Obama lied about Gruber, What else is new?

[sunmaster14]

Yes, Truman, did Truman have the choice between either dropping the bomb or not dropping the bomb?

Well, that's a tautology. My point is that there were scenarios with both choices that might have achieved a lower death toll. Not dropping the bomb but granting some face-saving or confidence building concessions to the Japanese might have achieved a surrender. Or dropping the bomb on a demonstration target rather than a civilian target might have had the same persuasive effect as killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's not like the Japanese didn't have scientists who could understand how the A-bomb worked.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I don't consider a real choice between two bad options to be immoral.

If the decision requires killing innocent civilians using controversial legal opinions counter to the sovereign laws of another nation then it very well could be.

Like the switch operator who must choose which of two groups of people will die because of a runaway train, a President who is faced with only options in which innocent people die is not necessarily committing an immoral act by choosing one of the options.

Such a decision is not by necessity immoral. Many moral dilemmas are fraught with problems. The trolly problem being a perfect example. Same calculation does not always result in the same behavior.

The analogy, IMO, is fatally flawed because the decision to launch drone strikes is often not, if ever, a ticking time bomb situation. We don't know that killing innocent civilians is requisite to avoid an existential threat.

 

[RandFan]

Well, that's a tautology. My point is that there were scenarios with both choices that might have achieved a lower death toll. Not dropping the bomb but granting some face-saving or confidence building concessions to the Japanese might have achieved a surrender. Or dropping the bomb on a demonstration target rather than a civilian target might have had the same persuasive effect as killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's not like the Japanese didn't have scientists who could understand how the A-bomb worked.

{sigh}

Truman could have chosen to not drop the bomb. That proposition is either true or it is not. What do you think?

 

[RandFan]

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

I'd like some evidence for this.

The first sentence is a declarative. The second is an opinion.

The OP is a claim that Obama lied. The above two sentences directly support the OP's claim. If your "belief" or the declaritive has any basis in fact then you can provide evidence for both propositions.

 

[NoahFence]

I'd like some evidence for this.

The first sentence is a declarative. The second is an opinion.

The OP is a claim that Obama lied. The above two sentences directly support the OP's claim. If your "belief" or the declaritive has any basis in fact then you can provide evidence for both propositions.

I asked for it yesterday. I'm not sure it's coming.

 

[Trebuchet]

Ok, Obama lied about Gruber. (Minor)
Bush II lied about Iraq. (Major)
Clinton lied about blowjobs. (Creepy)
Bush I lied about "read my lips". (Predictable)
Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. (Or was lied to)
Carter lied about something-or-other. (He must have.)
Ford was an idiot.
Nixon lied about Watergate. (Really serious)
Johnson lied about Viet Nam. (Duh!)
Kennedy lied about Viet Nam. (Duh, Duh!)
Eisenhower was correct about the Military-Industrial Complex. But he must have lied about something.
And on, and on, and on.

 

[RandFan]

Ok, Obama lied about Gruber. (Minor)
Bush II lied about Iraq. (Major)
Clinton lied about blowjobs. (Creepy)
Bush I lied about "read my lips". (Predictable)
Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. (Or was lied to)
Carter lied about something-or-other. (He must have.)
Ford was an idiot.
Nixon lied about Watergate. (Really serious)
Johnson lied about Viet Nam. (Duh!)
Kennedy lied about Viet Nam. (Duh, Duh!)
Eisenhower was correct about the Military-Industrial Complex. But he must have lied about something.
And on, and on, and on.

This is so brilliant it is now mine to plagiarize. I want to nominate it. Is this yours?

 

[RandFan]

I asked for it yesterday. I'm not sure it's coming.

Be patient, to every man a little cross. I'm assured that Godot will be along shortly with the information.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, Obama lied about Gruber. (Minor)

Cool, that was the point of the thread! I deleted the rest because the next question is: what else did Obama lie about.

I said he lied about being the most transparent, now it is your turn!

What else did Obama lie about?

Go!

 

[RandFan]

I said he lied about being the most transparent, now it is your turn!

Do you have evidence that he lied? Or are we supposed to just accept it because you claim that it is true?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you have evidence that he lied? Or are we supposed to just accept it because you claim that it is true?

False dichotomy.

Plus, you know, I have read the Snowden releases.

Say, you have been really active in this thread. By all means, I would love to hear your evidence that Obama did indeed have the most transparent administration in history.

Tightens the garters on my socks in anticipation of having them blown off:

Blow me away!

 

[Spindrift]

Cool, that was the point of the thread! I deleted the rest because the next question is: what else did Obama lie about.

I said he lied about being the most transparent, now it is your turn!

What else did Obama lie about?

Go!

Can you link to the quote where Obama lied about being the most transparent? I'd like to see the context.

 

[RandFan]

False dichotomy.

What's the other option? Why did you make the claim if it isn't true?

Plus, you know, I have read the Snowden releases.

Evidence would be more compelling than a smiling face and an assertion that you "read" the Snowden releases. I'll be honest though, I didn't know that Snowden released everything known and lied about by every president in American history because that is the only way the releases could have any evidentiary value.

Say, you have been really active in this thread. By all means, I would love to hear your evidence that Obama did indeed have the most transparent administration in history.

I take the null hypothesis. It's your claim. It's your burden of proof.

 

[The Big Dog]

Can you link to the quote where Obama lied about being the most transparent? I'd like to see the context.

Your Google broke? Hah ha!

Here ya go:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...he-most-transparent-administration-in-history

 

[DavidJames]

False dichotomy.

Plus, you know, I have read the Snowden releases.

Say, you have been really active in this thread. By all means, I would love to hear your evidence that Obama did indeed have the most transparent administration in history.

despite being here for 8 years the most basic of all concepts still elludes you, specifically, support your claim with evidence.

 

[Spindrift]

Your Google broke? Hah ha!

Here ya go:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...he-most-transparent-administration-in-history

Okay. Where is the part where he lied? It seems to me that in comparison with previous administrations that on as a whole the Obama administration is more transparent.

He never said his administration was 100% transparent. He only has to be a little more transparent. Please show me a prior administration that was more transparent.

 

[The Big Dog]

What's the other option? Why did you make the claim if it isn't true?

Evidence would be more compelling than a smiling face and an assertion that you "read" the Snowden releases. I'll be honest though, I didn't know that Snowden released everything known and lied about by every president in American history because that is the only way the releases could have any evidentiary value.

I take the null hypothesis. It's your claim. It's your burden of proof.

That is a curious argument about what false dichotomy means.

As far as taking the null hypothesis it would seem that the burden of proof is obama's or anyone willing to post repeatedly in a thread about his lies and is willing to be his champion.

Will you be his champion?

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay. Where is the part where he lied? It seems to me that in comparison with previous administrations that on as a whole the Obama administration is more transparent.

He never said his administration was 100% transparent. He only has to be a little more transparent. Please show me a prior administration that was more transparent.

The part where he said his was the most transparant administration in history!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ations-abject-failure-on-transparency/252387/

And that was before we found out that his Secretary of State was running the damn state department out of a server in her basement!

George Washington did not run the state department out of a server in his basement.

Qed

 

[Spindrift]

The part where he said his was the most transparant administration in history!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ations-abject-failure-on-transparency/252387/

And that was before we found out that his Secretary of State was running the God damn state department out of a server in her basement!

George Washington did not run the state department out of a server in his basement.

Qed

So you can't name a more transparent administration?

 

[RandFan]

That is a curious argument about what false dichotomy means.

It simply means to limit the options available. I'm trying to work with you. What are the other options?

As far as taking the null hypothesis it would seem that the burden of proof is obama's or anyone willing to post repeatedly in a thread about his lies and is willing to be his champion.

I only want to know if you can support your claim. That's all. I'm not Obama's lawyer. I simply don't think you've made your case and to be honest, you, by your own admission, haven't done it.

So, can we in good faith admit that neither of us know?