Syria

[Ranz]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

It starts 1 minute in so give it a second, but Russell Brand has a brilliant zinger of a comment concerning Syria. As well as American fashion companies complicit in Nazi murder.

I think it was mentioned on the show this week.

In any case, if you enjoyed the clip, read this, it is fantastic.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by scotticus

What a gross, simplistic view of people you happen to disagree with. You don't think there as many or more single issue voters on the right? (Guns, abortions, gays, teaching science in schools, etc.) I can probably list a dozen reasons why I voted for Obama and a handful more where I wish he had different positions (including gay marriage in 2008).

Everyone votes on their issue. Abortion, guns, gays, religion, etc. Nobody views the comprehensive health of the nation, only single hot issues. But no, you're right, everybody votes with a holistic view which is why they constantly elect the shittiest presidents they can.

I'm sure you had a lot of single controversial issues for why you voted for Obama, but the left agreed wholeheartedly that Bush was bad for the nation, and I agreed with that. War, the national debt, foreign policy, the expansion of executive power and trampling of the Constitution, these are things that affect every person of every sexuality and creed and gender and determine the real future of the nation. Obama is just as bad and possibly worse than Bush in every respect regarding those issues, and that was clear in 2008.

You can tell me I'm wrong, but go back to 2006 and every liberal who voted for Obama agreed Bush was ruining the country for the reasons above stated. So either Obama sucks and liberals abandoned the nation over politicized single issues, or Bush was great.

I don't know why you brought up right vs left. I'm not in the business of right vs left, and you immediately assuming that I'm talking about that is a gross, simplistic, and stupid view of people. I was talking about the American people, which includes right AND left, and I stated that very clearly.

Originally Posted by scotticus

Also, are you seriously calling gay marriage a politicized minority issue? If a politician doesn't think a gay person deserves every single right as a heterosexual, then every other word out of their mouth is suspect. That's as stupid as thinking the world is 6000 years old or that evolution isn't real.

You complain about partisanism a little bit down, but then you participate in that very same thing. Democrats whipping their party into a fervor about gay marriage to avoid being held to account for their nation-fucking retardation is the very definition of a politicized minority issue.

Originally Posted by scotticus

I'm so sick of this red vs. blue bullshit and entrenched ideologies. Talk about specific issues, or shut your fucking trap.

So maybe stop doing it, then. That's probably why you're sick of it. You're talking about it in places nobody was.

[scotticus]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

So either Obama sucks and liberals abandoned the nation over politicized single issues, or Bush was great.

It's not an either/or proposition. You're stating a false dichotomy. That's kind of my point in this thread... Bush is neither 100% shitty nor 100% awesome. He's somewhere in between, and in most peoples' views, mostly shitty. Obama? I don't know... 50%? Better than Romney would have been? I tend to think so, but in reality we'll never know.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You complain about partisanism a little bit down, but then you participate in that very same thing. Democrats whipping their party into a fervor about gay marriage to avoid being held to account for their nation-fucking retardation is the very definition of a politicized minority issue.

So maybe stop doing it, then. That's probably why you're sick of it. You're talking about it in places nobody was.

You're stating that Democrats advocate for gay marriage because they want to avoid their "nation-fucking retardation". (That's a straw man, BTW.) Maybe they advocate for gay marriage because they care about gay marriage. You're casting that issue in a partisan light, but maybe those folks just feel strongly about it...

Personally, when I get angry about gay marriage, it's not because republicans are backwards and I want more democrats in power, or because I don't want to address some other important issue... it's because I want gay people to have the same rights as me. I'll vote for who-the-fuck-ever wants to prioritize income inequality and human rights over bombing the fuck out of the Middle East.

Your language is patently partisan, and if you don't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Just to be clear, I'm not above shitting on Republicans... just that when it comes to issues, I see a lot of merit in discussing them independently and not wrapping them up in partisanship.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by scotticus

It's not an either/or proposition. You're stating a false dichotomy. That's kind of my point in this thread... Bush is neither 100% shitty nor 100% awesome. He's somewhere in between, and in most peoples' views, mostly shitty. Obama? I don't know... 50%? Better than Romney would have been? I tend to think so, but in reality we'll never know.

You completely avoided the point that everything that was wrong with Bush is wrong with Obama, so if anyone is to stay true to their opinions on Bush, Obama must go hand in hand. You can fart out "false dilemma" and "grey area" anytime anyone calls anyone out on hypocrisy, so way to go.

You're just throwing around terms without understanding the discussion. My point was there is no dilemma, there is no dichotomy, there is no difference. I was not posing options to you, I was asserting that what you perceived as options were identical. Calling that a "false dilemma" is loudly admitting that you did not care to understand my point, but you will still tell me I am wrong.

Originally Posted by scotticus

You're stating that Democrats advocate for gay marriage because they want to avoid their "nation-fucking retardation". (That's a straw man, BTW.) Maybe they advocate for gay marriage because they care about gay marriage. You're casting that issue in a partisan light, but maybe those folks just feel strongly about it...

No I'm not. I support gay marriage. It baffles me that Democrats like Clinton at all in part because of DOMA.

What is partisan is casting this as a, "YOU ARE A MONSTER IF YOU OPPOSE MY VIEWPOINT" on the issue and refusing to acknowledge that a responsible citizen weighs the sum of all factors in the decision to vote, not a single issue.

I stated that the Democratic Party politicized gay marriage to shield their president from huge swaths of criticisms he deserved. This very discussion proves the effectiveness of that tactic. Not once have you even come close to talking about gay marriage's relative importance to the overall health of the country.

Originally Posted by scotticus

Personally, when I get angry about gay marriage, it's not because republicans are backwards and I want more democrats in power, or because I don't want to address some other important issue... it's because I want gay people to have the same rights as me. I'll vote for who-the-fuck-ever wants to prioritize income inequality and human rights over bombing the fuck out of the Middle East.

But you won't care if tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, adult and child, have died and will die because of America's shitty presidents, so long as a minority of Americans experience a better quality of life than they were previously enjoying. You're so caring.

The point of a vote is to express disapproval or approval of the government's actions. Why should the government ever stop bombing people if all they have to do is change a few laws and you'll vote for them? They have your vote and they can bomb whoever they want. How will America's foreign policy ever change if everyone votes that way? The answer is it won't. You don't care. And if it doesn't affect your vote, the government doesn't care either.

Hey, it's not good enough if your president does one good thing and a thousand bad ones. That's a shitty president. Stop patting yourself on the back for the one thing you like that he was barely involved with.

Originally Posted by scotticus

Your language is patently partisan, and if you don't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Just to be clear, I'm not above shitting on Republicans... just that when it comes to issues, I see a lot of merit in discussing them independently and not wrapping them up in partisanship.

Considering I've hated every presidential candidate put forward by the Democrats or Republicans during the time I have been able to vote and have never voted for a Republican or Democratic candidate, nor have I ever voted for a party because it was the party or felt any allegiance to any political party, and you voted for Obama and defend the Democratic party's clear political schemes, calling my language partisan is absolutely impossible.

If you don't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

You seem not to be able to comprehend that I am criticizing both parties equally, and your mind is really warped to comprehend that as partisan.

Edit: Wait a minute, it occurs to me that perhaps you think "partisan" means "capable of acknowledging that there are political parties in existence and will identify them and their actions". Considering you feel the need to link such simple ideas as "straw man" and "false dichotomy", let me suggest that you should go look up "partisan".

[scotticus]

I can't even read all that shit.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by scotticus

I can't even read all that shit.

Discussions like this provoke thought and insightful debate. Even if there are more than 3 sentences, try to pay attention.

Here it is in a nutshell so you don't exhaust yourself by reading. Assad said Obama was indecisive. He was so mad he wanted to ask Congress to come up with a good comeback.

Now you're caught up.

[scotticus]

Ok... I'll read a little....I feel like I'm being gang banged my lunatics. Thanks Quad.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You completely avoided the point that everything that was wrong with Bush is wrong with Obama, so if anyone is to stay true to their opinions on Bush, Obama must go hand in hand. You can fart out "false dilemma" and "grey area" anytime anyone calls anyone out on hypocrisy, so way to go.

No, my point is that's a false assertion. Everything that's wrong with Bush isn't wrong with Obama. They're clearly different on different issues. (Gay marriage clearly being one of them.) Thus, the false dichotomy. It isn't either or, and if you can't see that, like I said, I can't continue this discussion. On some issues, like NSA surveillance, they are 100% identical... but across the board, they're not the same. Your all good or all bad assertion is just false. It's not a political position I'm taking... it's logic.

[Enunciated Piffle]

I believe in the idea of Obama, but the actual President version and his actions are confusing at best.

I'm against war, but at least bombing yet another country has gotten me to forget about how poorly the Obama Administration is acting towards the Snowden issue...

Yay! U S A

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

Obama the candidate and Obama as president are not the same guy.
.

This is true of all American Presidents making campaign promises/ promising the world. Obama has taken it to the next level.

When you consider that 'closing Gitmo' was his big stance and now he's basically a pro-war Prez...it's a bit disturbing.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

Obama the candidate and Obama as president are not the same guy.

Welcome to politics in the good ol' USA.