|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Obama hasn't changed his mind upon seeing new information. He just lied during the campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| You sound just like one of those talking head 'liberal' hacks on TV (unnecessary). You certainly DO want to morally defend Obama and the Democrat party, because that's exactly what you've done (I mentioned defending the tactics). You make lame ass excuses to downplay his responsibility as the current president, trying to shuffle the blame to the previous administration (whom, as far as I can tell nobody in this thread is defending (unimportant)). |
You make so much noise. There was only one good piece of discussion there: that I want to shuffle blame to the previous administration. I would probably accept this. They legitimized ignoring habeas corpus, the legalized torture, they killed innocent people in jail and they ignored the Geneva convention. You've failed to shown that you've understood my main point - these precedents would not have been set without Cheney's actions.
Catman manages to make a better point than you in only one sentence.
| catman wrote: |
| Obama hasn't changed his mind upon seeing new information. He just lied during the campaign. |
I would argue he has shown a willingness to change past policies (closing Guantanamo, outlawing waterboarding, civilian trial) in line with his campaign but he has (as the article states) been held back by politics. He has decided some policies should be extended; I'm not going to argue he's correct about that decision.
Last edited by RufusW on Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama hasn't changed his mind upon seeing new information. He just lied during the campaign. |
I'd say that's less of a point and more of an allegation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| You sound just like one of those talking head 'liberal' hacks on TV (unnecessary). You certainly DO want to morally defend Obama and the Democrat party, because that's exactly what you've done (I mentioned defending the tactics). You make lame ass excuses to downplay his responsibility as the current president, trying to shuffle the blame to the previous administration (whom, as far as I can tell nobody in this thread is defending (unimportant)). |
You make so much noise. There was only one good piece of discussion there: that I want to shuffle blame to the previous administration. I would probably accept this. They legitimized ignoring habeas corpus, the legalized torture, they killed innocent people in jail and they ignored the Geneva convention. You've failed to shown that you've understood my main point - these precedents would not have been set without Cheney's actions. |
Who cares. NOBODY is defending Cheney. Cheney no longer has any control and is not preventing Obama from undoing everything done under the Bush administration. You are simply making LAME excuses for Obama. Period.
| Quote: |
Catman manages to make a better point than you in only one sentence.
| catman wrote: |
| Obama hasn't changed his mind upon seeing new information. He just lied during the campaign. |
I would argue he has shown a willingness to change past policies (closing Guantanamo, outlawing waterboarding, civilian trial) in line with his campaign but he has (as the article states) been held back by politics. He has decided some policies should be extended; I'm not going to argue he's correct about that decision. |
NO, he hasn't been "held back". Your attempt to spin things (casting Obama as a 'victim'  ) is so pathetic it's hard to read. As Catman said, Obama just LIED. He lied blatantly and did so to get elected. It's really that simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| NO, he hasn't been "held back". Your attempt to spin things (casting Obama as a 'victim' :roll:) is so pathetic it's hard to read. As Catman said, Obama just LIED. He lied blatantly and did so to get elected. It's really that simple. |
Okay, so how do you explain Obama wanting civilian trial in NYC and now backing away from this or signing an executive order to close Guantanamo and backing away from this or his outlawing of water boarding.
These things don't support your argument. Unless he purposefully enticed Republicans to attack him so he had a reason to back-down. Seems unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| NO, he hasn't been "held back". Your attempt to spin things (casting Obama as a 'victim' ) is so pathetic it's hard to read. As Catman said, Obama just LIED. He lied blatantly and did so to get elected. It's really that simple. |
Okay, so how do you explain Obama wanting civilian trial in NYC and now backing away from this or signing an executive order to close Guantanamo and backing away from this or his outlawing of water boarding.
These things don't support your argument. Unless he purposefully enticed Republicans to attack him so he had a reason to back-down. Seems unlikely. |
Do you seriously not get it? It's a simple case of "talk is cheap". Obama will say anything to make people like you believe him (and sadly it works). Nearly all politicians lie for a living. That's why actions alone are what count. You can spend all your time trying to "analyze" what Obama has SAID in his speeches (a complete waste of time since his credibility is nil), or you can look at what he has actually DONE.
As for your last point, actually it seems very likely, since the whole Dem/Rep fake "opposition" is just a dog and pony show meant to persuade weak minded people into choosing sides, when both sides have the same overall agenda. This has been shown to be the case ad nauseum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Obama acted (Presidential order to close Guantanamo, civilian trials, stopping waterboarding) but this was entirely an act, including him backing down? Again, I would say it's unlikely.
I believe the two parties do differ in certain policies and this is what we're discussing. If you're going to present this conspiracy theory as the end point in all discussions then it's not worth starting the discussion.
Realists need to discuss what is most likely happening; two parties that are similar having disagreements over certain policies, otherwise it's pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| So Obama acted (Presidential order to close Guantanamo, civilian trials, stopping waterboarding) but this was entirely an act, including him backing down? Again, I would say it's unlikely. |
Of course you would say that. Bottom line is you have nothing of substance (except meaningless speculation based on broken promises) to show that Obama's actual agenda is any different from Cheney's. I on the other hand can point to what Obama has actually carried on doing: the exact same things Bush and Cheney did. On that basis, there is no real debate.
| Quote: |
| I believe the two parties do differ in certain policies and this is what we're discussing. If you're going to present this conspiracy theory as the end point in all discussions then it's not worth starting the discussion. |
There is no conspiracy theory. That's just your way of brushing off the facts. The two parties only differ ostensibly. In terms of the wars abroad, the banker bailouts, the Fed, working for special interests, taking away our civil liberties etc. etc., there is no difference. Only the rhetoric is different.
| Quote: |
| Realists need to discuss what is most likely happening |
I'm afraid you're about the least qualified person on here to do so. Really, you're not even American, you've shown repeatedly that you know basically nothing about our political system (except what you've gleaned from Michael Moore propaganda films), and you even think the Fed(eral Reserve) is the same thing as the FBI...
Moreover, referring to yourself as a "realist" (suggesting that you are somehow objective or 'impartial') is pretty rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
At least your first comment added to the conversation this time. Again, Obama took action on certain things. For example, he outlawed water boarding, Cheney legalised it. So you will still contend there is no difference... even though this is plainly a difference of policy? These are the subtleties you don't want to grasp but I want to debate.
I'm not going to engage you about the conspiracy theory you bring to all discussions as your end point.
I'm not going to respond to your ad hominem attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| At least your first comment added to the conversation this time. Again, Obama took action on certain things. For example, he outlawed water boarding, Cheney legalised it. So you will still contend there is no difference... even though this is plainly a difference of policy? These are the subtleties you don't want to grasp but I want to debate. |
This is just you buying into propaganda, accepting it unquestioningly at face value. Obama hasn't stopped torture, the loop holes are gaping. There's tons of articles on this subject, many of which listed on here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=18961
This one sums it up pretty well:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
| Quote: |
I'm not going to engage you about the conspiracy theory you bring to all discussions as your end point.
I'm not going to respond to your ad hominem attack. |
By all means, don't engage then. You'll be doing the world a favor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
It only took you 3 pages and you actually provided some sources to discuss instead of just attacking my theorizing. Well done. I'll have a look.
| visitorq wrote: |
| By all means, don't engage then. You'll be doing the world a favor. |
This makes you sound like a child.
Last edited by RufusW on Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll start off with the article you said summarizes it well.
Firstly, it was written 6 days after Obama inauguration. Something more up-to-date might be better.
The article relies heavily on hypotheticals, loop-holes within the new restrictions e.g. the wording of 'armed conflict' in the restrictions. This plays out my earlier point of precedents. Cheney created the policy, Obama tried to repeal it but (purposefully?) didn't go far enough. Who actually created this gap in the law? Cheney, not Obama. Obama decided not to repeal something that already had precedent due to Cheney - Cheney's revenge.
So it is really an article about Obama not going far enough, but certainly challenging the previous rules. For example, forcing the army to follow the field manual. Unlike the article, we're not discussing whether this itself should be legal.
Also, many of the articles cited in your first link are either about something other than anti-terror (which is not what we're discussing) or about prosecuting Bush/Cheney. I support prosecution, but this is one area where Obama certainly faced the most amount of resistance (even if he thought prosecution was a good idea). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
I'll start off with the article you said summarizes it well.
Firstly, it was written 6 days after Obama inauguration. Something more up-to-date might be better.
The article relies heavily on hypotheticals, loop-holes within the new restrictions e.g. the wording of 'armed conflict' in the restrictions. This plays out my earlier point of precedents. Cheney created the policy, Obama tried to repeal it but (purposefully) didn't go far enough. Who actually created this gap in the law? Cheney, not Obama. Obama decided not to repeal something that already had precedent due to Cheney - Cheney's revenge.
So it is really an article about Obama not going far enough, but certainly challenging the previous rules. For example, forcing the army to follow the field manual. Unlike the article, we're not discussing whether this itself should be legal.
Also, many of the articles cited in your first link are either about something other than anti-terror (which is not what we're discussing) or about prosecuting Bush/Cheney. I support prosecution, but this is one area where Obama certainly faced the most amount of resistance (even if he thought prosecution was a good idea). |
Meaningless drivel. So much spin and disingenuity, it's not ever worth my time to refute you. I'll just leave those articles for others to look at if they want. I don't care if you reply anymore or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh. Well, not a very good argument, but fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
