Obama

You are a dishonest liar Pops. My original postS clearly showed that the SIZE of the embassy was the issue I had. When you continued to play dumb, I specifically re-addressed this point.Again, how proud your parents must be Pops. (The apple must not fall far from the tree.)(Let me know when "liberal" Obama signs an executive order that stops extraordinary extradition and child torture.)

It seems you dishonestly ommited one of my posts. Here's BOTH of them: AND, even when I corrected your wrongful notion in the other thread, you continue to spout garbage/lies in this thread.Curiously, you even admitted that I OBVIOUSLY wrote about the size: (Still not addressing Obama's "liberal" support of Child Torture huh? Didn't think so)

Pops,Even if I was to give you the benefit of the doubt that my original posts (Message 14 and Message 20) were unclear, I DID follow up with the following post to clearly show that your fanciful interpretation of my posts was indeed wrong:Message 59 (Message 59) 12-03-10 After all this, less than a week later, you CONTINUE to falsely assert that I want the embassy withdrawn:Message 40 of 85 (Message 40) 12-09, Funny, you have abundant time to use dishonest and obfuscating debating tactics, but when it comes to addressing serious points like extraordinary extradition and CHILD TORTURE, you can't spare a word. Just the sound of crickets.Run away Pops, run away, your parents are so proud.Edited by AdminPD, : Msg Links

Repeatedly? Therapists are doing wonders with shock therapy these days Pops. Perhaps you're not such a bad guy afterall. Maybe someday, some advanced team of Viennese therapists will prove this hunch.Seriously, if your parents raised an honest and ethical person, you would NOT continue to write that I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama should CLOSE the giant embassy. Instead you would honestly write that I have repeatedly stated that Obama has not ENDED the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion like he "liberally" campaigned. And I gave supporting evidence . . . The ridiculous size (the embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York!) of the US embassy is clearly NOT for diplomatic reasons. This is yet another Bush Jr. illegal and immoral hegemony policy that will continue under the Obama Administration. If Bush Jr. wasn't a liberal, than Obama continuing to support Bush Jr. policies also makes Obama . . . NOT a liberal. Sayth the man who refuses to address extraordinary rendition and Child Torture. Keep running Pops, keep running. Edited by dronester, : "rendition"

"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.

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?)

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, your last reply reeks of desperation. It reads like the LAST log entry of a doomed 19th century pioneer lost in his failed pursuit to reach the antarctic.Regarding your "invisible unnamed comrades in arms": If there are indeed errors in my posts, someone should speak up. Perhaps I merely need someone of respectability to write the words to convince me. It may be nice to win a debate, but we should be here FIRSTLY for personal growth, knowledge and truth.And Pops, it is not nice or FAIR to accuse Oni and Xongsmith of disingenuousness. Just not cool. I love your hypocrisy. YOU are telling ME I am evading points: size, context, child torture, illegal wire tapping, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, SIGNING STATEMENTS.I marveled at the Bush Jr. administration. Really. His presidency did so much. Not at all encumbered by the fundamental structure of our government, LAWS, checks and balances, morality. The way the presidency powerfully framed arguments so that gullible Americans joyfully voted against their own interests? (At one point 90% of Americans supported the immoral and illegal wars. Wow.) And signing statements? Record amounts. Executive orders? Oodles. However, you want everyone to believe that, NOW, SUDDENLY, due to the fundamental structure of our government, Obama's presidency is powerless to enact any worthwhile "liberalisms"???And supposedly this powerlessness especially includes child torture (rhetorical?, oh puhlease. Yeah, I often ask rhetorical questions aloud a dozen times. Idiot). Child torture is repugnant, reprehensible, despicable, immoral, and ALREADY quite illegal. Yet you say "liberal" Obama is powerless to make an executive order against the fundamental structure of our government that supposedly supports this criminality? (Just who do you think would raise his hand to object to THIS executive order?)And by the way, voting FOR wire-tapping is not a rhetorical subject either. Do you really believe when Obama voted FOR illegal wire tapping he was acting liberal? (Idiot.)And finally Mr. Tattle-Tale:The current score is 4 to 1. (AdminPD is also on record saying that you are stinky.)

Yes, I agree, it is certainly easier to enact a conservative agenda when "liberals" push forward a neo-conservative agenda . . .1. Barack Obama voted FOR illegal wiretapping HR 6304, 2008.2. The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings.3. Obama okays deal with GOP to prolong Bush tax cutsBut Obama is reeeeeeally a liberal. (apparently it is just his repeated and on-going pro neo-conservative actions that are fooling me).Edited by dronester, : added "3"

Hi Jazzns,I am disappointed in you. This "progress" that you speak of means more pain and death around the world while furthering elite's power and profits.Besides not closing Gitmo, underage torture, extraordinary rendition, increased military spending, and all the other items in this ten page thread, I'll add these items:1. The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings.2. Obama has ordered more drone-attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan THAN Bush Jr.. This guarantees more death to innocent women and children and guarantees more retaliatory strikes (blowback) against US in the future.3. Status quo in Israel. Though the US continues to bribe Israel with billions of $, the continuation of illegal building and criminal discrimination/torture/death of Palestinians will continue.That you consider ALL this to be "progress" is sad.

Like child torture?

Evidence please?

Oddly enough, you skipped over the ACTION that the US BRIBES Israel. You know . . . . the MAIN PART of my argument. (Look up "Quote-mine" some time, won't you please?)Seemed to skip over this one too:2. Obama has ordered more drone-attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan THAN Bush Jr.. This guarantees more death to innocent women and children and guarantees more retaliatory strikes (blowback) against US in the future.

Sorry, what does this mean? Are there supposed to be links attached to your post? Please provide evidence that the majority of Americans support torture/child torture.

It seems you have misread my post once again. The argument isn't whether or not Obama is the president of Israel.The argument is: If Obama is a liberal, why does Obama CHOOSE choose to maintain the same actions (reward Israel with billions of $) as Bush Jr. when Israel continues to displace/discriminate/torture/murder Palestinians?