55 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops
expatriate wrote:
I've been dealing with the issues at hand. I'm full of facts, and can weave the classic debate elements of logos, ethos, and pathos in an incredible array of combinations to construct arguments. I'm actually quite adept at analogy and metaphor, too. I just wish I had more time to get warmed up.

Unlike some people, I'm not a one-trick pony that resorts to questioning an opponents character as my only means of debate.

I suggest you look up the definition of "strawman", because I don't think you understand it. A strawman is a sham argument set up to be easily refuted. I don't think there's much in my post you can refute.

- Kerry bragged about his Vietnam service continually in 2004, and the Democrats made it a point to argue how his wartime service made him better able to be commander in chief than a former Guard pilot. But now the Democrats are bashing McCain's service as irrelevant because their guy has nothing.

"Please provide a link where "Democrats" have been bashing Mcains Service! I have not seen hide nor hair of talk of this nature from anyone and I watch and read the news fairly consistently. Maybe one of your guys like Rush is the only one reporting this.

Also, provide a link to reports of Democrats during the 04 election making it a point to claim due to Kerry's service he was a better choice then Bush. Again, I don't recall that in the way you are saying it at all. I do remember the swift boat liars"

- Republican rules knocked Stevens out of his committee positions, but Democrats haven't done squat about Jefferson. By the way, Stevens was indicted on 7 counts of false statements on financial disclosures; Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, to include fraud, bribery, and racketeering.

"If Jefferson is guilty he should be accountable. I am not versed enough in the details of his case, but again all I can say if guilty he should be accountable. "

- Global warming advocates have, in fact, used global warming to explain glacier retreats and advances.

"They are people on both sides of that issue with differing agendas. Some agendas are motivated by true concern and some by greed. Again, that's on both sides of that issue. "

- We saw nothing but defense out of the Democrats when it came to Clinton, because that was his "private life." And yet they yelled for Craig's head.

"And yet they yelled for Craigs head" Oh my they "yelled" for his head, how scary. C'mon man you gotta come up with something better then that.

What many people where upset about with Clinton was the insane amount of tax payer money spent on a witch hunt over a hummer between two willing participants. That's indeed skummy for a president, but not against the law. Also, just a little bit different then being caught by an undercover cop soliciting for a hummer or to give a hummer in a mens restroom. That is against the law. "

- Affirmative action programs boil down to giving advantage to someone based on the color of skin. Change "black" to "white" when examining a policy, and see what happens.

"I said before their was a time when affirmative action was needed IMO. That time may in fact be over although it doesn't mean racism and prejudice is dead."

- Islamist anger has centered on western culture and the US for over 50 years -- historical fact.

"Have we not been exerting strong influence in that region for the past fifty years. Not getting into the right or wrong of it, but common sense dictates not everyone over there might be happy about it. What if oil had been discovered here and we had Middle Eastern countries drilling and interfering in our way of life. We'd probably act up a bit ourselves in that situation. "

- The lack of terrorist attack against America is the longest period of its type in decades -- fact.

"Well gee, after 9-11 you'd hope we'd tighten up security a bit. Also, attacks on the scale of 9-11 take many years to formulate and execute. We should have more resources here and in Afghanistan and Pakistan to guard against that instead of tied up fighting an insurgency."

- The Democrats insisted on setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq independent on conditions, thinking it would force the Iraqis to step up. If you announce to your enemy that you're going to leave the battlefield to him on a certain date regardless of what he does, it ain't victory. It's called surrender -- look it up in the dictionary.

"So, we should stay 100 years? It is acceptable to you that we continue to have casulties two per day, one per day, three per day, for the next ten years. Don't you think our troops have earned the right to come home and be with their families instead of riding around in a Humvee in what amounts to a game of Russian roulette?"

- The US had no significant national interests in Kosovo, other than to stop genocide. But if you accept that premise as a national interest, then you have to accept that same premise as valid in Iraq. What was going on in Kosovo was not a threat to a vital strategic interest for the world, nor did it have potential to threaten a significant US ally.

"Difference is we were lied to about the reasons for Iraq from day one. I guess it's acceptable to you but I prefer my Gov. doesn't lie to us on that scale if at all. "

- The death tolls are historical fact. Every Democratic administration since the Mexican War has used military force against a sovereign nation. The same doesn't hold true for Republicans.

"Oh geez, back to the future again. Your flux capacitor must not be working properly you didn't bring up the French revolution and blame it on the democrats. Hurry get it fixed."

- We've already debated Obama's anti-gun record. Look at the records of majority leadership in the House and Senate, plus the records of Democratic Judiciary committee leaders and membership.

"I'm not afraid like you are that my guns will be taken if Obama is elected. In fact I make the claim I will own more then I do today under his Presidency. I will be happy to verify that over the years if he wins. "

Go ahead, if it's a "strawman" you ought to be able to easily refute it. But I doubt that you'll do anything but dodge and make some sort of condescending claim about my character.

You do a good enough job on your own showcasing your dodging ability and character.

Quote:

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

As predicted -- a one trick pony with no way to answer but character assassination.

That's why liberals are good at getting power, but poor at keeping it. They throw rocks and tap into negativity to get elected, but once they're held accountable for producing, they fall apart.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops
expatriate wrote:
As predicted -- a one trick pony with no way to answer but character assassination.

That's why liberals are good at getting power, but poor at keeping it. They throw rocks and tap into negativity to get elected, but once they're held accountable for producing, they fall apart.

Expat, you are severely blind to your bias and prejudice (I aint taking in the racial sense either). The truth is unless I totally agreed with you and backed up your ideological views you would make those claims. You, truth be told, are more of a one trick pony, but you and your fellow ideologues are unable to see that.

You attempt to put forth an image of yourself as one who is studied above all others in history and therefore your view has to be the only correct one. You are obviously a very intelligent and educated man, but a right wing conservative zealot who's only card is to blame the evil left for every ill in the world.

Unfortunate.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

So let me get this straight. In response to the positions I put forward and a prediction that you would reply with character assassination, your retort is:

- I am not only biased and prejudiced, but also blind to it;

- You can't express your positions because of my opinion;

- The old "I'm not, you are" stuff the rest of us gave up in grade school;

- I'm an intellectual tyrant with no room for views besides his own;

- I'm a "right wing zealot" who can only blame the "evil" left.

As I said --- you're capable of nothing but name calling and trying to turn an expressed position into a character study of an opponent. Your tactics are tired, pedestrian, and predictable, and you're therefore woefully underequipped when it comes to intellectual discourse.

I'm not opposed to other opinions. But I don't just go around collecting intellectual bumper stickers and repeating rhetoric. I believe in what I do based on research and study -- not because I hitched a ride on fad politics. I will agree with liberal views when they can put forward arguments that will hold water.

You haven't convinced me because your arguments have been intellectually weak and you try to cover it up with emotional camouflage. That may work with the gullible, but you're not among simple-minded people here.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

Dude, I have responded to your claims even quoting your post and addressing them point by point. You may not agree or like my assertions but you can't say I'm dodging them. You have been awful trigger happy yourself in throwing around labels. Again, I wouldn't expect you to see that though.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

You're not addressing them here, though, are you? You're spending a lot of time talking about me, but not the points I raise. That's called dodging -- diverting attention from the issue by changing the subject to something else. In your case, it's almost always character examination. f you're want to have any credibility as a debater you need to refute points, not avoid them. No one ever won a boxing match by running around the ring trying not to get hit.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

Expat, I addressed the initial point of this thread about Obama's trip. I then addressed the points you threw at me. You are the one who drifts into past history and blaming democrats for every war going back to the ice age. You going to bring up Ted Kennedy again or Congressman Jefferson. You've done that countless times instead of staying on topic.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

I believe the topic at the moment is my piece about having to suspend reality to be a liberal. I've been waiting to defend it while you have made five different posts discussing my character and making excuses why you won't discuss it.

I discuss history because it's relevant to the discussion. In fact, our whole legal system runs on historical precedent. I've brought up Jefferson in response to mulitiple discussions about Republican corruption -- but I don't recall ever seeing you do anything but evade the issue once holes started opening up in your argument.

And I've never blamed the Democrats for every war since the Ice Age -- so stop exaggerating. I blamed them for every war between the Civil War and Desert Storm. If you can find a significant military conflict during that 125 year period that DIDN'T start under a Democratic administration, I'd love to hear about it.

I also stated that every Democratic president since the Mexican war has used military force against a sovereign nation. If you have any evidence to refute that (or the casualty numbers), I'd be happy to see it.

So put your money where your mouth is -- prove me wrong on those points. As an added challenge, see if you can do it without trying to make it a character discussion. Are you going to box, or are you going to run around the ring some more?

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

Brother, I'm not interested in debating wars from the Civil to Vietnam. You've obviously studied this length of history and are well versed in showing off your knowledge of it. I frankly don't care if every conflict in that time period was started by a blood hungry Democrat. From my perspective I am sure the realistic view of those conflicts is that they were multi faceted and had many reasons other then the meanie liberals started them all for evil liberal reasons which is what you seem to want to say.

You are the history buff and master, I concede that to you.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Barack Hussein Obama and our troops

I never said "blood-hungry Democrat." Wars start for all kinds of reasons, and the concept of a "just" war is an extended discussion in itself. My only point is that the Democrats should be honest with history, rather than trying to sell the idea that they are all about peace and Republicans just want war.

No leader wants war. But no leader can guarantee four years of peace, because no one can guarantee control of what other nations do. Rather than bury my head in the sand and simply assume he'll keep us out of war, I examine a candidate's policies in terms of enhancing global stability, protecting America's interests, resolving disputes, and how to wage war if war comes despite one's best efforts to prevent it. By that yardstick, Obama is lacking in my opinion.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
The Facts on BHOCVC1306/17/2008 18:55 pm
ShoesWhelland008/10/2008 09:05 am
Obama to Troops: "You make a pretty good photo op.&quotexpatriate311/25/2009 03:09 am
Humane Society endorses Barack Hussein ObamaWhelland2109/26/2008 22:16 pm
Nuclear energyWhelland108/12/2008 11:16 am