Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Is Barack Obama Evil?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:51:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some say he is incompetent.
Some say he is stupid.
Some say misguided political theory.
Some say knowingly taking this country to Hell.

Let's look at the facts:

1. Forbes named him the most powerful man in the world.

2. He is highly intelligent. He knows the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he understands economics quite proficiently. He is a Harvard law graduate. He has advanced communication abilities.

3. He has committed economic terrorism against the United States by adding $6.2 trillion to the debt, inflating the economy at a dangerous rate with QE3/QE4.

4. He has assaulted the Constitution in an unprecedented manner despite knowing all about the Constitution and even admitting he "doesn't even have to get to the Constitutional question."

5. He has committed war crimes, bypassing Congress, and committing acts of global terrorism.

Is he evil? Is it misguided political philosophy? Or is he a useful pawn to people with an evil agenda?

Which do you think.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:51:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Some say he is incompetent.
Some say he is stupid.
Some say misguided political theory.
Some say knowingly taking this country to Hell.

Let's look at the facts:

1. Forbes named him the most powerful man in the world.

2. He is highly intelligent. He knows the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he understands economics quite proficiently. He is a Harvard law graduate. He has advanced communication abilities.

No he hasn't.

3. He has committed economic terrorism against the United States by adding $6.2 trillion to the debt, inflating the economy at a dangerous rate with QE3/QE4.

Ben Bernake and the federal reserve did this, not himself. Furthermore, considering that the people running the federal reserve have doctorate's in economics from elite university, there has been no hyperinflation, and your economics education is infinitely small compared to there's, isn't it more likely that they are correct about QE3/QE4 and you are wrong.

4. He has assaulted the Constitution in an unprecedented manner despite knowing all about the Constitution and even admitting he "doesn't even have to get to the Constitutional question."

5. He has committed war crimes, bypassing Congress, and committing acts of global terrorism.

Is he evil? Is it misguided political philosophy? Or is he a useful pawn to people with an evil agenda?

Which do you think.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:08:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:51:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. He is highly intelligent. He knows the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he understands economics quite proficiently. He is a Harvard law graduate. He has advanced communication abilities.

No he hasn't.

How not? I'm talking about based on what I've seen from his Q/A with someone who asked him a tough economic question. I'll post the video in my next post.

3. He has committed economic terrorism against the United States by adding $6.2 trillion to the debt, inflating the economy at a dangerous rate with QE3/QE4.

Ben Bernake and the federal reserve did this, not himself.

I know. But he met with Bernanke prior to the decision and expressed no opposition to the decision. Again, Forbes says Obama #1, Bernanke #5.

Furthermore, considering that the people running the federal reserve have doctorate's in economics from elite university, there has been no hyperinflation, and your economics education is infinitely small compared to there's, isn't it more likely that they are correct about QE3/QE4 and you are wrong.

It doesn't take a degree to know that big debt is bad. However, you are right. They do have more education in economics than me. Two things:

A) That doesn't mean they have good intent, clearly there is incentive to run bad economic policy for personal benefit. I'm reading a book right now called "Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin" that explains how bad banking practice leads to profit for nothing for the bankers and outlines the intent behind the creation of the Federal Reserve.

B) People who do have equal if not more economic education than the Federal Reserve board have argued against them and won demonstrating that they are running the economy into the ground. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, both well versed in economics have made strong cases against Ben Bernanke and the banking decisions of the Federal Reserve.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:30:41 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 12:08:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:51:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. He is highly intelligent. He knows the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he understands economics quite proficiently. He is a Harvard law graduate. He has advanced communication abilities.

No he hasn't.

How not? I'm talking about based on what I've seen from his Q/A with someone who asked him a tough economic question. I'll post the video in my next post.

3. He has committed economic terrorism against the United States by adding $6.2 trillion to the debt, inflating the economy at a dangerous rate with QE3/QE4.

Ben Bernake and the federal reserve did this, not himself.


Furthermore, considering that the people running the federal reserve have doctorate's in economics from elite university, there has been no hyperinflation, and your economics education is infinitely small compared to there's, isn't it more likely that they are correct about QE3/QE4 and you are wrong.

It doesn't take a degree to know that big debt is bad. However, you are right. They do have more education in economics than me. Two things:

Man argue that it is worth deficit spending to increase GDP.

A) That doesn't mean they have good intent, clearly there is incentive to run bad economic policy for personal benefit. I'm reading a book right now called "Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin" that explains how bad banking practice leads to profit for nothing for the bankers and outlines the intent behind the creation of the Federal Reserve.

B) People who do have equal if not more economic education than the Federal Reserve board have argued against them and won demonstrating that they are running the economy into the ground. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, both well versed in economics have made strong cases against Ben Bernanke and the banking decisions of the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul got education in medicine and sciences. Ben Bernanke has economic degrees from Havard and MIT. Bernankes economic education is far greater than ROn Paul's and Peter Schiff (who got a degree in accounting and finance).There are many educated people who support stimulus spending in a recession, like Paul Krugman who has economic degrees from Yake and MIT.




.
.
.
.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:59:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only "evil" thing Obama can be criticized for is drone strikes that kill civilians. However, if McCain, Romney or a Republican was in office, I am sure there would be more or the same amount of drone strikes as there is now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:00:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:08:46 PM, LeafRod wrote:
"He didn't enact the same policies I would he must be evil"

Hitler just had different beliefs about policy, he wasn't evil according to you.

Your philosophy says "drone strike slaughter of children, mass debt, and a 1984 surveillance state are not evil, just a different opinion on policy."

I never even said he was evil, I posed a question. But I did provide lots of evidence and reasons that lend credence to the notion that he is evil.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:59:37 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only "evil" thing Obama can be criticized for is drone strikes that kill civilians.

And NDAA, and Orwellian big brother surveillance state, and promoting the idea that schools should advertise themselves as a place to invite mass killers and shoot people with no forceful opposition, and stealing people's money, and appointing a murdering eugenicist who hates humanity, and knowingly putting an increasing population into poverty.

However, if McCain, Romney or a Republican was in office, I am sure there would be more or the same amount of drone strikes as there is now.

Oh ok, that makes it ok then. NO. I'm not a Republican, you think that point has any potency against me?

If Ron Paul was in office, drone strike slaughter would NOT occur.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only evil thing Obama has done is continue drone strikes that kill innocent civilians. But even that's a complicated moral issue and we don't have access to Obama thought process about it. He's confronted with foreign policy decisions and information everyday, it's difficult to fully grasp the situation and his decisiosn in the light of it. It's difficult to justify the claim that he himself is evil in light of that.

Also, humans are more complicated than that. Few people can be placed firmly on one end or the other on a scale of 'deserves hell' to 'deserves heaven'.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:59:37 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
However, if McCain, Romney or a Republican was in office, I am sure there would be more or the same amount of drone strikes as there is now.

How does that justify anything?
kfc
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:17:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:13:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The only evil thing Obama has done is continue drone strikes that kill innocent civilians. But even that's a complicated moral issue and we don't have access to Obama thought process about it. He's confronted with foreign policy decisions and information everyday, it's difficult to fully grasp the situation and his decisiosn in the light of it. It's difficult to justify the claim that he himself is evil in light of that.

Also, humans are more complicated than that. Few people can be placed firmly on one end or the other on a scale of 'deserves hell' to 'deserves heaven'.
like jim? cause i hate jim
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 12:59:37 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only "evil" thing Obama can be criticized for is drone strikes that kill civilians.

And NDAA, and Orwellian big brother surveillance state, and promoting the idea that schools should advertise themselves as a place to invite mass killers and shoot people with no forceful opposition, and stealing people's money, and appointing a murdering eugenicist who hates humanity, and knowingly putting an increasing population into poverty.

However, if McCain, Romney or a Republican was in office, I am sure there would be more or the same amount of drone strikes as there is now.

Oh ok, that makes it ok then. NO. I'm not a Republican, you think that point has any potency against me?

If Ron Paul was in office, drone strike slaughter would NOT occur.

As for NDAA Obama is trying to negotiate for less military expenditure. Obama has to compromise with the Republicans who want to increase military expenditure.

Surveillance is a violation of privacy. Many would argue that it is not worth giving up privacy for the extra protection. But, I would not call that evil.

LOL at the inviting killers to schools. C'mon. That is BS. Just because there are no guns in schools does not meant that Obama is inviting killers into schools.

Taxes are needed to create a fair free society. USA taxes are still wicked low compared to all other modern democracies. Are all other modern democracies evil?

Please elaborate on knowingly putting people into poverty. The poor are better off with Obama's policies as opposed to Republican or Libertarian. Please elaborate on this.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:17:38 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:13:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The only evil thing Obama has done is continue drone strikes that kill innocent civilians. But even that's a complicated moral issue and we don't have access to Obama thought process about it. He's confronted with foreign policy decisions and information everyday, it's difficult to fully grasp the situation and his decisiosn in the light of it. It's difficult to justify the claim that he himself is evil in light of that.

Also, humans are more complicated than that. Few people can be placed firmly on one end or the other on a scale of 'deserves hell' to 'deserves heaven'.
like jim? cause i hate jim

yeah fvck jim
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:24:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:13:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
The only evil thing Obama has done is continue drone strikes that kill innocent civilians. But even that's a complicated moral issue and we don't have access to Obama thought process about it. He's confronted with foreign policy decisions and information everyday, it's difficult to fully grasp the situation and his decisiosn in the light of it. It's difficult to justify the claim that he himself is evil in light of that.

Also, humans are more complicated than that. Few people can be placed firmly on one end or the other on a scale of 'deserves hell' to 'deserves heaven'.

Exactly.
I said in 2008 when Obama was talking big about the Iraq and Gitmo, saying he would end them, that when he gets in office and learns the top secret stuff the president is privy to, he very well may change his tune. And, lo and behold, he did!

There appears to be something the gov't isn't telling us, most likely how real any threat is, as most Americans are stupid and would react by looting and killing.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:24:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:56:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Ron Paul got education in medicine and sciences. Ben Bernanke has economic degrees from Havard and MIT. Bernankes economic education is far greater than ROn Paul's and Peter Schiff (who got a degree in accounting and finance).

Utterly FALSE. You are an idiot. You think indoctrination factories called Universities are the only place you can get educated? Ron Paul hung out with Murray fvckin Rothbard. Any little idiot can go to college and listen to a economics professor ramble.

"Paul was influenced by"Friedrich Hayek's""The Road to Serfdom", which caused him to read many publications by"Ludwig von Mises"and"Ayn Rand. He came to know economists"Hans Sennholz and"Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.

Ron Paul has been an active writer on the topics of political and economic theory as well as publicizing the ideas of"Austrian Economists such as Murray Rothbard"and"Ludwig Von Mises during his political campaigns. Paul has"written many books, on Austrian economics and classical liberal philosophy, beginning with""The Case for Gold""(1982) and including""Liberty Defined""(2011),""End The Fed""(2009),""The Revolution: A Manifesto""(2008),"Pillars of Prosperity""(2008), and""A Foreign Policy of Freedom""(2007). Paul often publishes under the American"Ludwig von Mises Institute an institution he keenly promoted in his campaigns."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

There are many educated people who support stimulus spending in a recession, like Paul Krugman who has economic degrees from Yake and MIT.

Krugman got destroyed by Ron Paul and Rand Paul.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is the deal with the NDAA?
Aside from the potential for abuse, which is scary, why is this bad?

If I am in a conspiracy to commit murder, and I am arrested for my involvement, are charges brought against me before the act is/was to be committed or after? Wouldn't that tip off everyone else, to which they can reassemble later and try again?

So, if we are at war with someone, and while hostilites are still going, why would we bring charges before the acts have been resolved (i.e. the war ends)?
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can somebody explain why Obama appointed a murdering eugenicist who promotes extermination and mass poisoning of the human population, John Holdren Science Czar.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:37:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:30:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the deal with the NDAA?
Aside from the potential for abuse, which is scary, why is this bad?

If I am in a conspiracy to commit murder, and I am arrested for my involvement, are charges brought against me before the act is/was to be committed or after? Wouldn't that tip off everyone else, to which they can reassemble later and try again?

So, if we are at war with someone, and while hostilites are still going, why would we bring charges before the acts have been resolved (i.e. the war ends)?

Why don't you ask the offspring of the Japanese who were indefinitely detained and thrown in a camp why they oppose NDAA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:50:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:37:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:30:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is the deal with the NDAA?
Aside from the potential for abuse, which is scary, why is this bad?

If I am in a conspiracy to commit murder, and I am arrested for my involvement, are charges brought against me before the act is/was to be committed or after? Wouldn't that tip off everyone else, to which they can reassemble later and try again?

So, if we are at war with someone, and while hostilites are still going, why would we bring charges before the acts have been resolved (i.e. the war ends)?

Why don't you ask the offspring of the Japanese who were indefinitely detained and thrown in a camp why they oppose NDAA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

False analogy.
Rounding up all who fit a profile as potential spies/allies =/= identifying and detaining suspected spies/allies.
Regardless, this would fall into the abuse catagory (although this was also an issue of dual-loyalty), which I am not addressing.

Care to address my overall point, though?
I am addressing the Constitutionality of the NDAA, assuming there is no abuse. People have an issue with the NDAA, period. They are upset about indefinate detainment, in addition to the slippery slope or potential abuse.
My work here is, finally, done.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:33:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Can somebody explain why Obama appointed a murdering eugenicist who promotes extermination and mass poisoning of the human population, John Holdren Science Czar.

For those who don't know, Geo is referring to this book: http://www.amazon.com... Co-authored by John Holdren which discusses, among other things, various population control methods.

There's an interesting discussion in the comments section of one of the reviews about whether the book really is as bad as some people are making it out to be: http://www.amazon.com... . Basically, a detractor argues that the book never actually endorses any of the population control methods, but merely describes how they would work in practice.

In any case, the book was published in 1977 and I don't know what Holdren's views are on population control now. Has he attempted to push through any population control legislation? If not, I don't see that much reason to worry.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:50:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:37:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why don't you ask the offspring of the Japanese who were indefinitely detained and thrown in a camp why they oppose NDAA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

False analogy.
Rounding up all who fit a profile as potential spies/allies =/= identifying and detaining suspected spies/allies.

False. Correct analogy. In both cases you are being detained without trial. The reason is irrelevant. Identify, suspecting, accusing, are all things that the 6th Amendment says are NOT to be used to detain someone.

Regardless, this would fall into the abuse catagory (although this was also an issue of dual-loyalty), which I am not addressing.

Care to address my overall point, though?

I am addressing the Constitutionality of the NDAA, assuming there is no abuse. People have an issue with the NDAA, period. They are upset about indefinate detainment, in addition to the slippery slope or potential abuse.

What is it about the 6th Amendment and right to trial you don't freakin understand! "The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The NDAA says you can be indefinitely detained merely on the account of being accused or suspected.

The worry is not that the NDAA could be abused, the NDAA itself is abuse and destruction of the 6th Amendment, that's what people are worried about.

NDAA takes an eraser to the Constitution and eliminates the 6th Amendment and you seem to think that's ok?

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:13:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:24:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 12:56:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Ron Paul got education in medicine and sciences. Ben Bernanke has economic degrees from Havard and MIT. Bernankes economic education is far greater than ROn Paul's and Peter Schiff (who got a degree in accounting and finance).

Utterly FALSE. You are an idiot. You think indoctrination factories called Universities are the only place you can get educated? Ron Paul hung out with Murray fvckin Rothbard. Any little idiot can go to college and listen to a economics professor ramble.

"Paul was influenced by"Friedrich Hayek's""The Road to Serfdom", which caused him to read many publications by"Ludwig von Mises"and"Ayn Rand. He came to know economists"Hans Sennholz and"Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.

Ron Paul has been an active writer on the topics of political and economic theory as well as publicizing the ideas of"Austrian Economists such as Murray Rothbard"and"Ludwig Von Mises during his political campaigns. Paul has"written many books, on Austrian economics and classical liberal philosophy, beginning with""The Case for Gold""(1982) and including""Liberty Defined""(2011),""End The Fed""(2009),""The Revolution: A Manifesto""(2008),"Pillars of Prosperity""(2008), and""A Foreign Policy of Freedom""(2007). Paul often publishes under the American"Ludwig von Mises Institute an institution he keenly promoted in his campaigns."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...



There are many educated people who support stimulus spending in a recession, like Paul Krugman who has economic degrees from Yake and MIT.

Krugman got destroyed by Ron Paul and Rand Paul.

Bernanke and Krugman were/are professors. As professors, they researched and worked on publications everyday. So no matter which way you look at it education or experience, Krugman and Bernanke are way more educated in economics than Ron Paul.

Also, how did Rand and Ron Paul own Krugman? Please explain why you think this?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 3:22:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Barrack Obama is Evil, most Presidents are evil. I would argue that if Obama is evil, he is significantly less evil than most Presidents. Every President that has presided over a war has caused "casualties". Many have tough moral choices. For example, the Vietnam caused many deaths, and as opposed to terrorists, the Vietnamese were not "evil people". The nuclear bomb, the trail of tears, ect. There are casualties in every war.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 4:43:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:00:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitler just had different beliefs about policy, he wasn't evil according to you.

Your philosophy says "drone strike slaughter of children, mass debt, and a 1984 surveillance state are not evil, just a different opinion on policy."

I never even said he was evil, I posed a question. But I did provide lots of evidence and reasons that lend credence to the notion that he is evil.

Obama isn't Hitler. Drone strikes are pretty messed up but all of the "evidence" you've given is paired with your opinions on what they are. Obama did not intend to "destroy the economy" or whatever you said, or even to "kill innocent children" (not getting your wording perfect but whatever), but those are your opinions and/or resulting problems that have come out of his intentions, which have clearly all been good. Unless you think that he's actually trying to make negative things happen, which I personally think is a ridiculous thought, but it's probably not one for you.

I've met Obama and I know his family. He's not evil and I genuinely think it's dumb to suggest otherwise. I don't know if there are any politicians who are evil. Some are just more misguided than others.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 4:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 4:43:56 PM, LeafRod wrote:
I've met Obama and I know his family. He's not evil and I genuinely think it's dumb to suggest otherwise. I don't know if there are any politicians who are evil. Some are just more misguided than others.

I can only hope that what youre saying is true. Given your association to Obama, what do you make of his support for admitted mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a man who openly supports technocratic dictatorship, admitted that he created Al-Queda, and says that a massive global poltical awakening threatens his ability to deal effectively?

Is Obama a victim or being exploited in your opinion? What explains all of the lies, the multiplying wars, the refusal to end the Drug War, the domestic drone legislation, his mentor, his eugenics Science Czar, etc.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Things appear to be so bad I really do hope Obama won't let anything bad happen.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 3:13:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:50:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:37:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why don't you ask the offspring of the Japanese who were indefinitely detained and thrown in a camp why they oppose NDAA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

False analogy.
Rounding up all who fit a profile as potential spies/allies =/= identifying and detaining suspected spies/allies.

False. Correct analogy. In both cases you are being detained without trial. The reason is irrelevant. Identify, suspecting, accusing, are all things that the 6th Amendment says are NOT to be used to detain someone.

False.
The 6th amendment cannot and does not protect against suspect, accuation, nor detainment. Are you not arrested (i.e. detained) before you stand trial? Do you not stand accused in araignment? How is an arrest warrant issued without your being suspected of a crime?

NDAA rounds up suspects to arraign later, while the internment camps in WWII detained all without charges brought. How are these the same?

Regardless, this would fall into the abuse catagory (although this was also an issue of dual-loyalty), which I am not addressing.

Care to address my overall point, though?

I am addressing the Constitutionality of the NDAA, assuming there is no abuse. People have an issue with the NDAA, period. They are upset about indefinate detainment, in addition to the slippery slope or potential abuse.

What is it about the 6th Amendment and right to trial you don't freakin understand! "The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The NDAA says you can be indefinitely detained merely on the account of being accused or suspected.

The worry is not that the NDAA could be abused, the NDAA itself is abuse and destruction of the 6th Amendment, that's what people are worried about.

NDAA takes an eraser to the Constitution and eliminates the 6th Amendment and you seem to think that's ok?

What part of my analogy do you not get? If there is a conspiracy, do you not wait until all parties are identified/the commissioned act is over? This is an exception to the speedy trial, is it not? Out of curiousity, were the Nazis that were captured and put on trial for war crimes engaged in court proceedings during the war, or did they wait until the war was over?

If I am wrong and charges are brought against someone who was going to kill me before finding out who paid him or an attempt had been made, then my point is moot.
My work here is, finally, done.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Probably the fact that politics is pretty goddamn hard, there isn't some universal answer that is guaranteed to work no matter what even though people here seem to think adopting a textbook libertarian agenda will save the world, and the multidimensional nature of life
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:48:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As evidenced by his own words:

He is evil incarnate.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...