Obama

Right. So, the complaint is that Obama hasn't closed the US embassy, like I said.Again - there's no difference between your interpretation and mine. And so therefore Obama should close it. Right? You agree with my interpretation, then. Right, but this is where Dronester has started to lie. You saw it yourself:

quote:

---

By itself it does look like he is making the claim that Obama should get rid of it.

---

And now Dronester claims that he never said that "Obama should get rid of it." But you know that's a lie, because you've read him say it, as well. And if you were asked - repeatedly, as I was - to show where Dronester had said that, you would quote - as I did - the statement you interpreted as meaning "Obama should get rid of it."Your words. It would, but where did Dronester say that Obama should move the embassy to a smaller location? What location would Dronester like the US embassy to be moved to, and where did he specify it?Be specific. I never said he said "withdraw". But you've admitted that he asserted that Obama should get rid of the enormous US embassy, and then denied asserting that. That's what he said he meant, but you've observed evidence that he is not telling the truth. You understood his comments to mean exactly what I understood them to mean, and exactly what Panda has understood them to mean.Don't let your erroneous conviction that I won't ever admit when I'm wrong blind you to the fact that I'm right in this case. Dronester is simply lying about what he meant, as you've recognized. And again - given that the embassy was designed, appropriated, and constructed under Bush long before Obama took office, how could a complaint against the size be coherent as a criticism of the Obama administration?Or to rephrase - what on Earth does Obama have to do with the size of the building except for the fact that he hasn't torn down any buildings to make it smaller? Dronster folds like a cheap suit when I ask that question. He retreated when Panda asked him what Obama was supposed to do about the embassy if not close it or reduce it's size.Doesn't that tell you something? I've already granted that I'm sure that it does. Like, two pages ago I agreed with that.But what does that have to do with Obama? The only connection Obama has to the size of the embassy is that he hasn't torn down the buildings himself.But why on Earth should Obama be expected to do that? And why is that a question that you, Drone, and Xongsmith continue to refuse to answer? Do you understand that the only time he's truthful about his position is by accident?

I was going to answer you properly, but now it seems like you want to quote mine me and misrepresent what I'm saying.I'll leave your stubborn ass with this, you've taken ONE sentence and dragged on about it like a child. Now you're claiming that I said he wanted the embassy gone when all I said was in reading ONE sentence I got that impression too, but that the VERY NEXT SENTENCE cleared it up. You never quoted that part of my post, thus you're are being a quote mining fag and that bores me.If you're hung up on one sentence, not bothering to read the very next sentence, then you're being a douche about this for the sake of just being a douche.Sooo...I'll see you at the healthcare thread if you want, Biatch.- OniPS. Fuck Panda too.

Not at all, Oni, I'm just showing how your interpretation isn't actually different than mine.Did you misspeak? Did you say

quote:

---

By itself it does look like he is making the claim that Obama should get rid of it.

---

when what you meant was the opposite? If so, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if you correctly said what you meant, how is it any different than what I meant?The only difference between us is that when Dronester tried to completely reverse his position and denied that he'd said what he said, you believed him and I didn't. How can two sentences that contradict each other "clear anything up"? If I say "Onifire is a moron", and then in the very next sentence I say "but it's not like I said 'Onifire is a moron!'" then it what sense is anything "cleared up?"Do you just not believe, Onifire, that someone can say something so stupid - perhaps by accident or thoughtlessness - that they consider it imperative to save face by denying that they ever said it? Are you saying that every single time someone denies their own words, it's a "clarification" and not, say, deliberate deception? You're right. Because it's the one sentence Dronester denies having said the way he said it. Any time you have a response to my argument I'm prepared to read it.

Unfortunately he didn't "say" anything, this was written and as such can be misinterpreted. But I'm right, as you say, it's just one sentence that all this is about. Be specific, in fact just write, don't even link, the post that best present your argument and I'll do all the work from there.- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well, three, actually. I guess I'd just like you to better develop your "the ACA is a huge insurance company giveaway" idea in light of the following facts, which I find disconfirming to that thesis:1) The insurance companies, rather than anticipating the ACA as a huge windfall, actually spent millions in campaign contributions, lobbying, busing Tea Party activists to shout at town halls, and advertising to obstruct the bill.
2) Medical insurance companies generate profits by the main mechanism of adverse selection/rescission, and the ACA eliminates these practices.
3) While insurance enrollments are assumed to increase under the ACA - that's the point - the increase is primarily in people who will make expensive medical claims well in advance of having made significant premium payments. These are exactly the applicants insurance companies didn't want because they represent a loss, not a profit.
4) Increased pharmaceutical company profits due to more people purchasing medicine is a feature, not a bug. The whole point is to increase the number of people buying medical care.These are not points I want you to respond to, because I don't see how they can really be disputed. What I'd like to see you do is defend your view that the ACA is a "huge giveaway" in light of these points, if you can.Or you can do whatever, I guess.

You can't? Already? How bout come into the debate with a bit of an open mind, and we'll see where it goes from there. You don't want people to start calling you a stubborn debater, do you? lol Aww, don't you cross your hands and turn your face at me, crash. Ima address these points, but first, let me see a smile. C'mon. - Oni

Yes, Oni. You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Insurance companies did spend millions to defeat ACA, that's a matter of public record. Rescission and adverse selection in the individual insurance market are prohibited by the ACA, it's in the text of the legislation. People getting life-saving care they need is a good thing. I guess you can argue about that, though.Those don't constitute an argument I'm making. Do you understand that? My argument is not "insurance companies spent millions to defeat the ACA." That's not an assertion I'm making and defending - that's an established and recognized fact that I believe you were not aware of when you originally struck your position.If your argument relies on up being down and black being white, I don't know that debate is going to be possible. You understand that I'm talking about the ACA that passed in this country, right? The United States?

Fuck all this shit.I want that huge Fortress of the virulent Cheney's assholeness NUKED NUKED NUKED NUKED NUKED NUKEDmelted into slag.AND I want the Arabs to get to push the buttons. The equivalent of the 4th of July.Give Iran the first button.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Hi Panda,Sorry for the delay. I presume you since read my, Xongsmith and Oni's re-clarifying posts so I won't need to re-post them yet again.It appears Crash sensed he was losing quite badly in the debate. So he switched quickly from an honest debating manner into a "win by technicality and/or attrition/obfuscation" technique. This allows him to claim a false "victory" while not having to address more serious points like Obama supporting war/hegemony, CHILD TORTURE, illegal wire tapping or drilling in the gulf coast. You've read how many times I pitched the child torture item. Ask yourself, does an honest debater REPEATEDLY avoid key arguments?I'll ask again, does an honest debater REPEATEDLY avoid key arguments?I (and apparently Oni) could IMAGINE and concede that my original "not going anywhere" text, when quote-mined from the full context and without its size qualifiers, COULD REMOTELY mean as "wanting something demolished" (by head trauma victims, dementia patients, low-functioning dysfunctional family members due to drugs and interbreeding, etc.).I recognize this possibility. So, that wrong inference was QUICKLY rectified by me RE-emphasizing the SIZE qualifiers and the CONTEXT as being the KEY issue.However dishonest it was to Crash, sensing he was losing badly, he continued to dishonestly cling to the quote-mined item, out of context, and without size qualifiers and continues to demand that he knows more what I meant than do I. And more importantly, cowardly avoiding to address bigger issues.And as for your question, I am all for diplomatic measures for security and peaceful outcomes. When embassies are used for that mission, and not for reasons of hegemony, I highly welcome them for ALL nations. Their presence is much needed in times of non-liberal leaders. (If the "embassy" is not being used for peaceful and diplomatic missions, than quite simply it is not an "embassy". Very important> Considering the size and the CONTEXT of my other Iraqi points, do you understand my point?)

I understand your objections to the current use of the Embassy.I was hoping that if you answered my question with a 'No' then Crashfrog would have to move the discussion on.

Panda, your replies seem sincere and in earnest. Thanks.Unfortunately, because your question does not address the "embassy's" size, the context, and its true mission, it appears to be a loaded question. Thus I cannot offer a simple yes and no answer.However, I thought my last post CLEARLY indicated I was pro-embassy: A sensible-sized building that does NOT incite the surrounding populace to violence, does NOT strategize to steal the nation's resources, does NOT strategize to control/dominate the middle east, and that will ONLY be used as an "embassy", should NOT be removed, demolished, or withdrawn.But again, and this is the IMPORTANT part that Crash wishes to fully disregard, this answer is a part of the whole and should ONLY be considered WITH my other Iraqi objections. To do otherwise is to quote-mine and be dishonest.Still unclear? Will it help with an example?:Suppose N Korea illegally and immorally invades USA. Millions, especially woman and children, YOUR parents and children, are murdered using illegal weapons like phosphorus bombs, napalm, cluster bombs shaped like toys to attract children. N Korea wipes out 10,000 ACRES of prime Mannhatten. They build on it, a complex of buildings and call it an "embassy". They continue to use it to plan and steal the region's resources and control the population with violence. Then, the next Korean leader gets "elected". He continues to support its original function.Do you call this next Korean leader a "liberal."?Lastly, Panda, you seemed to have skipped my other question:Does an HONEST debater REPEATEDLY avoid key arguments (like Child Torture)?

Wow.That's a long way to go to avoid Panda's question, Drone.To wit:

quote:

---

So you think Obama should close the giant embassy?

---

Thanks for making it clear, again, how you fold in the face of a direct question.

Well, ok. Let's consider it in the context of your other Iraq objections:1) You want the troops of out of Iraq.
2) You want the private military contractors out of Iraq.
3) You want the permanent military bases out of Iraq.
4) You want American hegemonic influence out of Iraq.Thus, in context, it follows that as you find the Us embassy in Iraq objectionable, you also want it out of Iraq, as I've said. Hence your inability to answer Panda's direct and simple question.Look, Drone, maybe you just misspoke and shot your mouth off without thinking. Clearly you really did want the US embassy in Iraq to close, or perhaps never to have been built at all, before you really considered the consequences of closing the US embassy in Iraq. Or perhaps it really is the size and purpose of the embassy that you object to, and you assumed inaccurately that Obama was president in 2003 when the plans for the embassy were first drawn up.That's fine. If you're genuinely retreated from that position I won't hold you to it. If we both agree that it's stupid, that's the end of it for me. You'll literally never hear about this incident from me again, I promise.But just drop the stupid game. You said it, and Panda and Onifire aren't the only people who agree you said it, they're just the only people who have said so on the forum. Quite a few people have emailed me and told me that it's quite obvious what game you're playing; nobody finds your arguments convincing. Xongsmith and Onifire are on this because they think they can attack me with it, not because they think you're right. You said it, I proved it, and your attempt to claim otherwise is a lie. You've lost that argument. Sorry, but you did.Just admit you said something you didn't mean, that this isn't all in my head, and your long nightmare can come to an end at last. I think everybody understands that this question, as well as your point about the continuing policy of rendition for torture under Obama, is rhetorical. So can we talk about the key arguments you've repeatedly avoided, now? Like how continuing the policy of rendition and torture is the only option left to the Obama Administration because of the fundamental structure of our government? That's the point you've evaded in two threads, now.

Yes, my question was not meant to enflame. Fair enough.
So, what do you think should happen to the current embassy? Sorry: I skipped the first part of your post as it seemed more aimed towards Crashfrog than myself.To answer your question:
Yes, an honest debater can repeatedly avoid key arguments because (e.g.) they feel that the current argument is being avoided.
But also, a dishonest debater can repeatedly avoid key arguments because (e.g.) they want to avoid those arguments.

Pussies. Did their email start with, "Omg, wtf is up w Dronester and all the gamez he's playin'?" I find his argument convincing, and when I explained to you why I found it convincing, you quote-mined me. Attack you with it? This isn't Warcraft, dude, we're not playing a RPG. I don't care enough about you to try and "attack" you with anything. I got into it because I realized what Dronester meant by his ENTIRE paragraph (not just the ONE sentence you quote-mined) and tried to end the pointless argument that has developed since. You must be one giant nerd who's only victories are on message boards.- Oni