Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    27 Apr '14 16:15 / 2 edits
    At first, I thought, this is a perfect example of Obama's embracing of moral relativism, his lack of regard for America as an exceptional place, and his disdain of America and American values in general.

    But then I realized that on second thought, he's right. After all, America does kill its citizens with drone strikes, without judicial recourse, in actions sanctioned only by the Chief Executive.

    BREAKING: On Human Rights, Obama Says Malaysia’s ‘Got Some Work To Do, JUST LIKE THE UNITED STATES’
    Posted on April 27th

    1851424

    At a joint press conference in Malaysia today, Major Garrett asked President Obama about human rights concerns in Malaysia, saying the issues were “up for grabs” in the country. He asked the President why he hadn’t discussed human rights while in Malaysia, and why he hadn’t met with jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

    President Obama said that not meeting with Mr. Anwar was “not indicative of a lack of concern,” and said that “there are a lot of people I don’t meet with.”
    “I think the Prime Minister is the first to acknowledge that Malaysia’s still got some work to do. Just like the United States, by the way, has some work to do on these issues. Human Rights Watch probably has a list of things they think we should be doing as a government,” said the President.
  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    27 Apr '14 16:25
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    At first, I thought, this is a perfect example of Obama's embracing of moral relativism, his lack of regard for America as an exceptional place, and his disdain of America and American values in general.

    But then I realized that on second thought, he's right. After all, America does kill its citizens with drone strikes, without judicial recourse, ...[text shortened]... robably has a list of things they think we should be doing as a government,” said the President.
    Mr. Sasquatch, I'll try to ignore all your hateful comments, but do not all countries have " work to do on human rights?" I would say "yes". I swear...you don't seem to like anybody, do you?
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    27 Apr '14 16:37
    Originally posted by bill718
    Mr. Sasquatch, I'll try to ignore all your hateful comments, but do not all countries have " work to do on human rights?" I would say "yes". I swear...you don't seem to like anybody, do you?
    Hateful.

    Show me where I was hateful. One time.
  4. 28 Apr '14 17:21
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Hateful.

    Show me where I was hateful. One time.
    You posted something negative about "dear leader". The only reason anyone would do such a thing is due to being a hateful racist. Everyone knows that!
  5. 28 Apr '14 18:51
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Hateful.

    Show me where I was hateful. One time.
    I don’t know, old chum - define “hateful”.


    You have at least, in fairly recent history, spewed some pretty vicious, if generally puerile, ranting - yes, ranting - aimed at “liberals” in general. I would have added “incoherent” but you are too eloquent in turning the lowest-level mean-minded phrase for that to be an accurate descriptor.


    There have been some times when I’ve wanted to say: “What the hell’s going on with you, man?” But then, I thought that some of what’s been going on with you is not too different from myself, and is one reason why I don’t post much here anymore.


    You and I have probably disagreed far more than agreed on issues here over the years. But that never meant that I wouldn’t have valued you as a neighbor - and vice versa, I would have thought (or at least, you led me to believe). Perhaps I grew up in a different paradigm - my father and his best friend disagreed (sometimes bitterly, often loudly) on most political and philosophical issues (and sometimes religious ones): and either man would have given his life for the other had the circumstance arisen. Perhaps that’s unique.


    But I seldom recognize the rational debater of old - whose rationalism nevertheless did not detract from his passion in argument. Occasionally I recognize him, yes: but all too seldom.


    The one thing that was certain about the “old Sasquatch” - if everything else that I’ve said here is flat wrong - was that he prided himself on his ability to argue (and argue hard, even angrily) without his discourse degenerating into the kind of puerile “my hormones are all out of control” crap that I have witnessed on here over, say, the last year. I might expect that from others - because that is all they’ve ever really shown. I really never expected it from you.


    This is the second time that I’ve written this - or at least some version of it. I thought about PMing it to you. Maybe that would have been best, I don’t know.

    _____________________________________________________


    Another personal note: My son is one of those people who has sworn an oath to uphold the law, and to “protect and serve”, and who wears a badge, and who has risked his life in the line of duty. He is one of those that you and whodey so gleefully cheerlead about killing in an ideological armed insurrection by self-proclaimed “militias”. He serves domestically as you once served overseas - as a professional with honor, integrity and sincerity.

    [And I am a self-described “liberal” who has always borne arms - there might be more of us than you imagine.]


    Perhaps you can no longer fathom how sad some of your commentary on here recently has made me. Perhaps you don’t care. That’s all right. Maybe friendship - even face-to-face friendship, let alone any kind of “online friendship” - can no longer survive the ideological divides in these times. I only know (with absolute and ruthless clarity) what my response is when pseudo-militias, that you cheerlead for, come for me and mine. Whatever the outcome.
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    28 Apr '14 19:14 / 2 edits
    If you want a classic example of political Christianism – and its active hostility to spiritual Christianity – it’s hard to beat Sarah Palin’s remarks yesterday. I offered a brief response last night, but this obscenity needs to be unpacked some more. And the first thing to say is that a former US vice-presidential candidate did not just endorse a war crime; she endorsed it as routine for every human being suspected of terrorism. And she seems to endorse it as an introduction to captivity. “Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists” is a glib statement but a revealing one. Baptism is the beginning of something, an introduction. And so torturing prisoners accused of terrorism is a signature of the America Palin believes in. It’s how we welcome them to our prison camps.
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/28/the-pernicious-poison-of-palin-ctd/

    Not my words. Just encountered this by chance (don't ask!)

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/sarah-palin-if-i-were-in-charge-americas-enemies-would-know-that-waterboarding-is-how-wed-baptize-terrorists/article/2547788

    Another source for the same remark
  7. 30 Apr '14 01:03
    Originally posted by finnegan
    [quote]If you want a classic example of political Christianism – and its active hostility to spiritual Christianity – it’s hard to beat Sarah Palin’s remarks yesterday. I offered a brief response last night, but this obscenity needs to be unpacked some more. And the first thing to say is that a former US vice-presidential candidate did not just endorse a wa ...[text shortened]... aterboarding-is-how-wed-baptize-terrorists/article/2547788

    Another source for the same remark
    Sarah Palin is known to occasionally exaggerate and use rhetorical flourish to emphasize a point. Lots of lefties do the same.
  8. 30 Apr '14 01:06
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I don’t know, old chum - define “hateful”.


    You have at least, in fairly recent history, spewed some pretty vicious, if generally puerile, ranting - yes, ranting - aimed at “liberals” in general. I would have added “incoherent” but you are too eloquent in turning the lowest-level mean-minded phrase for that to be an accurate descriptor.


    There have ...[text shortened]... se is when pseudo-militias, that you cheerlead for, come for me and mine. Whatever the outcome.
    Most of us change over time, and due to circumstances both on the forum, and in our personal lives. At times, the tactics of others can precipitate such reactions. I try not to take anything too personally, although sometimes not succeeding.
  9. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    30 Apr '14 02:44
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I don’t know, old chum - define “hateful”.


    You have at least, in fairly recent history, spewed some pretty vicious, if generally puerile, ranting - yes, ranting - aimed at “liberals” in general. I would have added “incoherent” but you are too eloquent in turning the lowest-level mean-minded phrase for that to be an accurate descriptor.


    There have ...[text shortened]... se is when pseudo-militias, that you cheerlead for, come for me and mine. Whatever the outcome.
    Obama Derangement Syndrome is a very real and quite serious illness. There is no known cure.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Apr '14 03:22 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I don’t know, old chum - define “hateful”.


    You have at least, in fairly recent history, spewed some pretty vicious, if generally puerile, ranting - yes, ranting - aimed at “liberals” in general. I would have added “incoherent” but you are too eloquent in turning the lowest-level mean-minded phrase for that to be an accurate descriptor.


    There have ...[text shortened]... se is when pseudo-militias, that you cheerlead for, come for me and mine. Whatever the outcome.
    It's taken me several days to properly process your post, and come up with a half-adequate response. So I apologize for the delay.

    First, let me say that I truly hope you're doing a bit better with your personal struggles.

    Second, let me say that I never intentionally directed any vitriol toward you. Yes, it's true that I pour down fire on the people that would take my country off of a well-worn and proven path. It's further true that there are some people that engage me who are not prepared for my responses.

    It may be further true that I paint liberals with too broad a brush, and perhaps that's when I offended you or made you sad. Offending you or the general class of liberals was not my intent. There is a subclass of people who possess similar characteristics: the professionally offended, the cancers that fantasize about government fighting the proxy war with conservatives that they do not have the wherewithal to engage, those who would think free speech is just fine, as long as you're saying things they agree with, those who turn scientific discovery on its head and declare an extremely complex branch of study to be settled, and would jail - jail! - people who hold different points of view, and some others besides, but you get my point. This subclass is extremely dangerous - they have no rules.

    The broader population of liberals, however, contribute many important veins of thought into contemporary discourse. Some of those here prodice very, very fine work. Duchess64 and I could probably not be farther apart ideologically, but their liberalism is informed, or seems to be, by a great deal of real-world experience. Sometimes I reread his or her posts just because I enjoy their writing style. So too does no1marauder produce superior legal analyses. I could go on, but they in particular produce value here.

    Now, as to the assertion made by Bill and supported by you that I produce hate speech - an accusation I take very seriously, especially in light of today's developments with the Los Angeles Clippers - again, I challenge you or anyone here to produce one example of hate speech I have proffered. Would I even be here? Wouldn't people regardless of their political persuasion have long ago submitted me for review? If I had ever produced hate speech, how would I still be a member here? Again - Bill, and now vitesd, produce your evidence and let me be judged, or apologize for a reckless accusation.
  11. 30 Apr '14 04:19 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    It's taken me several days to properly process your post, and come up with a half-adequate response. So I apologize for the delay.

    First, let me say that I truly hope you're doing a bit better with your personal struggles.

    Second, let me say that I never intentionally directed any vitriol toward you. Yes, it's true that I pour down fire on the ...[text shortened]... now vitesd, produce your evidence and let me be judged, or apologize for a reckless accusation.
    The following quote is the most recent one, and the one that finally triggered my response. You might use the phrase "too broad a brush", but I would suggest that it is an irresponsible brush, and a vicious one. I hope you're doing better with your personal struggle as well. For now, I'm gone. You can take the last word. I really have nothing more to say. About that, you can think what you will.

    "I don't think so. There will be some Obamabots and jack-booted statist thugs that might be willing to have a go in theory. But they'll be few and far between. Before Bill went on his happy pills, I seem to recall more than one instance where he fantasized that the feds would run roughshod over the gun nuts, flying Apache helicopters laden with machine guns and bullets into areas where conservatives caused civil unrest. Little do he and his ilk realize that most people who carry guns, whether or not they have a badge, share the same view of the Second Amendment. It's only the liberal elites who are too pussified to do their own fighting that suffer under some other delusion."

    EDIT: By irresponsible, I mean when some crazies start taking shots at law officers because they are "jack booted statist thugs", you'll be all "Oh, that's not what I meant." And yoy won't be the only one in the "Second Amendment solution" crowd that you've now associated yourself with.

    Now, you can have the last word. Do with it what you will, and others can think what they think.
  12. 30 Apr '14 13:11
    Originally posted by bill718
    Mr. Sasquatch, I'll try to ignore all your hateful comments, but do not all countries have " work to do on human rights?" I would say "yes". I swear...you don't seem to like anybody, do you?
    ad hominem.


    what has your opinion of him to do with his point?
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Apr '14 17:19
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    ad hominem.


    what has your opinion of him to do with his point?
    My experience has been that ad hominem attacks are the preferred method of response with my opposition here.
  14. 30 Apr '14 17:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    It's taken me several days to properly process your post, and come up with a half-adequate response. So I apologize for the delay.

    First, let me say that I truly hope you're doing a bit better with your personal struggles.

    Second, let me say that I never intentionally directed any vitriol toward you. Yes, it's true that I pour down fire on the ...[text shortened]... now vitesd, produce your evidence and let me be judged, or apologize for a reckless accusation.
    It annoys me when people say they're leaving, and letting their interlocuter have the last word - and then keep showing up again. And here I am doing it.

    You asked for one example, Sas. I thought the one I cited was sufficient, but I give another below. I came across some more that I could list that I think would qualify. But I’m not going to spend my time going over all of your past posts to come up with a comprehensive list.

    I doubt they qualify technically as “hate speech” - but that was not the accusation. The accusation was that you had said “hateful” things. I said that might depend on how you define “hateful”. Here are some synonyms for “hateful” that I found in the dictionary: malicious, malign, mean, nasty, spiteful, vicious, virulent.
    I think that pretty accurately describes the examples I’ve now given.

    ___________________________________________________


    Lazy, self-satisfied, and grandiose in their consumptive ambition, they have condemned their grandchildren to a lifetime of servitude to the US debt, while they themselves have lived an existence of permanent adolescence. . . . Yep - those Baby Boomers...you are freaking leeches on society. Not all of you, but most of you.

    ___________________________________________________


    Oh, “not all”, just “most” of us! Now, I don’t know “most” baby-boomers - and neither do you: and that itself puts the lie to your rant here. I put myself through school while working full-time, first in canneries, then in a papermill (strictly physical blue-collar, production worker) to support my family. I’ve never had a “government job”. I’m now retired: I collect from the funds of deferred wages that I paid in; without apology.

    But I knew a lot of baby-boomers working in those factories, some of them Vietnam vets (yeah, they’re baby-boomers too), and I don’t recognize who you’re talking about. And I don’t think that they - or myself - owe you even as little as I just posted here to explain that we’re not the “freaking leeches on society” that you claim “most” of us are. Do you think you’re entitled to an apology from me for my life?

    You have heard people make rotten, vicious generalizations about people in uniform (I remember the ones particularly from the Vietnam era) - do you think that adding “not all” but “most” - or, hell, even “some”, after the generalization has been made - would make those slanders any better? Do you think that they ought to be expected to individually raise their hands and say, “Hey I’m not one of those, don’t tar me with that brush!”?

    ____________________________________________________


    The fact is, Sas, you make a lot of reasoned posts on here that are worth reading and paying attention to, whether one agrees with your position or not. In fact, most of them, far and away. (Your comments here about "the broader population of liberals" is an example, that stands on contrast to generalizations like 'Libs never do' [with respect to accepting the facts, if I recall.) So how fair would it be of me to make “broad-brush” generalizations about you from the crassness of the above examples? I haven’t done that. I haven’t said that you are hateful, or malicious, or any such thing. I have not “generalized” you, either as a person or part of some group. I have called you out on a particular behavior - a behavior that I think clearly fits the kinds of adjectives that I have applied to it.

    Am I “innocent”? No. I’ve said some pretty crass things on here a few times; in all but two cases, I apologized (and those two were narrow instances, that cannot be generalized). A couple of times, I gave myself a self-ban from the forums for some time - time-out for bad behavior.

    No, Sas, I don’t think I owe you an apology. And I’m not asking you for one either. But there are people out there who do deserve an apology from you for how you’ve tagged them. You don’t know all, or even most, of them - so a “broad-brush” apology would certainly be sufficient.

    I leave it up to you. It has no more to do with me.

    Now I really am gone, likely for good (this is not a place where I want to spend my time anyomre, for personal reasons that have nothing to do with anyone on here). You can accuse me of whatever you want. Maybe you’ll end up being right.

    And, despite this, I really do mean it when I say: Be well. Because - hard as it really is to know anyone via places like this - I think I’ve also seen something of other qualities in yourself that I think are most representative of who you are, and which I appreciate and respect.
  15. 30 Apr '14 18:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Another personal note: My son is one of those people who has sworn an oath to uphold the law, and to “protect and serve”, and who wears a badge, and who has risked his life in the line of duty. He is one of those that you and whodey so gleefully cheerlead about killing in an ideological armed insurrection by self-proclaimed “militias”. He serves domestically as you once served overseas - as a professional with honor, integrity and sincerity.
    Whodey gleefully cheerleads militia groups?

    When did I do that? What I have pointed out in the past is that the political devide has become so great and magnified, that militias now come and defend Americans that they feel are being dealt a bad hand by an overpowering suffocating federal government. While people like you may cheerlead Obama signing legislation like the NDAA, that allows them to detain us without due process, people like me actually have a pulse and complain about it.

    I in no way wish for armed revolt to break out, but simply ignoring reality does not seem right either. The reality of the situation is that Whodey did not create this monster. I just wish someone in the federal government could take ownership of some of their own creation. In fact, it would be nice if they just paid their income tax like we do and had to live by the same laws like we do. At the same time, I certainly hope that violence does not break out as well. All I've done on here is point out the problems and offer my solution, which is an pursuing Arcitcle V for states to rise up and hold the federal government accountable and reduce their power and reach here and abroad. I have only cheerleaded peaceful resolutions. Thanks again for the strawman.