The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
NYCDiesel
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
NYCDiesel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,154 times Debate No: 7057
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (9)

 

sadolite

Pro

Last week under Obamas leadership 22 men women and children were murdered by the US military.
http://www.rferl.org...
With this said we are losing the war in Afghanistan and should pull out immediately to prevent the loss of anymore innocent life. Using the collateral damage argument does not work anymore. It wasn't good enough for George Bush so it can't be used by Obama. It is plain and simple murder. They were minding their own business and on the authority of Obamas leadership these 22 people were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Obama administration and the US military.
NYCDiesel

Con

Though it hurts me to defend a Democrat, the article my opponent cites is dated January 24, 2009. Obama was sworn into office on the 20th. This gives very little time for Obama to have any serious impact on the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the top Cabinet official that would have had any impact on these orders is Defense Secretary Robert Gates- he was chosen by George W. Bush.

Now, the resolution states "Obama is murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children in Afghanistan". It would be silly to affirm that Obama is in Afghanistan taking part in any raids, and it would be just as silly to imply that he commands every squad or platoon action- this is reserved for commanders on the ground, and carried out by troops. When there are murders and they are investigated, confirmed, and evidence is brought forth about American involvement, those who carried out the acts are normally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://usmilitary.about.com...

My opponent claims that these civilians were "minding their own business", and that "on the authority of Obamas leadership" 22 people "were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Obama administration and the US military". Indeed a number of people were killed, but reports vary even from the Afghans themselves. One man says 22 civilians, another says 21, another says 11 and 4 militants, and yet another says 10 civilians. Every incident that can be investigated should be, but this is not to say the administration itself is guilty of cold blooded murder. Obama inherited two wars- the one in Afghanistan was more poorly handled than the one in Iraq, and Afghanistan should have always been our main focus. To imply that Obama or his administration is guilty of murder for attempting to effectively carry out a war he did not instigate is inaccurate at best. http://www.wsws.org...
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Bush had to get congressional approval for troop surge in Iraq or it was considered unconstitutional. Obama got no congressional approval for additional troops or funding. He didn't even consult congress he just did it.

"Opposition to Bush's plan is also widespread amongst Democrats and more than a few Republicans. Days before Bush announced his intentions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent him a letter expressing their opposition to any increase in troops in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) then turned that opposition into action, introducing legislation saying no additional troops could be sent and no additional dollars spent on an escalation in Iraq "unless and until" Congress approves the plan. Kennedy argued that the original resolution permitting President Bush to use military force in Iraq has expired because it only authorized military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power for his (alleged) possession of weapons of mass destruction."

Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction they are not a threat to The US. There is no terror threat. Muslims are peace loving people. There are only a few terrorists and it does not require nor does it justify invading a country and killing innocent men women and children.

Us conceeds "mostly civilians killed"
http://www.nwotruth.com...

Every single civilian loss of life under the bush Administration was blamed directly on Bush not the US military. The opposition was against the policy but were for the troops. Now that Obama is president it is the military that is at fault and Obama's policy has nothing to do with it. Well no double stand thank you. It is Obama's policy in afghanistan that got those people killed and he is responsible. The US military is only following his orders just like the US military followed Bushes orders. If Bush is responsible, Obama is responsible.

This is a unjust war, it does not have congressional approval or approval from the UN. Obama is a murderer.
NYCDiesel

Con

My opponent's first statement has nothing to do with this debate. Neither does the entire second paragraph in which he describes the process of Bush getting authorization for a troop surge in Iraq.

His next paragraph reads "Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction they are not a threat to The US. There is no terror threat.". My opponent seems to be forgetting a few facts here.

Fact #1- Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. Though "munitions" have been found containing "degraded mustard and sarin" that could possibly be converted by terrorists, and metric tonnes of yellowcake were found- there were no useful weapons of mass destruction as we were told by the Bush Administration. Most Republicans have learned to accept that the cause for war in Iraq was phony... my opponent is still one of the disgruntled few who do not accept we were tricked into war with Iraq. Furthermore, there is no proof that Afghanistan does not have weapons of mass destruction, yet there is proof they are gaining access to them. Al Qaeda's stronghold is a region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is fragile, and Pakistan DOES possess weapons of mass destruction. With the gains seen recently for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, ignoring the war in Afghanistan could be much more disastrous to American security than my opponent would lead us all to believe. According to the 2007 National Security Estimate, Al Qaeda remains "the most serious terrorist threat" to the US.
http://intelligence.house.gov...
http://www.cfr.org...
http://www.ptinews.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Fact #2- Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, poses the most serious terror threat to the US. As referenced above in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, they are "the MOST serious terrorist threat" to the US.
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.heritage.org...

Fact #3- No Iraqi terrorists, terrorist organizations, or terrorist cells have ever attacked on US soil. My opponent implies the war in Iraq is justified, but if it is, it is only justified by the actions of Saudi Arabian, Yemenese, and other Arab terrorists belonging to Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, Al Qaeda, which is based in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban which was the government in Afghanistan in 2002 when the war in Afghanistan began, and who have free travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan- a nation with weapons of mass destruction and a weak government. There can be no war on terror, no hunting for bin Laden, and no resolution to the attacks on 9/11 without some type of progress in Afghanistan.

My opponent then goes on to explain how the US concedes that "mostly civilians" were killed in an attack on Tuesday, February 17, 2009. Now, in his first round argument he was referring to an incident in January. But let's address the issue nonetheless. No one is arguing that loss of civilian life is repulsive and reprehensible. BUT to claim that Obama is "murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children" is a stretch. The attack killed 3 militants, and a stockpile of weapons were found. Though the loss of civilian life is tragic and should be avoided, it should not completely tie the hands of those carrying out a war against an ever adaptive military force like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The same article references a deal with Afghan forces on "planning and execution of counterterrorism missions" to minimize civilian casualties. This is progress, and if you attribute the deaths within the past two months to Obama's mismanagement, then you must also attribute any progress to him as well. The article also mentions the loss of life of US Soldiers, something my opponent fails to mention.

My opponent makes the following statement: "Every single civilian loss of life under the bush Administration was blamed directly on Bush not the US military". If my opponent is so angry about this, turning the tables on the new President does not make him right, and it does not make an argument against those who made similar claims against Bush. I attribute a level of maturity to the readers that would preclude them from making similar judgments to somehow make them feel better, or as retribution against the judgments made against the previous President.

My opponent claims that Obama's policy in Afghanistan "got those people killed". How is that so? This is not Obama's war, this is America's war and we were brought into it by a President who decided to wage wars on two fronts without finishing the initial task of capturing those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. That is why we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because of Obama's policies. Obama's policy is to complete the war in Iraq in accordance with the desires of the Iraqi government- something Bush put into motion during his last few months in office, and his policy in Afghanistan is to attempt to re-gain control of a war that was neglected by the Bush Administration for the past 7 years. If Bush was responsible for anything in Afghanistan it is allowing a resurgence in the Taliban, allowing a fragile, and at times rogue, government to operate in neighboring Pakistan, and to hand off a possible quagmire to a vastly more competent President in Barack Obama. Though I believe McCain would have been even more competent still, I don't believe a different President would have prevented these casualties as they are the result of operations on the ground, and not orders from the President. The President does not direct day to day operations on the ground, as I stated in my round one argument.

My opponent also claims that "This is a unjust war, it does not have congressional approval or approval from the UN. Obama is a murderer". Again, he is ignoring a few facts.

Fact #1- This war began under Bush's orders, not those of Barack Obama.

Fact #2- Operation Enduring Freedom was authorized by Congress.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

Fact #3- The US did not require UN approval for the war in Afghanistan. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for collective self defense. When the US invaded Afghanistan, only one government recognized the Taliban as an official government- Pakistan- and they later retracted that recognition (Iran retracted recognition almost immediately). On December 20, 2001, the UNSC did authorize the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with authority to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security. Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003.

Fact #4- My opponent has no direct or indirect proof that Obama is a murderer, or a terrorist. He simply states so as rhetoric to somehow get back at Democrats for making the same false claims against George W. Bush. If his opposition to this war were moral as he now implies, he would have opposed it under Bush as well. He has made no such claims, and has only stated that Obama deserves the same disdain for continuing this war. I believe we all want these wars to be over, but we all know they cannot be ended without bloodshed- be that US troops, Arab militants, or civilians, but none of this makes Obama a murderer.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

I would like to state first and foremost that I am for the total and complete annihilation of the countries that harbor terrorists. Anything that Obama may do as a leader in the killing of terrorists will be a complete failure. He will kill more civilians than terrorists. He has tied his own hands with his rhetoric before his election. Now he will break every single action that he vowed not to do. He has to. Sending troops in harms way without congressional approval is his first act . #2 He has no exit strategy as is required in a war or an insurgency. #3 He gives no indication of how to measure success and #4 gives no predetermined withdrawal date. He demanded all of these things from Bush. Now that he is President none of it applies to him. You can't have it both ways This is what makes him a murderer just like Bush is. You can not treat war like it is a game with rules. Oh you can do this but you can't do this and then give enemy combatants the same rights and privileges under civilian law. It is absurd. My opponent clearly gives the double standard on all fronts. He gives him the benefit of the doubt. Obama could have pulled the troops out of Afghanistan rather than send more in. By doing so he makes it his war and his liability. His efforts should be undermined at every front as they were for Bush. His policy should be mocked and all of his military secretes should be printed in thew news paper when ever they are leaked just as they were for Bush. I am going to give Obama no slack. If he so much as injures a flea I want to see it printed on the front page of the New York Times. He made every attempt to under mine Bush and now the favor should be returned. I want to see the number of people killed on Obama's watch printed every day just as it was for Bush. My argument is about Bush being demonized and being compared to every single monster in the last 100 years. Now It is Obama's turn. If he so much as kills one more civilian he is Hitler just like Bush. I don't give a rats a## about whether or not what he does is legal or illegal just like no one cares about the facts about Iran and Bushes legal right to invade Iraq under the terms of UN resolution 1441. Obama is trying to occupy a foreign country and shove American Socialism down their throats.
Of course I will be accused of being childish and revengeful. No, not at all. I have been schooled by the left. This is the proper thing and acceptable thing to do. To undermine the President in a time of war is "Patriotic". I had this shoved down my throat for eight years. Now it is my turn to be Patriotic and do everything I can to undermine the President and make his war fail and get the news papers to print as many classified military secretes as it can to put the troops in harms way. This is the right thing to do and the Patriotic thing to do. Obama is a murderer and all of his intelligence is a lie. Obama lied and people died. My opponent can not prove any of the intelligence that Obama uses is true or accurate. You just have to believe it with blind faith. He has ulterior motives to get himself rich and all of his cronies rich just like Bush and Cheney. There is no difference in what he is doing and what the Bush/Cheney administration was doing to stop the phony war on terrorism. It's just a smoke screen to cover up his attempts at world gov't and the pending collapse of the US monetary system.
NYCDiesel

Con

My opponent seems to be making a hodgepodge of judgments and assessments based on pure emotion, and not fact. He begins his argument with a contradiction: He is for the total annihilation of countries that harbor terrorists, yet he is against anything Obama does to bring terrorists to justice because "he will kill more civilians than terrorists". If you totally annihilate Afghanistan, will you not end up killing more civilians than terrorists? In this, my opponent admits his opposition to Obama's policies are simply rhetorical, and based on his anger towards Democrats for their judgment of Bush.

My opponent has conceded several key issues here:

#1- He concedes that his argument is not about Obama's actions or policies, rather "My argument is about Bush being demonized and being compared to every single monster in the last 100 years. Now It is Obama's turn".

#2- He never rebutted my first round argument in which I pointed out inconsistencies with his argument and the truth. It would appear he has conceded that he was simply making up the connection between that story and Obama's being a "murderer".

#3- He concedes that his argument on the legality of Obama's policies are irrelevant, at best, and untrue at worst.

#4- He concedes that this is Bush's war. He supported Bush's war, and now that the Commander in Chief is from a different political party he "claims" to be against the war all the while admitting he is only against it as reciprocity for opposition to the war when Bush was in office. He is ignoring the fact that opposition was to the war in Iraq due to the misinformation that got us there in the first place, but the war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice- a war neglected by the Bush administration.

The surge in Afghanistan has been a request of commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, the Pentagon, and Republicans for a little over a year now. Obama is listening- regardless of what the anti-war left asks of him. This, at least, is a demonstration that he is willing to challenge his political capital in order to do what military personnel say is the right thing to do- something Bush rarely did (the surge in Iraq came 5 years after nearly every military mind in America said the amount of troops being sent in wouldn't be enough).
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://www.iht.com...
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk... (from January 2007!)

This does not make Obama a murderer or a terrorist, rather a thoughtful Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces- one that listens to the advice of the military minds he employs.

"My opponent clearly gives the double standard on all fronts"
-There is no double standard. Bush brought this country into two large scale wars with two countries. Both were severely mismanaged, and one was almost completely neglected. I am not accusing Bush of being a murderer, I am saying that as President it is Obama's duty to effectively carry out, and at some point bring to an end if possible under his term(s), the wars started by his predecessor. Your argument is that if Bush was a murderer, then so is Obama. I have never said Bush was a murderer. He has been many things, but I do not believe he was a murderer, nor that he intentionally ordered the murder or terrorizing of civilians. If this is your argument, you are to prove that Bush was a murderer.

"By doing so he makes it his war and his liability"
-By being President it is his war and his liability, but he can't possibly be to blame for us being there in the first place. We are there for a reason, and he recognizes this. He is simply complying with the wishes of the commanders on the ground.

"His efforts should be undermined at every front as they were for Bush"
-Bush enjoyed unchecked support for almost his entire 8 years as President.

"I am going to give Obama no slack"
-I think it is clear this is the sole purpose of my opponent's argument. He does not intend to logically argue that Obama is a murderer and a terrorist. To do so he would have to effectively accuse and provide evidence that Bush is a murderer and terrorist as well, and then somehow prove there is a correlation between this and Obama's policies. He has not done this, he has simply provided empty rhetoric. As a Republican I can find much more effective ways to criticize Obama, his policies, etc., but I won't call him a murderer simply because some liberal calls Bush a murderer. My opponent assumes he will be called childish for this. I suspect it is because he believes it to be.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

" He begins his argument with a contradiction: He is for the total annihilation of countries that harbor terrorists, yet he is against anything Obama does "

What my personal beliefs are or what I would do is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Bush did in regard to snuffing out terrorism is identical to what Obama is doing and will do in the future. Obama will try and seek out terrorists in foreign countries and he will kill civilians and US soldiers in the process. He of course will be given a pass. I will not give him a pass as I have been schooled. There is no moral difference between purposely killing civilians and trying to target terrorists and inadvertently killing civilians. Bush was pounded and pounded mercilessly for this and Obama shall be treated the same. Again I have been schooled on this for the last eight years. The Democratic party is the morally superior party on every front and has set the standard of right and wrong when it comes to war. This is the standard they set for Bush This the standard for Obama. This alone proves he is a murderer by his own parties interpretation of moral standards.

"If you totally annihilate Afghanistan, will you not end up killing more civilians than terrorists?"

The entire Middle East is a terrorist breeding ground. Every single Middle East country in the world is harboring terrorists. We should be having a third world war and totally bringing the Middle East to it's knees and let them know that any act of terrorism will result in one major Middle East city being destroyed for every American killed. But instead the American Govt is filled with a bunch of spineless politicaly correct wimps who worry about what the rest of the world might think instead of letting the rest of the world know that attacking the US isn't even worth considering because the cost of doing so would be to high to even contemplate or think about. But that is my personal opinion and irrelevant to the debate. Again what is relevant is the standards that Bush was being held to also apply to Obama.

Point #1 Obama is a monster according to his actions as set forth by his own parties standards set for Bush.

Point#2 I am not making anything up. Under obama's watch and under his leadership a raid was carried out to kill terrorists and innocent civilians were killed. I refer you back to the moral non difference as prescribed by the Democratic party.

Point #3 Bush had every legal right to re invade Iraq under the terms of surrender of UN resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein violated every single term more than 20 times each some more than 100. Legality is irrelevant to Bush so it is irrelevant to Obama

Point #4 Yes, Bush went to war against terrorism. I never said I supported it.

"He is ignoring the fact that opposition was to the war in Iraq due to the misinformation that got us there in the first place" "A war neglected by the Bush administration." Both opinions and can be argued all day long.

The surge in Afghanistan is by request. Can't prove it. It could be an elaborate scheme to redirect attention from Obama's true agenda. Just as Bush was accused of an ulterior agenda for the war in Iraq even though almost every country who sat on the UN's panel agreed with his assessment that Saddam Hussein did have weapons but that doesn't even matter it is the violations under 1441 that is relevant.

"There is no double standard. Bush brought this country into two large scale wars with two countries. Both were severely mismanaged, and one was almost completely neglected"

If one takes the time or even bothers to look at war statistics, The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most successful wars ever fought in military history. The casualty rates for US soldiers and civilian deaths are unheard of for the time of duration and the scope of logistical difficulty. No one will ever beat George Bush when it comes to minimizing loss of life when it comes to war. None the less he is considered a war criminal and a murder by the democratic party because he killed civilians in raids trying to kill terrorists. Obama is doing the same thing. If Bush is a war criminal then Obama is a war criminal.

"Prove that Bush was a murderer." A Quick jury trial with 12 registered Dems on the panel would prove that easy enough.

"He is simply complying with the wishes of the commanders on the ground." You shift the blame from Obama to the soldiers on the ground.

"-Bush enjoyed unchecked support for almost his entire 8 years as President." What planet are you living on!!!

"My opponent assumes he will be called childish for this. I suspect it is because he believes it to be."

The Democratic party set these standards not me. It is the Democratic party that is run by children, which you shall soon see under the Obama Administration.

My opponent never responded to my points about exit strategy, exit date, or how progress will be measured as was required by Bush according to the Democratic party to justify any war. Again Obama has provided none of this information and will be given a total pass.
NYCDiesel

Con

My opponent's entire argument is based on a chip on his shoulder, and a grudge he is holding against what he terms "the Democratic party", and "their" criticism of Bush. Indeed there were many members of the Democratic party who criticized Bush's handling of the war, but there was no combined effort to label Bush a murderer and terrorist. That would have resulted in articles of impeachment and a formal accusation of murder and terrorism by the Democratic party. This never happened. My opponent would not only have to prove that Bush was accused en masse of being a murderer and terrorist by some official body who's declaration would have some legal value, but he would subsequently have to prove that Obama has committed the same crimes. My opponent has not even attempted to do either.

"What my personal beliefs are or what I would do is irrelevant."- That's not true. Your entire argument is based on what you supposedly believe of Obama. If you believe it is just to invade a country and annihilate their populations based on the actions of those "harbored" by the country, then you can't possibly believe a lesser controlled version of those same actions are murder and/or terrorism. It is your argument that Obama's actions amount to murder and terrorism, but it is also your belief that his actions are not only just, but lacking. This moral contradiction dismantles your moral argument.

Point #1- You have not even attempted to prove this. I am sure if you bring about the official declarations of the Democratic party's views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they would not amount to labeling Bush a murderer and a terrorist- a pre-requisite for proving your argument that Obama is in the same boat. Furthermore, the Democratic party's opinion is irrelevant to this argument because you are not debating a Democrat who agrees with even an unofficial assessment.

Point #2- Raids are not carried out on a case by case basis under orders of the President. You obviously lack understanding of military chain of command, rules of engagement, etc. By your assessment the entire military is full of murderers and terrorists as they all carry out the unlawful orders to murder and terrorize civilians in the form of following orders to carry out counter-terrorism raids.

Point #3- It was you who brought up the legality issue, not me. Thanks for conceding the point that it is irrelevant.

Point #4- You have expressed not only support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have supported wider action in the entire Middle East.

"If one takes the time or even bothers to look at war statistics, The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most successful wars ever fought in military history."- It's always interesting when debaters inject a little humor into their statements. I would love to see these magical statistics.

"If Bush is a war criminal then Obama is a war criminal."- With this statement my opponent concedes the entire debate. Bush has not been accused or convicted of war crimes. Even if the reciprocity applied, a separate trial would have to be held to assess the actions of the Obama Administration which has just begun. No such investigation, trial, or judgment has been carried out on the Bush Administration, so by my opponent's reasoning- If Bush is NOT a war criminal, then neither is Obama.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
KABUL, Afghanistan — American air strikes that Afghan officials and villagers said Wednesday had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians in western Afghanistan. Also on CNN today in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Afghan President says ' Al Qaeda and Taliban are not a threat to Afghanistan and that The US is killing afghan civilians sensuously" Wants US out of Afghanistan.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
US military deaths during Clinton years @13,417 deaths (There wasn't even a war going on!)

US military deaths during BUSH years @9,016 deaths (during 2 wars!!) Unheard of in military history. This number could be considered the lowest number of soldiers killed in two separate wars in the entire world military history since records have been kept.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
May 6th, 2009
U.S. attack in Afghanistan probed for civilian deaths
Posted: 08:31 AM ET
By Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan's southern Farah province Tuesday likely killed or wounded at least 11 Afghan civilians, a senior U.S. military official told CNN Wednesday.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
As of today, 105 coalition forces killed in Afghanistan. What's up with these people being killed so senselessly. Why is there no outrage. Oh I know, it's because it is Obama and not Bush. Obama can send our fighting forces to their deaths without any kind of strategy or exit plan. It is virtuous when Obama does it. It was murder when Bush did it. Like I said Obama gets a total pass even though people are dropping like flies all around him.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
The Democratic machine undermined the President during the entire Iraq war under his watch. They used every single underhanded method they could think of to put US troops in harms way. They leaked classified intelligence gave up troop positions and went over seas and engaged in sedition every chance they could. It is not unreasonable to think they would sacrifice civilian lives when they so easily and readily sacrificed US military lives for political gain during the Bush administration. "The war is lost" Harry Reid " Does anyone remember Tokyo Rose Our US military is butchering and terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night" John Murtha I could go on and on. These kinds of statements are not protest it is treason and sedition.
Posted by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
It's sad when people are unaware of the vast irrelevance of their opinion...

Sadolite, you ought to be ashamed of yourself and your immaturity. This statement says what you're all about: "It would be perfectly fine if another 3000 people died under a conservative administration as long as it meant taking control of Washington"
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Body count under Obama sense 1/20/09 85 US military 45 innocent civilians. That's already more people dead than the number dead in the entire offensive to oust Hussein. Obama hands run red with the blood of the US military!! Wheres the out cry? Where's Shehan? Where's Code Pink? What a bunch of losers all those people are and all those who supported or defended their actions. How come they don't try to undermine Obama in a time of war? A dead soldier is a dead soldier. A dead civilian is a dead civilian. As I recall there is nothing worth dying for according to the anti-war crowd, no matter who is President. But we all know that the liberal anti-war crowd is all about control of Washington not what is best for the country or it's security. It would be perfectly fine if another 3000 people died under a conservative administration as long as it meant taking control of Washington. It is as clear as day. I want to here from the screaming whining anti-war crowd and I want them to condemn Obama!!!!
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
It is interesting that when the same tactic is used by a conservative it is considered devoid of intelligence but when a liberal uses it it is educated and brilliant. The Dems did everything they could to undermine Bush. Now that you see the same tactic from a conservative source the double standard and attacks on intelligence ensue. A typical and predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Spare everyone the lack of intelligence comment. The debate was to point this out. Most look at it as though, Oh just another dumb conservative. The debate was purposely sarcastic and ridiculous on my part to show the ridiculousness of the double standard and how Obama will be given a complete pass on Afghanistan no matter how many people are killed or how many screw ups he makes.
Posted by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
Note: I do not agree with Obama's economic policies, nor am I "pro-abortion", but there are INTELLIGENT ways to argue policy matters, and there are arguments that are completely void of intelligence.
Posted by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
You can argue anything, that doesn't make the argument logical, nor the proposition intelligent. Though one can argue that abortion is murder, one cannot INTELLIGENTLY argue that abortion is murder because the concept itself REQUIRES ignorance. One can argue that Obama is "terrorizing everyone with his economic policies", but one cannot INTELLIGENTLY argue that matter because though one may not agree with his policies, the concept that his policies amount to terrorism REQUIRE ignorance.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by stormchaser221 8 years ago
stormchaser221
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
sadoliteNYCDieselTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07