• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

You've got such a hard-on for me (and Stinger) that you dont even know what that term means -- made even more amazing in that YOU coined it!

Now, go be irrelevant somewhere else -- you shan't find it difficult to do.

Sorry Goob....once again you are wrong. I wish I could take credit for coining the phrase....but alas...it wasn't I.

However, you do the dance every bit as good as Stinger did.

But don't take it personally G-man....I enjoy finding people who are being hypocritcal and/or intellectually dishonest and pointing it out....just a hobby.
 
Last edited:
You're pardoned.

You -are- familiar with 'what would you do if...?' scenarios, yes?

What would you do for a klondike bar? Create a hypothetical based on a logical fallacy and spend several threads denying it was a logical fallacy...

I set up an hypothetical, with a certain set of assumed facts.
Under those assumed facts, I asked what you would do.
A fact isn't open to intepretation like your personal interjection is. Thus far it cannot be proven that Bush's torture program stopped any plots and thus far failed to stop the embassy bombing in Iraq. So again if it was a fact it wouldn't be so easy to disprove.


Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I dont really care if you asnwer the question, or not -- but arguing against the question itself denotes a desire to NOT answer the question because it presents you with choices you don't like, and because of it, an irrepressible urge to NOT simply leave the question alone.

The question itself is based on failed logic. You're committing an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I know you still don't understand what that means.
Perhaps English isnt your first language?
If not, then I cannot explain your inability to understand the language in its plain state, but as it IS in its plain state, the fault lies with the reader, not the author.

Perhaps its not yours? Still making those fallacies.
 
Says he who has been throwing about haughty terms that do not apply, and who continues to lack the honesty to admit it.

Haughty terms? You don't even know what the word "fact" means. Its not my fault if you don't understand how an ad hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy applies to your fault logical question. You're being dishonest Goobie since you first asked that question and interjected your own opinion and tried to call it a given then an assumed fact
 
Thanks!!

What color singing fish would you suggest?

For you?

This one is pretty cool looking.

images
 
Did you blame Bush Jr for creating conditions for allowing 9/11 to happen?

Are you desperately attempting to argue that Bush Jr. created conditions for allowing 9-11 to happen in a desperate bid to avoid answering the valid question posed by Goobie?
 
I got a question about Albright's quote in 1999 do you have the full quote? I notice its truncated by the elipses. Also you seem to not understand the context. Notice the gap between most of the quotes leading up to 1998 and 2001. There's a three year gap almost in the quotes. Did it mean somehow he just stopped being a threat? Also most of the quotes were before the 1998 december bombing of Iraq and the rest were during the buildup to the war. Most of the intelligence was only given to select members of congress and as shown by the NIE conflicting agencies gave different information contradicting the claims that Saddam had WMDs members of congress were not informed about those contradictions. Also both Condi and Powell stated in 2002 that Saddam was contained and had no WMDs. Were both of them lying then or after?

You may wish to look up the definition of "rationalizing." :2wave:
 
Goober is trying to sound intellectual. If this was an academic debate he wouldn't be using logical fallacies and claiming his own interjections to be "assumed facts"

This coming from someone who apparently thinks The_Limit is rational; that is truly ironic. :rofl
 
Sorry Goob....once again you are wrong. I wish I could take credit for coining the phrase....but alas...it wasn't I.

However, you do the dance every bit as good as Stinger did.

But don't take it personally G-man....I enjoy finding people who are being hypocritcal and/or intellectually dishonest and pointing it out....just a hobby.

Then you must spend an awful lot of time in front of the mirror.... pointing. ;)
 
Then you must spend an awful lot of time in front of the mirror.... pointing. ;)

I may be a lot of things....but one thing I am not is hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest.

You can call me extremely left-wing partisan.....you can say that sometimes I say stupid things that I later regret saying....but I am definitely not hypocritical or ID.
 
Are you desperately attempting to argue that Bush Jr. created conditions for allowing 9-11 to happen in a desperate bid to avoid answering the valid question posed by Goobie?

That's not what I said. Goober is posing a logical fallacy based on his own opinion there's nothing valid about a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The reason I asked the question in the similiar vein that he did is because when Bush took office he cut counterterrorism programs, called off the teams tracking bin laden, threw out the counterterrorism report and virtually ignored al-qaida. So under his questioning was Bush responsible for creating the conditions allowing for 9/11?
 
This coming from someone who apparently thinks The_Limit is rational; that is truly ironic. :rofl

You being a birther I don't think you have any ground to stand on when determining who is rational and who isn't
 
I may be a lot of things....but one thing I am not is hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest.

You can call me extremely left-wing partisan.....you can say that sometimes I say stupid things that I later regret saying....but I am definitely not hypocritical or ID.

So you do not believe that it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush should have raised taxes instead of cutting them and irresponsibly spent us into a deficit, regardless of the realities and merits at the time, but you support an Administration that has willfully spent the next two generations into a $1.8 trillion deficit without a single debate as to how to pay for it?

You do not believe it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to rail about Bush fighting a war that was voted FOR in a bi-partisan fashion but ignores the FACT that Obama has continued that operation when he promised to end the war in Iraq and pull our troops out?

I am sorry, but I think you should look up the term "rationalizing" in the dictionary if you think that you have been intellectually honest dealing with Palin, Bush or anyone else you have demagogue with hyperbolic rhetoric and fabricated facts.

You support a political ideology that is based on hypocrisy and denigrating its political opponents with divisive partisan rhetoric, hyperbolic bile and with lies and distortions.

I am stunned that you can even sit there and type such nonsense and not at least be slightly embarrassed by it. I believe that the fact that even if you claim you never made such comments, just remaining silent on the issue suggests that you found it “okay.”
 
That's not what I said. Goober is posing a logical fallacy based on his own opinion there's nothing valid about a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The reason I asked the question in the similiar vein that he did is because when Bush took office he cut counterterrorism programs, called off the teams tracking bin laden, threw out the counterterrorism report and virtually ignored al-qaida. So under his questioning was Bush responsible for creating the conditions allowing for 9/11?

Once again, your desperate and nonsensical assertions aside, what part of POST 9-11 do you not get?

How can anyone compare the actions pre-9-11 to those being taken now.

Obama has the benefit of the lessons supposedly learned from 9-11; the question has merit and begs an honest response. If post 9-11 our political actions result in another attack, are you going to blame the Obama Administration?
 
You being a birther I don't think you have any ground to stand on when determining who is rational and who isn't

Claiming someone is a “birther” in a vacuum of reality or the facts speaks volumes for your inability to structure a coherent argument.

Please share with me how I am a "birther" and how that makes my comments less relevant. :doh
 
You're pardoned.

You -are- familiar with 'what would you do if...?' scenarios, yes?

I set up an hypothetical, with a certain set of assumed facts.
Under those assumed facts, I asked what you would do.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Seems like a waste of time. Discussing hypotheticals hardly accomplishes anything.
 
So you do not believe that it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush should have raised taxes instead of cutting them and irresponsibly spent us into a deficit, regardless of the realities and merits at the time, but you support an Administration that has willfully spent the next two generations into a $1.8 trillion deficit without a single debate as to how to pay for it?

You do not believe it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to rail about Bush fighting a war that was voted FOR in a bi-partisan fashion but ignores the FACT that Obama has continued that operation when he promised to end the war in Iraq and pull our troops out?

I am sorry, but I think you should look up the term "rationalizing" in the dictionary if you think that you have been intellectually honest dealing with Palin, Bush or anyone else you have demagogue with hyperbolic rhetoric and fabricated facts.

You support a political ideology that is based on hypocrisy and denigrating its political opponents with divisive partisan rhetoric, hyperbolic bile and with lies and distortions.

I am stunned that you can even sit there and type such nonsense and not at least be slightly embarrassed by it. I believe that the fact that even if you claim you never made such comments, just remaining silent on the issue suggests that you found it “okay.”

1. If I had ever made such claims, then yes, that would be hypocritical, but I never made such claims.

2. I was as against the Democrats that voted in favor of invading Iraq as I am against Bush and the Republicans. I have been against our involvement in Iraq from day 1 and I am not happy with Obama's progress towards getting us out. I am giving Obama a little time, in that he didn't campaign on the idea that he would pull our troops out the first day he took office, but about the year mark that Obama is in office, if he hasn't pulled out our troops, you can bet that I'm going to be criticizing his efforts as well.

3. As far as Palin - Yes...absolutely I definitely criticized her, but criticism is not intellectual dishonesty. I was never part of the "I can see Alaska from my house" crowd. I don't think anything I wrote about Palin could be deemed intellectually dishonest. My criticism was based on her policies and the fact that personally I was scared to death to think that she would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

4. As far as remaining silent - True...I didn't really speak out against some of the most outrageous claims, but I haven't had much to say on the other side either. I try to stay away from the "Birther" arguments and the Obama is a Communist/Socialist wackos. I did get sucked in recently with the whole education speech because it was so outrageous in my mind and I found it fascinating that some people actually were trying to argue that the President shouldn't speak to kids about education.

Again....I'm about as left-wing as you can get....but it doesn't mean that I adopt some of the leftist fringe that is beyond me.
 
Once again, your desperate and nonsensical assertions aside, what part of POST 9-11 do you not get?

How can anyone compare the actions pre-9-11 to those being taken now.

Obama has the benefit of the lessons supposedly learned from 9-11; the question has merit and begs an honest response. If post 9-11 our political actions result in another attack, are you going to blame the Obama Administration?

Again you're being dishonest as Goober was being. There is no proof that torture has stopped terrorist plots so his question was offbase. What lessons did we learn from 9/11? Not to sit on your hands when your subordinates hand you information stating bin laden determined to strike in the united states. No his question had no merit as it is based on a personal opinion that somehow the torture program has stopped terrorism when it hasnt as the Embassy in Iraq was attacked
 
Claiming someone is a “birther” in a vacuum of reality or the facts speaks volumes for your inability to structure a coherent argument.

Please share with me how I am a "birther" and how that makes my comments less relevant. :doh

Oh i think youre incessant denial of reality in the birther threads pretty much explains itself
 
So you do not believe that it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush should have raised taxes instead of cutting them and irresponsibly spent us into a deficit, regardless of the realities and merits at the time, but you support an Administration that has willfully spent the next two generations into a $1.8 trillion deficit without a single debate as to how to pay for it?

You do not believe it is being a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest to rail about Bush fighting a war that was voted FOR in a bi-partisan fashion but ignores the FACT that Obama has continued that operation when he promised to end the war in Iraq and pull our troops out?

I am sorry, but I think you should look up the term "rationalizing" in the dictionary if you think that you have been intellectually honest dealing with Palin, Bush or anyone else you have demagogue with hyperbolic rhetoric and fabricated facts.

You support a political ideology that is based on hypocrisy and denigrating its political opponents with divisive partisan rhetoric, hyperbolic bile and with lies and distortions.

I am stunned that you can even sit there and type such nonsense and not at least be slightly embarrassed by it. I believe that the fact that even if you claim you never made such comments, just remaining silent on the issue suggests that you found it “okay.”


Partisan rhetoric at its most colourless stage.
 
Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.

You would find yourself disqualified out of an academic debate, if, of course, this was one.

And by the way, just so you know.

Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.

this, from the guy who recently devoted EIGHT FIVE posts in a SINGLE thread to advancing some extremely nebulous argument about "socialism" being a "code word" for racism by posturing that he makes no claims of "empiricial, scientific fact," but instead resorts only to his "judgement call"

so he is therefore free to draw his own conclusions

LOLOLOLOL!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

why, you most assuredly are, limit

free to speculate and judgement call and conclude to your logical little thought patterns' content

all in the scholarly name of "academic debate"

now, that's HILARIOUS

LOLOLOL!
 
1. If I had ever made such claims, then yes, that would be hypocritical, but I never made such claims.

2. I was as against the Democrats that voted in favor of invading Iraq as I am against Bush and the Republicans. I have been against our involvement in Iraq from day 1 and I am not happy with Obama's progress towards getting us out. I am giving Obama a little time, in that he didn't campaign on the idea that he would pull our troops out the first day he took office, but about the year mark that Obama is in office, if he hasn't pulled out our troops, you can bet that I'm going to be criticizing his efforts as well.

3. As far as Palin - Yes...absolutely I definitely criticized her, but criticism is not intellectual dishonesty. I was never part of the "I can see Alaska from my house" crowd. I don't think anything I wrote about Palin could be deemed intellectually dishonest. My criticism was based on her policies and the fact that personally I was scared to death to think that she would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

4. As far as remaining silent - True...I didn't really speak out against some of the most outrageous claims, but I haven't had much to say on the other side either. I try to stay away from the "Birther" arguments and the Obama is a Communist/Socialist wackos. I did get sucked in recently with the whole education speech because it was so outrageous in my mind and I found it fascinating that some people actually were trying to argue that the President shouldn't speak to kids about education.

Again....I'm about as left-wing as you can get....but it doesn't mean that I adopt some of the leftist fringe that is beyond me.

I am going to back down my comments and temper my opinion about you and take you for your word.

I respect Kucinich because at least he is honest about his beliefs and doesn't try to pretend to be anything he isn't; although sometimes he is a raving loon as he was in his efforts to impeach for going to war.

I will extend you the same courtesy and respect of your views regardless of my disagreement with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom