1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Why Rudy and Walker Were Right

Alpha Epsilon Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 9:04 AM
I had a similar situation just this weekend. We were talking about the Rand Paul Bill which would block federal money from being used to raid medical marijuana shops in states that have legalized it.....my liberal associate went on his usual rant about how it would require the GOP to quit being jerks on the issue. I merely pointed out how the entire bill would be unnecessary had Obama merely respected his 2007 promise to not use the DEA in this manner. He claimed that Obama had stopped the raids....I pointed out how they were still going on in 2014.....he then pushed that the Dems are "always better" in the case of social issues. I pointed out how they are politicians too and how Obama didn't become "change his mind" on gay marriage until 2012 when he was trying to gin up support from his base to win re-election. He blocked me after that. Facts are irrelevant to some of these folks - "four legs good, two legs bad!"
The problem is the lack of an attempt to even address the possibility of a religious element to the attacks to the point of absurdity - such as calling the Fort Hood attack "workplace violence". We agree that we are not at War with Islam. We agree that the majority of Muslims are not represented by the terrorist groups (tho we probably disagree to the extent of the problem). But, it is ludicrous to deny the religious element - THEY certainly do think this is a War against Islam. And Obama's constant pandering to them so as to not offend Islam does NOT help the situation, and in many ways it makes it worse.
And since Obama's been in office, "you all" (since you decide to lump us all together, I figure I'd do the same) are calling us terrorists. arsonists, unpatriotic, traitors, etc etc etc. Read the article above for plenty of examples. It isn't about how and when and why a person loves their country - it's about the selective outrage of "you all" have when a person on the right makes an outrageous comment that is rarely condemned by "you all" when it is made by a person on the Left against a person on the Right. Oh - and Conservative speakers get death threats all the time. Heck there are even movies based on liberal fantasies of Bush getting assassinated. it sucks that happened to the Dixie Chicks or anyone - but, I rarely see "you all" getting upset when free speech is threatened for those of us on the Right.
As opposed to a person who doesn't understand that 'Walking back' and 'Clarifying remarks" are essentially the same thing and the article they post to prove their point literally uses the phrase "walk it back"?
Sorry - no. A lie is completely dependent on the intent of the speaker. The person telling the lie MUST KNOW that the information is incorrect or they are simply relaying false information unknowingly. Using your definition, a person "lies" every time they get a math question wrong in school. From Webster's Lie - 1.) to make an untrue statement WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE. (emphasis mine) Example - If what Jonathan Gruber says about his meetings with Obama on Obamacare are incorrect, then Obama arguably could have simply been incorrect and ignorant as to some of the effects of the law. In which case, it is possible Obama didn't lie....he was merely wrong. If what Gruber says is true - then Obama knew what the effects would be prior to the law's implementation and knowingly told people things he knew were false....in other words, he lied.
Sorry - no. A lie is completely dependent on the intent of the speaker. The person telling the lie MUST KNOW that the information is incorrect or they are simply relaying false information unknowingly. Using your definition, a person "lies" every time they get a math question wrong in school. From Webster's Lie - 1.) to make an untrue statement WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE. (emphasis mine)
This is probably one of the most coherent explanation of progressive US foreign policy that I have seen. Certainly not something I expected to see in the comments section of an internet piece. Well done.
An Obama fan actually complaining about a politicians changing their position? Wow - I just got my irony detector fixed and now it's broken again. Obama's "consistent" positions you can count on one hand...he flips more than a Rumanian gymnast. The only thing he actually seems to keep the same position on is "it wasn't my fault" - "all these scandals aren't really scandals" and (my favorite) - "I found out about it watching the news". Even if you believe all his ridiculous lies - he is (at best) horribly incompetent.
Sorry...4th paragraph should be "*there are hawks"...not their. Grammar Nazis I throw myself at the mercy of the court.
Wow - that's just....wow. First off - I have yet to see ANYONE (Republican or Democrat) with at least a high school education deny that the US has caused some of the issues we are encountering now....the difference is that the "blame America" crowd does not acknowledge sitting back and doing nothing would not have also imposed costs to the US, its allies, and/or our national/economic security. Whether or not those costs outweigh the costs imposed by an active foreign policy is always the question. Yet there are still those who insist that the isolationist policy is the only acceptable one. Ignoring the fact that their are "hawks" and "doves" in BOTH parties so your statement is ridiculous on the face, that doesn't address the fact that both the "hawks" and the "doves" are unhappy with Barack's policies. The doves are unhappy with the drone strikes, the Afghani surge, air strikes, etc etc etc. The hawks are unhappy in that the President's war policies have been incoherent and largely counter-productive - often choosing the wrong Allies, wrong interventions, at the wrong time - seeming weak and ineffectual, or exactly the opposite of what hawks want to portray. Considering the President's polling on foreign policy in which roughly 2/3rds of those polled disapproved or were "undecided" - it seems pretty clear that the only people "happy" with Obama's foreign policy are those who support Obama regardless of his actual policies. Certainly not the "Republicans" you demand your loyalty oaths from.
1 - 10 Next