RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?"

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?"

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 12:03:04 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And where was your protest when these wars were launched?

Can't speak for Merc...he does a pretty fine job of it himself. I didn't protest the wars. Didn't go along with all the stated reasons for being there but on average, didn't protest them.

I have a question though...why is it that almost every time someone from the right/conservative viewpoint asks a simple question that pinpricks what the left is doing, your response...rather than answer the question from a defensible position...is to turn around and ask a question?

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 12:08:49 PM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Probably the same reason the initial questions are asked instead of laying out defensible positions.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/15/2009 12:09:13 PM >

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 12:13:41 PM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And where was your protest when these wars were launched?

I have a question though...why is it that almost every time someone from the right/conservative viewpoint asks a simple question that pinpricks what the left is doing, your response...rather than answer the question from a defensible position...is to turn around and ask a question?

I don't know, did you actually read beyond the second post of the thread?

OOOOps, that was another question wasn't it?

Oh shit, I did it again didn't I?

Read through the entire thread, I've supported my positions.

If you do, and don't think I have, then come at me with a specific question instead of this rhetorical nonsense.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 12:56:22 PM

Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I have a question though...why is it that almost every time someone from the right/conservative viewpoint asks a simple question that pinpricks what the left is doing, your response...rather than answer the question from a defensible position...is to turn around and ask a question?

(ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

And why SHOULDN'T we answer a question with a question?

When you pitch one slow over the plate like that, somebody's gotta take a swing at the ball.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 6:07:07 PM

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

Perhaps because it's the most obvious way to defuse a leading, loaded question... by turning it back on the person who asked it in the first place. Now, if you want to actually ask something constructive, perhaps then we could have an actual conversation. But so long as we keep getting this snide crap, then you, and your side, won't deserve the real information.

Remember this, from the early days of computing?

"GARGABE IN, GARBAGE OUT." ...and you guys, my friend, have been slinging nothing but used cat litter since about 2003.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 8:39:19 PM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

The protest isn't completely dead, Merc, Code Pink has a statement for us.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=4793

They are calling for us to pull the troops out of the country and begin tireless negotiation with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do see a problem or two with that stategy.

We got cornered into invading Afghanistan. When things started with special ops forces on the ground, and B-52's flying air support, I hoped we might get away with it. It didn't work out that way.

I'm fully in favor of a "fuck this" strategy in Afghanistan. Walk away.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/15/2009 9:42:07 PM

Posts: 2026
Joined: 12/29/2006
Status: offline

Imagine you're a chemist. You're prevented from driving to work unless there's someone else to accompany you. Now your driver's license is taken away, and you have to get to work by bicycle. Now your job is taken. Now you're prevented from leaving your house.

Are you reciting your constitutional rights now? Calling your lawyer and your congressman and your TV station and the cops?
Now imagine you're a woman in Afghanistan, and no one will listening.

In the meantime, put your money where your mouths are:
Jay and Mavis Leno's charity:
http://www.helpafghanwomen.com

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 6:52:33 AM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Probably the same reason the initial questions are asked instead of laying out defensible positions.

Is there a defensible position? Let's hear it.

Here's another question; how is escalation and additional troops playing with the Taliban?

ANSWER: "The more troops they send, the more targets we have" OBAMA's VIETNAM

quote:

GARGABE IN, GARBAGE OUT

We're not talking about White House policy, or Congress, Bonfire. There are US soldiers dying, the same "innocent" civilians and children being maimed, the same bad sentiments being projected against the USA and its policies. Why do you support those efforts and the Administration who has the power to end them? Why is the Democratic party, and in particular the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, championing the escalation that prior to January she solicited "disrupting" protests? How is is possible to be such a hypocrite or support such a hypocritical party? Clear enough questions?

quote:

I And why SHOULDN'T we answer a question with a question?

I agree with that aptly named 'spinner'; especially when there answers sound familiarly as Bush apologists. They don't like being Obama apologists using the same playbook. Much preferable to attack the messenger holding up the mirror.

I'm still looking into some specifics, but next, I'll focus on the Administration's 'great' (notice the sarcastic use of the 'bracket' Rule) results with employment.

However blood spilled on foreign soil without any plan or end in sight seems to be more pressing. As I stated from the beginning - no deployment should have ever taken place; in Iraq, and especially in Afghanistan. But you guys, and ladies, go ahead; rationalize why its great and the perfect way to spend human and economic resources. Your attempts at distraction speak for the lack of pragmatic results, or belief.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 8:07:12 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

Probably the same reason the initial questions are asked instead of laying out defensible positions.

Is there a defensible position? Let's hear it.

You're getting sloppy, Merc. The comment was to the original claims tossing your rhetorical questions instead of laying out a position. The criticism addressed in the above quote answers a challengers' demand about why he got more questions in response. Enter the above answer.

So absolutely. If there's a position, let's hear it. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Questions aren't arguments.

quote:

However blood spilled on foreign soil without any plan or end in sight seems to be more pressing. As I stated from the beginning - no deployment should have ever taken place; in Iraq, and especially in Afghanistan. But you guys, and ladies, go ahead; rationalize why its great and the perfect way to spend human and economic resources. Your attempts at distraction speak for the lack of pragmatic results, or belief.

I know that you're much smarter than this, and it saddens me when I see you "argue" this way. It doesn't bode well for reasonable discourse, something this country needs, especially among differing camps. But it was clearly your intent from the start to stir things up. I guess life must be dull over there.

What you're deliberately ignoring is the wisdom of pulling out now that we're there, what the consequences of that would be, and what would be the best way to go about, ensuring long term security for us and them. That's a tall order. McCain and Clinton's solution was to stay indefinitely. It's a mess, and absolutely, we never should have gone in. Of course, not just Bush, but a whole heapin' helpin' of indignant Americans were all for running over there and kicking some butt, ignoring what that would mean. You notice the commanders weren't gung ho about it at all. They knew what it meant--but weren't considered.

So now we have a president who at least gets that it's about Al-Qaeda, not world domination. And he's got a populace with a large bunch of folks and their leaders who don't want to "cut and run" as they call it. Further, he looks at long term consequences when making decisions. I like that.

I do want us out of Iraq, as quickly as reasonable to leave behind a stable country. That's a challenge, but doable. Afghanistan is more complicated, and Al-Qaeda is a threat. I agree that going in was a mistake, but now that we're there, and doing it seriously instead of playing at it whilef focusing on Iraq, we should finish. We have good commanders, and Obama listens to them. That's already an improvement.

I didn't expect him to end two wars in seven months.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/16/2009 8:23:56 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 8:27:54 AM

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

How many kids has Obama killed? = 0

How many kids have Bush/Cheaney killed with their war based on a lie of WMD?

= 4,400 US troops
= 30,000 + wounded US forces
=101,000 + civilians
=6,000,000+ refugees displaced

(Numbers do not include losses to armies part of the "coalition of the unwilling")

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 8:56:52 AM

Posts: 203
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And where was your protest when these wars were launched?

Feel free to do the appropriate thread search - I recommended a nuclear solution with not one soldier on the ground, from September 12, 2001 to today. Granted, not a popular solution, but that was, and is, my position regarding any terrorist attack. I thought then, and think now, that not one drop of US soldier blood should be shed for those people; who have a 3000 year history of killing each other. When the towers fell, notice Saddam and any other of the regimes who held parties, that unless bin Laden and/or the other orchestrator's were delivered, a LOT of their sand would be turned into glass. And if bin Landen wasn't the perpetrator and/or planner, no matter. The action would have sufficed to insure we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan today and not one soldier or the family of soldiers, would have had to suffer as they have since 9/11.

However, unlike Obama, I didn't run for President on the pacifist, USA is bad to intervene, "I'm Sorry!", I'll withdraw immediately platform.

anyone who so flippantly recommends the use of nuclear weapons is not of the intellectual capacity to warrant rebuttal

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 9:18:40 PM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

anyone who so flippantly recommends the use of nuclear weapons is not of the intellectual capacity to warrant rebuttal

Wow - you are just sad. Pity you don't have such animosity against those who have the ability to end the issue, versus someone making an clear distinction of what is ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lets use the numbers provided by expert Mars;

quote:

= 4,400 US troops
= 30,000 + wounded US forces
=101,000 + civilians
=6,000,000+ refugees displaced

President Obama is doing his best to keep up that pace; and both of you obviously support him. How right wing of you! You're supporting this - not me.

Happen to see the new Advocate, or don't you're parents allow you to receive that kind of magazine? I'm a subscriber, pretty amazing huh? On the cover is your messiah, Obama. The caption - NOPE! Couldn't agree more.

(in reply to rikigrl)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/16/2009 9:26:20 PM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Right-wing, Merc? Sounds downright Neo-Con to me!

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/17/2009 6:40:25 AM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Probably the same reason the initial questions are asked instead of laying out defensible positions.

But one doesn't need to lay out a defensible position when initially asking a question. Usually the tactic of answering a question with a question is utilized when you do not have a defensible answer to the question. So far, the "proof" provided is just more variation on the "Bush lied, people died" defense. That addresses nothing of what was asked in the initial question, no matter how you spin your answer about how you have answered the question. Funny how when someone calling leftists on their paucity of answers does so, it is snide. When leftists call conservatives on their lack of emotionalistic answers, it is "holding up the light to the emotionless cretins".

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 8/17/2009 6:46:07 AM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/17/2009 6:44:04 AM

Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline

I support the war in Afghanistan and I think using these causlties as political footballs to score political points [by both sides] is distasteful in the extreme. THese people gave their lives for their country and what they believed in [irrespective if you agree with their beliefs or not] raping their memory to stick it to the opposition is disgusting.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/18/2009 8:00:33 AM

elegantcdgoddess

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I recommended a nuclear solution with not one soldier on the ground, from September 12, 2001 to today. ......... I thought then, and think now, that not one drop of US soldier blood should be shed for those people; who have a 3000 year history of killing each other.

I think this is amazing solution. Let's bring them freedom by nuking the shit out of them. Whoever survive will have the right to vote, and few more fingers to do that properly. Sadly, not only you suggest that we should kill them all to bring them peace, but also that we are there to bring them democracy.

Hmmm, should we do the same with California? Take all the troops out of Cali, so no soldiers will be harm, then question why such democratic state never had a governor who is black, female or gay, and just nuke them. Not one drop of US soldier blood should be shed for those people who have tears of history of killing each other. Right?

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/18/2009 8:10:33 AM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Sadly, not only you suggest that we should kill them all to bring them peace, but also that we are there to bring them democracy.

LOL - If that's the conclusion you came to based upon all the posts of this thread - there is nothing I can do but laugh.

I appreciate your continuing support of the use of US troops and resources used in the ongoing effort to kill the locals slower and with less efficiency.

Regarding CA - your position that the attack of the World Trade Center originated from there is, if nothing else, unique. It must be the point since the nuclear reference came from that perspective and your reply must be kept in similar context. Were you right, yes I'd say the action was similarly justified.

However, you should note, that I also suggested a time frame and remote example of the consequence for not turning over the 9/11 perpetrators. So, what do you say about doing the demo on Catalina? I know many of the locals who would welcome it since they can't afford to live there anymore.

Thanks for your perspective.

quote:

Sadly, not only you suggest that we should kill them all to bring them peace, but also that we are there to bring them democracy.

(in reply to elegantcdgoddess)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/18/2009 8:16:39 AM

Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline

Tht's not fair though mercnbeth. The soldiers are being used as A that is their job and B America and Britian adhere as much as possible to the rules of war. I agree with the atomic bombings on Japan. However what led to peace there would not work in this situation. It would in fact make it drastically worse. If I am killed in the army I would not see it as a waste but dying for what I believe in something I have no desire to but will accept if necessary. I would hate to think that my death could be used as justification to launch nuclear strikes at civilian targets. I understand that you don't want soldiers from your country dying but advocating this target will not make things better. It will in fact probably lead to far more military deaths when other nuclear powers respond in kind.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/18/2009 8:25:28 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Probably the same reason the initial questions are asked instead of laying out defensible positions.

But one doesn't need to lay out a defensible position when initially asking a question. Usually the tactic of answering a question with a question is utilized when you do not have a defensible answer to the question. So far, the "proof" provided is just more variation on the "Bush lied, people died" defense. That addresses nothing of what was asked in the initial question, no matter how you spin your answer about how you have answered the question. Funny how when someone calling leftists on their paucity of answers does so, it is snide. When leftists call conservatives on their lack of emotionalistic answers, it is "holding up the light to the emotionless cretins".

CD, in the context of the argument from which that reply was lifted, the initial poster was not asking a question, but throwing out rhetorical gaunlets as if arguments--and then challenged respondents who returned the favor.

It's great for sophistry, but pointless for substantive debate.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids h... - 8/18/2009 8:29:27 AM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

Starbuck,
Actually I take the comment for what it is, an attempt to distract from the point of the thread, the Democratic plurality in Congress, and a man in the White House who ran with a 'No Foreign Intervention' platform plank. Who used the word "immediately" in answer to how fast he'd withdraw from Iran. Who said that the "embarrassment" of GITMO would be over as soon as he took office. Instead we have more troops deployed, an indefinite withdraw plan from Iran, and GITMO still open for business. I just wonder what happened to those campaign ideals?

As a corollary, I also wonder what happened to the very vocal anti-war factions that used to post regularly about how it all would be over if only the Democrats were in power and they had "their man" in the White House?

The fact that they need to focus on my personal feelings about what I personally would have done on 9/12/01 after the building my business was located was smoldering is an indication that they'd rather talk about someone who doesn't have any power to do anything. It points to two things. First - they would prefer me being the topic, because they desire to keep the focus off the person and party who can really do something. Second, it shows desperation and a loss of faith.

quote:

That's not fair though mercnbeth.

'Fair' is a place they have rides and cotton candy. It's an artificial condition that in no way represents reality.

(in reply to Starbuck09)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?"

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

6.732