Obama: We Have To Win In Afghanistan - Page 28

CaptainCourtesy · 07-25-08, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

How was it not?

Already explained several times. Please re-read the thread.

Quote:

This is political debate board. Presenting an agenda is the point... and how that agenda is presented is up to the person presenting it.

Ah, but this is not what you did or are claiming. You are claiming that you were making an honest question. It is good to know that you are now admitting that you did not, that it was an agenda-based question, not looking for an honest answer, but presented in an agenda-biased way in order to spin. Thank you for admitting this.

Quote:

A good suggestion is that if you do not like it, you can go away.

Oh... and you're still avoiding the question.

As I told you. When you present dishonest agenda-based questions like you did, I will call you on it. If you do not like it, do not do it. However, since you have admitted what you did, my work is done, here.

bhkad · 07-25-08, 04:20 AM

Obama is a Socialist and no loyal American should vote for him no matter what his positions might be.

Governmental income redistribution is the concept behind socialism. Great idea on paper, but it just doesn't work in the real world.

Here's a comment from a Washington Post reader.

Quote:

Unfortunately what Obama voters dont realize is his policies and stances go against everything this country has stood for. He demonizes the successful and placates the weak. Unfortunately, he is a liar like any other politician, and frankly, I fear for his safety. And if the democrats were not so racist as to think that electing someone because of his skin color and not ask him what he really stands for, they would have this election in the bag and the country for once, would not be on the brink of disaster and socialism.

But what do you expect from a marxist canidate? When you openly say you will trash the economy out of "fairness" by raising capital gains taxes most americans pay, raising corporate taxes (and thus reducing money and jobs paid to workers), and raising taxes against small business owners (and the largets employer int he coutnry and who just happens to be in the higher tax bracket (which isnt hard to reach), it is an obvious recipe for disaster. When the economy is slow, the answer is not to raise taxes.

So do we have problems? yes. But the government is not the answer to any of these problems. It is up to you to better your life. It is up to you to WORK HARD for what you get. YOU must realize a 4 year degree only shows you might have learned something and is not a ticket to living like your parents standard of living but only 30 years before they attained that level. Its not the governments role to pay your loans, tuition, insurance, etc. It shouldnt be the government passing new laws to fix old ones that are not enforced. It isnt the governments job to protect you and allow you to suck the government teet your whole life.

So it gets down to it as big government vs. status quo government. Imagine the day if you had 15% of your income at this point put in a retirement account. I would be a millionaire at least 2-3 times over. Failed liberal policies of Social security will ensure my hard earned money is wasted. Socialized healthcare I dont want will further this divide and ensure my retirement years are spent more working than anything else.

Obama stands for change, that is ture. But it is not change this government can afford.

Posted by: Brad | May 19, 2008 7:22 AM

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Goobieman · 07-25-08, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Ah, but this is not what you did or are claiming. You are claiming that you were making an honest question. It is good to know that you are now admitting that you did not, that it was an agenda-based question, not looking for an honest answer, but presented in an agenda-biased way in order to spin. Thank you for admitting this.

As if such an admission has any meaning.

You're running away, crying and screaming, from the question because you don't want to have to address the issues it raises -- that is, you're not attacking the issue, you're attacking the person raising said issue in order to avoid same.

That, of course, is your right -- but you should at least be honest about it -- if not to others, then at least to yourself.

Not that I expect this to happen.

Truth Detector · 07-25-08, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Already explained several times. Please re-read the thread.

Ah, but this is not what you did or are claiming. You are claiming that you were making an honest question. It is good to know that you are now admitting that you did not, that it was an agenda-based question, not looking for an honest answer, but presented in an agenda-biased way in order to spin. Thank you for admitting this.

As I told you. When you present dishonest agenda-based questions like you did, I will call you on it. If you do not like it, do not do it. However, since you have admitted what you did, my work is done, here.

I have been watching this childish back and forth between YOU a moderator, and Goobie. Nonsense is about the best description I can come up with. The thing that is truly astounding is your statement:

"When you present dishonest agenda-based questions like you did, I will call you on it. "

If this is your new moderator duties, you will be VERY busy calling the members on this forum based on your SUBJECTIVE determination of them having a "dishonest agenda." This forum is covered with dishonest agendas.

I will try to help you however. Every time I see a dishonest agenda, I think I will PM you with the link so that you can wander in a circle of futility with the thread author like you have in this one. It should be entertaining.

This kind of argument is what makes one shake their head in disbelief to see this behavior coming from a "moderator."

I don't know, perhaps you have a dishonest agenda selectively calling Goobie on this one.

SgtRock · 07-25-08, 01:32 PM

The way I see it Iraq and Afghanistan are battles in the war with islamic extreamism. Its not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic, call it what it is, a war on Islamic jihadist.

Gibberish · 07-25-08, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtRock

The way I see it Iraq and Afghanistan are battles in the war with islamic extreamism. Its not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic, call it what it is, a war on Islamic jihadist.

That's open-ended though. You can call any fight a Muslim is involved in a Jihad. What needs to be differentiated is are they 1) fighting to kill non Muslim's in their lands because they aren't Muslim, or 2) fighting to take control of Iraq so their Islamic denomination has political power.

If 1, then they are terrorists. If 2, then they are fighting militia trying to take control of a destabilized country.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-25-08, 07:24 PM

Moderators are also posters. They can debate here as well. If he thinks something is BS, he can declare it so. You guys can be vitriolic all you want. It doesn't help your argument.

Now attack me, post your innuendo about Obama being a secret KGB agent, tell us how liberals will destroy the planet, and attack me some more.

Khayembii Communique · 07-26-08, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Obama is a Socialist and no loyal American should vote for him no matter what his positions might be.

No he's not, he's a completely pro-imperialist, corporate candidate; you should be completely supportive of him! I mean sure, you might disagree with his rhetoric, but his actual political positions, when determined after sorting through all of the empty promises and "progressive rhetoric" are completely in line with your rightist views.

Quote:

That's open-ended though. You can call any fight a Muslim is involved in a Jihad. What needs to be differentiated is are they 1) fighting to kill non Muslim's in their lands because they aren't Muslim, or 2) fighting to take control of Iraq so their Islamic denomination has political power.

Jihad isn't simply "holy war". Also, your definition of terrorist is very interesting/senseless.

CaptainCourtesy · 07-26-08, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

As if such an admission has any meaning.

You're running away, crying and screaming, from the question because you don't want to have to address the issues it raises -- that is, you're not attacking the issue, you're attacking the person raising said issue in order to avoid same.

That, of course, is your right -- but you should at least be honest about it -- if not to others, then at least to yourself.

Not that I expect this to happen.

Goobieman, I'll tell you again. Make an honest question, you'll get an honest answer and, probably, a good debate. Do what you did here, and you'll get called on it. Now, I don't believe for a moment, that you are not aware of what you are doing, but, please, continue to feign innocence. It is mildly amusing.

CaptainCourtesy · 07-26-08, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I have been watching this childish back and forth between YOU a moderator, and Goobie. Nonsense is about the best description I can come up with. The thing that is truly astounding is your statement:

"When you present dishonest agenda-based questions like you did, I will call you on it. "

If this is your new moderator duties, you will be VERY busy calling the members on this forum based on your SUBJECTIVE determination of them having a "dishonest agenda." This forum is covered with dishonest agendas.

I will try to help you however. Every time I see a dishonest agenda, I think I will PM you with the link so that you can wander in a circle of futility with the thread author like you have in this one. It should be entertaining.

This kind of argument is what makes one shake their head in disbelief to see this behavior coming from a "moderator."

I don't know, perhaps you have a dishonest agenda selectively calling Goobie on this one.

If I see BS, I'll call someone on it. That's what occurred...there was BS, so I called him on it. My posts were not warnings or moderation in any way. I was acting as a poster, not a moderator. Dishonest agenda posting is not against the rules, so there would be no moderation needed on the issue. Henceforth, any PMs you send me on the topic will be ignored. I hope this clarifies the issue for you.