait, are people claiming that Obama lied about the Iraq invasion? If so that is pure applesauce.

Although I will cheerfully amend my statement as follows, to wit:

"Obama lied about his being the most transparent administration in history. In fact, his is the least transparent administration in history."

Thanks for your comment.

De rien.

Michael

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Glad you find genocide so funny but I thought we were discussing political affiliation, not individuals.

To bring it back to Chuck's argument, all US presidents have killed innocent civilians, it kind of comes as part of the package. In light of that, one has to decide how to best direct their vote, or not vote at all. There are plenty of reasons to support a party and/or candidate over another for a bunch of reasons that don't involve their killing of civilians - even if it comes down to a lesser of two evils. Unless you guys are prepared to accept that you too are fanatics, it is laughably hypocritical to declare RandFan a "fanatic" because he supports one leader over another whilst still acknowledging the fact that they kill innocent civilians. It's not a complicated line of reasoning.

I don't think RF was referring to innocent civilians killed during the war, as in that respect the statement is technically correct. There has never been a war in human history in which no innocents lost their lives. My statement referred specifically to "innocent US citizens" (Pres. Obama's decision to attack US citizens fighting alongside the terrorists in Afghanistan).
Nice try, but someone noticed you moving the goalposts.
To put things into perspective, if the debate was about Pres.Nixon and RF said the same thing, I think the charge of "right wing fanatic" would be appropriate.
In either case I can see little difference between them and a Bible thumper's attitude toward his magical book.

 

[RandFan]

Obama is a liar, he has also killed innocent civilians. I condemn the many things I find immoral that he has done on my behalf.

I'd vote for him again.

I don't think RF was referring to innocent civilians killed during the war, as in that respect the statement is technically correct.

First off, I never said anything about killing American civilians. I'm not even sure why you brought up the straw man. Please to explain?

Second, I'm talking about the drone strikes which I find dodgy. We don't live in perfect world. Humans lie, cheat and steal even when they are mostly good. Give that person power and moral dilemma and that person will commit immorality. That's just a fact.

I don't want to live in some dream world where I think American presidents don't have to make difficult decisions in which innocent people die as a result.

You said something about being disappointed. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or just really confused what you are on about. Again, innocent Americans?

 

[RandFan]

To put things into perspective, if the debate was about Pres.Nixon and RF said the same thing, I think the charge of "right wing fanatic" would be appropriate.

The Pentagon papers demonstrate conclusively that Nixon was lying about the Vietnam war and he damn well did kill innocent civilians. So did Johnson. Hey, hey, LBJ....

There are no innocent presidents. None. If you honestly believe that American presidents don't face moral dilemma then you don't understand what it means to be an American president.

BTW: I voted for Reagan and I'd vote for him again. Reagan committed crimes and should have been impeached. I voted for Bush twice but I would not vote for him again. He clearly chose criminality and lying for his own purposes and not because he was forced to deal with Iraq. Bush's problem wasn't moral dilemma. It was lack of morality and principle to begin with.

 

[Trebuchet]

I do not believe that anyone is claiming that Obama lied about "the Invasion."

Obama lied about his being the most transparent administration in history. In fact, I believe that his is the least transparent administration in history.

If you visit FreeThought Blogs, you'll find some liberals who agree with you.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

First off, I never said anything about killing American civilians. I'm not even sure why you brought up the straw man. Please to explain?

Second, I'm talking about the drone strikes which I find dodgy. We don't live in perfect world. Humans lie, cheat and steal even when they are mostly good. Give that person power and moral dilemma and that person will commit immorality. That's just a fact.

I don't want to live in some dream world where I think American presidents don't have to make difficult decisions in which innocent people die as a result.

You said something about being disappointed. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or just really confused what you are on about. Again, innocent Americans?

I thought you were referring to #16 on jakesteeles linky:

(16) Had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process

Just FYI, I disagree with this particular allegation, as the four citizens were actively engaged in an act of war, in a combat theater, as illegal belligerents,thus rendering the necessity for judicial process moot.

I don't find the drone strikes dodgy at all. They are much more efficient and less likely to cause collateral damage than the options available to other presidents during time of war,(such as carpet bombing).
I still find your statement disturbing.
You stated that he (Pres.Obama) lied and killed civilians and yet you still support him. If you meant his actions regarding the war, fine, but we are not discussing that, and if this was your intent it pretty much renders your statement meaningless, as it is difficult to fault any president for such actions.

I don't know that President Obama has "lied" about anything. I do know that he has been less than sincere in fulfilling his campaign promises, including ones he had the ability to keep (such as the transparency in government promise mentioned above).

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

The Pentagon papers demonstrate conclusively that Nixon was lying about the Vietnam war and he damn well did kill innocent civilians. So did Johnson. Hey, hey, LBJ....

And your point is...? Inasmuch as it is your position that Pres. Obama "lied", Pres. Nixon's relative guilt bears no significance to my statement.

 

[RandFan]

And your point is...? Inasmuch as it is your position that Pres. Obama "lied", Pres. Nixon's relative guilt bears no significance to my statement.

The point is that your logic doesn't pan out. There is no moral inconsistency on my part here. I accept that the position of president is one in which moral dilemma is an integral part and a president must make some very difficult decisions between the lesser of two evils.

Again, it's simply an acceptance of reality. We've never had a perfect president. Before you consider that a straw man, what is the alternative? Someone who is imperfect, human, capable of deception, etc., etc..

 

[RandFan]

You stated that he (Pres.Obama) lied and killed civilians and yet you still support him. If you meant his actions regarding the war, fine, but we are not discussing that, and if this was your intent it pretty much renders your statement meaningless, as it is difficult to fault any president for such actions.

Calling it war doesn't make it good for the human species. It certainly doesn't make it moral. The human race has probably never found a more pernicious fallacy.

Bob: We kill children.
Tom: It's just the war. It's tragic but otherwise okay. Better them than us.

I believe Obama has lied. He's human. I believe Obama has had to face moral dilemma where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Such is the basis of evil. Something I've been studying from an academic perspective this past year.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I believe Obama has lied. He's human. I believe Obama has had to face moral dilemma where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Such is the basis of evil. Something I've been studying from an academic perspective this past year.

When Obama was running for President, he used to call that a false choice. I guess he was lying from the get-go.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you have the facts go with the facts. If you don't then go with your belief. Works for theists.

Calling it war doesn't make it good for the human species. It certainly doesn't make it moral. The human race has probably never found a more pernicious fallacy.

Bob: We kill children.
Tom: It's just the war. It's tragic but otherwise okay. Better them than us.

I believe Obama has lied. He's human. I believe Obama has had to face moral dilemma where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Such is the basis of evil. Something I've been studying from an academic perspective this past year.

Aaaaaa-men!

 

[RandFan]

When Obama was running for President, he used to call that a false choice. I guess he was lying from the get-go.

So, your claim is as follows; Obama said that it is a false choice to presume that a president must at times face choices with only two options?

Source please?

 

[RandFan]

Aaaaaa-men!

You do realize that you are dishonestly taking one statement out of context, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

You do realize that you are dishonestly taking one statement out of context, right?

Lolz! No.

I do believe that you were hoisted by your own petard.