Obama

No he doesn't. I get that you don't want to concede, as I've pointed out in the past, you never willing to concede. So this will go on forever. Nothing there about closing the base. Nothing there about closing the base. Nothing there about closing the base. No, what Drone is saying is that the embassy being that large is not being used for diplomatic reasons, it is an example of Bush Jr.'s illegal and immoral hegemony policy. If only he would have said that though, then you wouldn't be so confused.Oh wait, he did say exactly that: - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I M P L YThat's a word you can spell too, isn't it?

Yes, he does, Oni. That's why his complaint is that it "isn't going anywhere." That's a perfectly plain statement in English that I trust even you can understand, even if xongsmith finds it completely unintelligible. Oni, this is a list of things Dronester wants out of Iraq. How are you people not getting this? You need to read closer, because apparently you missed it:

quote:

---

The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world, the size of the vatican, and is not going anywhere.

---

You understand what "it's not going anywhere" means, right? Yes, as a rule, buildings don't physically travel, so we can assume that's not what Drone meant. So what else does it mean when a building "doesn't go anywhere"? It means "hasn't been torn down yet." "This building is an eyesore!" "Well, get used to it; it's not going anywhere."Because that's Dronester's complaint:

quote:

---

This is yet another Bush Jr. illegal and immoral hegemony policy that will continue under the Obama Administration

---

But we're not talking about a "policy", we're talking about a complex of buildings, and "continuing the policy" means "not tearing the buildings down."But why would Obama close the US embassy in Iraq? It makes no sense.You spend a lot of lines in this post, Oni, telling me what Drone isn't saying. Why is it that you can't say what he is saying? If Drone isn't complaining that Obama isn't closing US embassies on account of being too large, then his statements have literally no other meaning. Are you saying that Dronester is some kind of parrot, putting words together in an order that just coincidentally manages to look like English but is actually meaningless? No, of course not.Drone's complaint is that Obama hasn't closed Bush's embassy, yet. That's the only possible interpretation of his words, and even though he denies it - because it's so fucking stupid to have said - he can't explain what else he could possibly have meant. And the only thing Obama is doing is not closing it and tearing it down. But why on Earth should Obama be expected to do that?

I need more than just tinfoil hat rants about "trillions for the rich." That isn't in this bill. Again - these Insurance Giants spent millions to try to kill the bill. Why would they have done that if it's such a giveaway? Dronester couldn't respond to that point, Oni never has, Theodoric did nothing but spew his racist bile. "Insurance Giants" hate this bill because their "millions of new customers" are the very people they didn't want as customers - people with existing medical conditions who are going to be making very expensive claims long before they've paid almost anything in premiums.The ACA tears the heart out of the primary profit mechanism of medical insurance - rescission and adverse selection. You don't seem to know anything about what's happening in Congress, and you don't seem to possess any ability to think through the consequences of policy or any knowledge of why people were uninsured in the US. Hint - for the most part, not for want of trying. Oh my fucking God, xongsmith! How could you have possibly missed my point so completely?Jesus Christ. Let me repeat myself for like the ninth time - the record of the Obama Administration is precisely the record it is because Obama is a liberal, but the structure of the US government allows for only conservative outcomes. Obama tried to close GITMO - the Senate voted it down. The ACA doesn't establish single-payer health care because none of you have been able to identify the 60 senators who would have voted for it. The unemployment/middle-class tax cut bill includes billions in tax cuts for the rich, again, because that's the only outcome allowed by the fundamentally conservative Senate.Obama could be as liberal as you want - and, in fact, he is - and still there would be no single payer health care, no expiration of tax cuts for the rich, and no end to rendition because the fundamental structure of the American government won't allow it. Dronester's reply to that point was just "nuh-uh, it's not!" Theodoric evaded the point with etymological games. Oni would rather deny the plain English meaning of statements. I doubt you're capable of grappling with the point either, frankly, but I'd like to be surprised.

No, dude, it means continuing the hegemony. But I did. I pointed out that Drone was refering to the continued policy of global hegemony when such a large base was built, clearly not for just diplomatic reasons. And yet here we are with a bunch of us telling you that there are other ways to interpret it.- Oni

Oni directed you to the threads where this can be debated. You never showed up to debate it. Oni is sad now.- Oni

In part, by the building's continued presence and the continued existence of the embassy. "It's not going anywhere." Is that a statement you're having trouble reading? It's perfectly plain English. That's a stretch. One, we're talking about specifically Iraq, not "global." Two, plenty of nations with no hegemonic intentions maintain embassies (even on American soil - ooo, scary!). Three, this complain is being leveled against Obama, not Bush, and the only action Obama has taken in regards to the Iraq embassy has been to not close it. It was designed, appropriated, and built under Bush. The only thing Obama has done, to repeat, is not close it down.But why on Earth would Obama close down the US embassy in Iraq? That makes no sense. So you say, but what's the interpretation? You don't specify. What other interpretation is there when Dronester puts the US embassy in Iraq on a list of things he wants out of Iraq? What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that the US embassy in Iraq "isn't going anywhere"? (Where would it go?) What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that Obama is continuing the Bush "policy" of not closing the US embassy in Iraq?There is no other interpretation. Dronester is complaining that Obama won't shutter the US embassy in Iraq. But why on Earth would he do that?

Great. You directed me to a bunch of threads.Which one is the thread where you addressed my argument?

Just 2, don't hype it up. I may not have addressed your argument specifically, but those would be the threads where we could discuss it on topic.In fact, if you want just link the post you think represents your argument best and I'll reply to it over there. You know how this site works.- Oni

Yeah, in part. Then Drone further explained it and that should have been it. Dragging this shit out the way you are is pathetic. You're just being stubborn. I did specify, here: That's how I/we other's interpreted it.- Oni

We can argue about it wherever you like, you just have to respond to the argument.

No, he didn't "further explain" anything. He called me a liar and then repeated the complaint he said he wasn't making. It's absurd. Interpreted what? Be specific. Which statement did you interpret this way? And how did you interpret, specifically, the other statements I mentioned:

quote:

---

What other interpretation is there when Dronester puts the US embassy in Iraq on a list of things he wants out of Iraq? What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that the US embassy in Iraq "isn't going anywhere"? (Where would it go?) What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that Obama is continuing the Bush "policy" of not closing the US embassy in Iraq?

---

Be specific. Show me precisely how you interpreted these statements of Dronester's. And can you explain how your interpretation makes any sense? When you say "I pointed out that Drone was refering to the continued policy of global hegemony when such a large base was built", how is that not exactly what I'm saying? Dronester's complaint is that Obama is continuing Bush's policy of hegemony into Iraq by the continued presence of the enormous embassy, but why on Earth would Obama close the embassy of a nation whose government we're on friendly terms with?You say "continued policy of global hegemony when such a large base was built", but then it's like your brain just stops. What does that sentence mean if not "Obama not closing the US embassy in Iraq"? And why on Earth would Obama be expected to do that?Why is that a question neither you, xongsmith, or Dronester can answer? How can the US embassy, which is already a physical building that exists, represent the "continued Bush policy of global hegemony" unless Obama was supposed to discontinue that policy by tearing it down? How else would he not "continue the Bush policy" in regards to embassies except by closing the embassies?

"Good thing I didn't complain about the dirty knife"
Monty PythonOni and Xongsmith, thanks for the back-up and tireless efforts guys. I ORIGINALLY assumed the communication problem MAY have been my fault, but after I corrected Crash's willful and dishonest fabrications SEVERAL times, I concluded the real problem stems from Crash's sub-par-parent-rearing environment. (Honesty and integrity; missing components in that household.)Executive orders and Child Torture anyone? . . . Nope?, . . . just more crickets.

Ok, I'll detail my interpretative skills to you in hopes that this could be the last of these posts.Drone did say: By itself it does look like he is making the claim that Obama should get rid of it.But his next sentence explained it further to me. So in my brains, I judged this to mean, the large embassy isn't going anywhere so that the US government/military could further it's presense there, for the continued hegemony.At this point I don't think he meant that Obama should get rid of the base, only that it is a large base indicating something other than diplomacy.But YOU did interpret it that way, which is fine, so then you asked him: This is the first time withdrawing the embassy was mentioned. Granted, this is how you interpreted what he said. Ok, no big deal, just a slight misunderstanding, maybe.Then Drone replies: Kinda douchy as we all are, but still, he tells you that he was talking about the size NOT withdrawing the embassy. Because just reducing the size of the embassy by moving it to a smaller location would solve the embassy issue. It doesn't ONLY have to be "withdraw it." And, since he never said "withdraw" he can't be held to that statement.And...that should have been it. Done. Ok, Drone meant the size of the embassy. Should have been good enough. Friendly terms with? Yeah, cuz that always lasts! Your question is based on your interpretation. It's not that Obama should close the embassy, it's that the size of the embassy points to a pupose other than diplomacy. Because no one claimed it. You are just going by your interpretation, even though Drone has explained his position.And again, withdrawing isn't the only way, a smaller embassy solves it. Why on earth are YOU stuck on withdrawing?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'm curious where you think you've "corrected" anything. All you've done is deny that you said what you said, and then said it again.Did you, or did you not, complain that under Obama the enormous US embassy in Iraq didn't "go anywhere"? The one designed, appropriated, and built under Bush? I've quoted you saying that a number of times. And my interpretation was proven correct by the fact that you folded like a card table the minute Panda asked you what precisely, Obama was supposed to do about the enormous embassy in Iraq that he was designed, appropriated, and built long before he was President.So, sorry, Drone. Xong and Oni are engaged in precisely the same absurd distortion you are, the one that only makes sense if you assume words in English have no meaning. You're a liar, and I've proved it.