2 good moves by Obama. Can we get a 3rd???

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
If anyone wants to discuss the two sides of this, I'm all for it. If insulting intelligence, and fabricating fetishes is your way of arguing a point, then I have nothing to say to you.

When someone can refute what I've said with facts or logical reasoning, I welcome the discussion.
I assume you're addressing that to ColoradoGuy, but I'm going to respond since you don't seem to want to tackle any of my responses to you.

I have presented substantial logical argument that explains why releasing such a photo would not only be unwise, it would be diastrous, as has Calboner, as has ColoradoGuy. In addition, I posted the president's explanation along with the concensus reasoning of his security and foreign policy advisors, all of which I agree with. I posted excerpts from the detailed NY Times article ColoradoGuy cited along with the numerous other articles and editorials he linked, all of which I assume you ignored. And you complain no one has refuted you "with facts or logical reasoning"? Give me a fukn break.

You have have stubbornly ignored the mountain of logical well-reasoned argument presented to you.
Instead, you have offered only this:
What have you got, other than morbid curiosity and an imaginary "right" to see (inconclusive) classified evidence?
Your argument has as much logic, substance, and validity as a three year old throwing a temper tantrum because his mommy won't give him an ice cream cone for breakfast.

What a colossal waste of time and energy you are. :rolleyes2:


[Edit: It just struck me how appropriate your avatar is: "LOGIC IS A THREAT" Ironic, ain't it? LOL!]
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Did they release the DNA evidence?

That's pretty darned conclusive.

Although, I'm sure people would refute it.

They have not as far as I understand... but I have to tell you; I sat on a jury a couple years ago where DNA evidence was presented and a layman can't tell anything without interpretation by an expert pointing at a photograph and telling you what you're seeing and why it's important. Of course, the defense attorney had an expert point at the same photograph and question whether something was important.

I think you're right... every conspiracy theory you can imagine is going to be thrown around to refute the DNA evidence if and when it does become public.
 

conntom

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Posts
2,170
Media
1
Likes
252
Points
208
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think you're right... every conspiracy theory you can imagine is going to be thrown around to refute the DNA evidence if and when it does become public.

It becomes an exercise in futility. (Like talking to VB)

Fact is - some will always believe the contrary.

In the meantime - unless things change or serious evidence is brought to light - OBL is dead and Obama had the guts to call for them to go in and get 'em. (I didn't think he had it in him)

Until this, the only thing the guy had done that was good was the CARD act and letting people visit their loved ones in the hospital even if they were gay.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
It's a euphemism for torture, prohibited by American and international law and the Geneva Convention, as if the inhumane treatment of prisoners weren't enough of a deterrant.

It's a term invented by the Bush administration to skirt the laws and make the torture of detainees sound nicer.

Invading a foreign country and assassinating an unarmed suspected criminal is also against international law and the geneva convention. Where was Osama's due process that you liberals love to complain Bush denied other suspected terrorists??? Its amazing how hawkish you idiologues get when its one of your boys doing it.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Bin Laden was unarmed and resisting arrest with several others in the compound armed and firing at the American special operators. The Navy Seals decided that was probable cause for killing him. If that breaks Geneva Conventions and a country wants to bring the NAVY Seal that pulled the trigger to trial, then let them push for one.

And one of these days, conntom, you will learn not to call my name out for your bullshit. If you don't like talking to me or arguing with me, then ignore me. Period.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
When you disagree with some people on here, balsary, all you will ever get is insults and such. Quite a shame considering they seem to consider themselves so enlightened.

Anyways - as someone said, the photos will be leaked at some point so they will be out for people to see, the WH can say they didn't authorize it and some people will look over the photos and find some reason to believe they are fake.

Until there is reason to think this whole thing didn't happen, I believe OBL is dead.

I understand where you are coming from though. Release the photos. Those who want to see can. We are all adults. We can handle it. And in the great American tradition, if you don;t want to see them - don't look. I get where you're coming from and to a point I agree. Just - if I had to make the call, I just don't see the need (speaking only for myself of course)

It's ok, I'm a big boy I can take it. I just don't understand where these "facts" are that they keep speaking of.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Invading a foreign country and assassinating an unarmed suspected criminal is also against international law and the geneva convention. Where was Osama's due process that you liberals love to complain Bush denied other suspected terrorists??? Its amazing how hawkish you idiologues get when its one of your boys doing it.
For fuck's sake. Could people stop referring to members of this forum en masse as "you liberals", "you libtards", "you libbies", etc.? We're all individuals here with individual opinions, except of course for certain obvious propagandized goosestepping ideologues. :rolleyes2:

To answer your question:
The targeting of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was consistent with the U.N. charter and U.S. law and not an illegal assassination as some critics have argued, two national security law experts affirmed. Professor John Norton Moore and Robert F. Turner, co-founders of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said bin Laden was a lawful target even before Sept. 11 because of his role in an ongoing series of armed attacks against American targets.

"Article 51 of the U.N. Charter reaffirms the pre-existing right of states to use lethal force in self-defense," said Moore, who serves as director of the center and is Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. The article states "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The day following the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1368, which among other things recognized "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" in the context of those attacks.

Sixteen days later, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1373, which reaffirmed the right of victims of terrorist attacks to use force in self-defense and declared the attacks "a threat to international peace and security." The resolution reaffirmed "the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts."

The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law." He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate. "The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote. "The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."


Satisfied? Of course not.
 
Last edited:

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Bin Laden was unarmed and resisting arrest with several others in the compound armed and firing at the American special operators. The Navy Seals decided that was probable cause for killing him. If that breaks Geneva Conventions and a country wants to bring the NAVY Seal that pulled the trigger to trial, then let them push for one.

And one of these days, conntom, you will learn not to call my name out for your bullshit. If you don't like talking to me or arguing with me, then ignore me. Period.

Here we Go. Did you watch the news today Vinyl? Officials are now saying that not a single shot was fired from the compound at the US seals team. Nor did the team recover any weapons or firearms. So this tells us that there are conflicting stories over whether or not there was firefight or not. But The WH itself admitted UBL was unarmed.

But lets entertain your point even if its true. Its not okay to invade a country, capture a suspected criminal, bring him to a secure location to await due process yet to be determined (Gitmo), but it IS okay to invade a country and shoot a SUSPECTED UNARMED criminal in the head right on the spot? This is Liberal hypocrisy at its finest! You cannot speak out against gitmo and at the same time defend Obama's actions on sunday.

Also, its going to be funny and hypocrital as hell over the next several weeks when we see the Obama administration push Holder and the DOJ to extend certain (and previously condemnable) aspects of the patriot act that are set to expire soon, due to the shit load of intel that was discovered at Bin laden's crib.
 
Last edited:

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
I'm getting off of this merry-go-round y'all. The problem as I see it is you guys are trying to present opinion as fact. I'm not going to change your opinion as I have no facts either. If I had facts, I wouldn't have questions. The truth is the "facts" surrounding this situation have been changing since it happened. Do I think the president is lying, I don't know, but I'm not naive enough to think that he wouldn't. Name a president that hasn't. Since I've joined this thread I've been called a very sick fuck, a three year old, and a colossal waste of time and energy, all in an effort to coerce me into submission. I have no interest in a pissing contest.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
He gives the Ok to get Osama - Good move number 1

He isn't releasing the Osama photos. Good move 2


Now Please Mr. president, go for the trifecta - end the investigation of people who used EIT's in the defense of this country.
In three days President Obama killed off the Birther Movement, Donald Trump's presidential ambitions and Osama bin Laden.


That's not bad for one weekend.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
For fuck's sake. Could people stop referring to members of this forum en masse as "you liberals", "you libtards", "you libbies", etc.? We're all individuals here with individual opinions, except of course for certain obvious propagandized goosestepping ideologues. :rolleyes2:

To answer your question:
The targeting of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was consistent with the U.N. charter and U.S. law and not an illegal assassination as some critics have argued, two national security law experts affirmed. Professor John Norton Moore and Robert F. Turner, co-founders of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said bin Laden was a lawful target even before Sept. 11 because of his role in an ongoing series of armed attacks against American targets.

"Article 51 of the U.N. Charter reaffirms the pre-existing right of states to use lethal force in self-defense," said Moore, who serves as director of the center and is Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. The article states "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The day following the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1368, which among other things recognized "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" in the context of those attacks.

Sixteen days later, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1373, which reaffirmed the right of victims of terrorist attacks to use force in self-defense and declared the attacks "a threat to international peace and security." The resolution reaffirmed "the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts."

The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law." He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate. "The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote. "The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."


Satisfied? Of course not.

So it was Ok to shoot him in the head but it would have been a huge no no to arrest him and bring him to Gitmo to await due process, right?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Here we Go. Did you watch the news today Vinyl? Officials are now saying that not a single shot was fired from the compound at the US seals team. Nor did the team recover any weapons or firearms. So this tells us that there are conflicting stories over whether or not there was firefight or not. But The WH itself admitted UBL was unarmed.

If you read my post (instead of just foamed at the mouth to refute and attack liberals for the umpteenth time), you would have saw that I also mentioned that Bin Laden was unarmed. That's common knowledge now. However, what you failed to mention (either due to not paying attention to the right media sources, not listening, not reading or intentionally omitting to front a dishonest argument just to attack liberals) is that not only did Bin Laden resist arrest but there we being fired upon.

Now, if you're curious to know just a few of the news sources I'm using... this is what was said on ABC News - "We were prepared to capture him if that was possible," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. But even though bin Laden was not carrying a weapon, Carney said he had "resisted" and several people in the compound were armed and firing at the American special operators.

CBS News provides a video from the Associated Press that also confirms retaliatory fire as one of the Muslim casualties was reported to have been killed through "crossfire". That is, unless you think the Navy Seals were shooting at one another.

But lets entertain your point even if its true. Its not okay to invade a country, capture a suspected criminal, bring him to a secure location to await due process yet to be determined (Gitmo), but it IS okay to invade a country and shoot a SUSPECTED UNARMED criminal in the head right on the spot? This is Liberal hypocrisy at its finest! You cannot speak out against gitmo and at the same time defend Obama's actions on sunday.

Actually, this is you putting words in my mouth. If you read my post (which is becoming more and more apparent that you didn't), I stated that the Navy Seals (and not Obama) decided to kill Osama Bin Laden based on the conditions they experienced in the compound. If their actions breaks Geneva Conventions and a country wants to bring the NAVY Seal that pulled the trigger to trial, then let them push for one. So no, there is no hypocrisy being exercised by me on this thread. Furthermore, even though my ideologies lean to the left I don't represent "liberals" as if every single person who leans that way acts and talks like myself. And I'm really sick of you mindlessly overgeneralizing anything I say through such narrow minded labels.

Also, its going to funny and hypocrital as hell over the next several weeks when we see the Obama administration push Holder and the DOJ to extend certain )and previously condemnable) aspects of the patriot act that are set to expire soon, due to the shit load of intel that was discovered at Bin laden's crib.

Unless you know some of the seized intel that would prompt them to make such a declaration, you should really refrain from talking out of your nether region. Seriously, I've never seen such a bitter person in my life who literally foams at the mouth to watch his political adversaries be disappointed by the actions of the person they voted into office. You need some help.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Its not okay to invade a country, capture a suspected criminal, bring him to a secure location to await due process yet to be determined (Gitmo), but it IS okay to invade a country and shoot a SUSPECTED UNARMED criminal in the head right on the spot? This is Liberal hypocrisy at its finest! You cannot speak out against gitmo and at the same time defend Obama's actions on sunday.
I know that was addressed to VB, furthermore I don't think I've ever discussed my views on Gitmo in this forum. However, I needed to quote that to respond to your misunderstanding regarding the legal status of bin Laden, and also to address your accusation of "Liberal hypocrisy".

Just as I predicted, you ignored the comprehensive information presented in my prior post. Please review the sections of the UN Charter, subsequent resolutions, and expert legal opinions I generously provided for you pertaining to the "right of states to use lethal force in self-defense", and "the need to combat by all means,... threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts". Furthermore, "a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

Osama bin Laden was not a "suspected" criminal as you characterize, nor was he a head of state, nor was he a rank and file "enemy combatant", to use the term invented by the Bush administration. He was the supreme leader and mastermind of an international terrorist organization who has attacked the United States and killed many thousands in the US and worldwide, with whom we are currently legally at war. He has continued to publish threats against the peace, safety and security of the United States and the world, and made clear his intentions to attack us again at any opportunity. As such, actions taken against him by the US in self defense, including the use of lethal force, are entirely legal under our law and under international law, supported by the UN Charter and resolutions.

So it was Ok to shoot him in the head but it would have been a huge no no to arrest him and bring him to Gitmo to await due process, right?
This is what's known as a strawman argument. They could have done that I suppose, provided they could safely capture him, but they didn't, and they weren't required to under the law. You're trying to compare the supreme leader of al Queda with a common suspected "enemy combatant", and you're confusing a precise targeted military action with unrelated practices and procedures invented to deal with POW's randomly rounded up during the Bush administration. In no way do those practices and procedures set a precedent for Sunday's assault on the compound in Pakistan to take down bin Laden. In case you already forgot again, "a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

I hope this helps you understand. If not, you can always go back and study the links I provided more carefully.

Are you an Idiot maxcok? Seriously, "for Fucks sake"? Are you and idot?
I think I'll just let that speak for you. :laughing:
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Well - we agree on the pictures Max.... One small step for you today.

Maybe tomorrow you will see some more things the right way.
You're not just an idiot, you're a smug condescending idiot, the worst kind.

As for the US claiming the moral high ground.... c'mon.

There is no moral high ground when it comes to survival. Do what you must to survive. Kill, torture or what have you and stay on top. The world is a rough place. It's even worse when you're on the bottom.
The problems are:

a.) Torture rarely if ever yields reliable, actionable intelligence. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or they're lying.

b.) Violence and mistreatment of others begets more violence and more resentment, which leads to retaliation, which leads to more violence, and on and on and on....

Fuck it. Read this again. Hell, don't take my word for it, don't take their word, listen to the expert:


Libs seem to think we can all have a nice happy world. That is a laughable dream libbies!

When libs let go of their childish dreams and ideas of a perfect Thomas Moore Utopia like planet - maybe they will adjust their thinking.

Even if you guys had your perfect world - in a generation it would be at war again.
It will never be a perfect world. It will never be a better or more peaceful world either, unless we try to make it so, and unless belligerent troglodytes like you get out of the way.

And stop referring to everyone en masse who disagrees with your mindless spoonfed propaganda as "you libs", "you libtards", "you libbies" etc. We are all individuals with individual opinions here. Okay? Stop it.

Now Mr. President, please stop investigating those who worked hard to keep our country safe.
Safe from what exactly? Based on what bad intelligence? Can you point to any examples where torturing "enemy combatants" kept us "safe"?
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It becomes an exercise in futility. (Like talking to VB)

Fact is - some will always believe the contrary.

In the meantime - unless things change or serious evidence is brought to light - OBL is dead and Obama had the guts to call for them to go in and get 'em. (I didn't think he had it in him)

Until this, the only thing the guy had done that was good was the CARD act and letting people visit their loved ones in the hospital even if they were gay.

See, you and I can agree on what we can agree on and disagree on other points. I think the President has done quite a bit that's good -- commendable, even. (You didn't mention health care reform in your post, but I have to tell you that Joe Biden and I agree: what the Administration accomplished is a "big fucking deal".) The CARD Act, removing DADT, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, averting the almost certain meltdown of the financial services industry were all -- in my opinion -- good things.

But, I quoted your post to call out the slight on VinylBoy. I don't think that's fair and I'll tell you why: he and I have disagreed on things in the past, but he has always backed up why he feels or thinks a particular way. None of us can equate someone's defense of their talking points by citing references, quotes, and outlining their logic with someone stonewalling and refusing to debate. The former is expected; the latter is "futility".

Case in point in this Thread: balsary has never once backed up any of his arguments or even attempted to find one publicly quotable source to prove there is someone besides balsary who thinks a particular way. Rather, he leaves us to infer what his interest is in seeing bloodied photos of OBL's corpse. When I pointed that out, he claims that isn't something he's going to debate and withdraws from the argument. That is "futility".

Maxcok twice pointed out a list of arguments against releasing photos and twice cited articles relevant to the points at hand to balsary. In both instances, balsary ignored the posts and carried on. Either balsary read what maxcok posted and chose to ignore it or he didn't bother to read it at all and just continued along with his sole argument (I'm paraphrasing here): that he felt more evidence should be produced to satisfy his interests. He did claim they were also the interests of many Americans, but how he arrived at that is also unknown.

It's reminds me of trying to debate how many cookies constituted dessert years ago with my then 4-year old daughter. Reasoning was not an option and would not work. My opposition was only interested in getting more cookies and would only fold her arms, pout, and then resort to crying when she didn't get her way. It wasn't an isolated incident and it pretty much became a recognizable modus operandi until the day when her mother and I agreed: there is no debating about cookies with this one. It is futile. Forget it. Similarly, balsary has become -- through repeated posts -- the same. Now, we do know balsary doesn't like being equated with a child, but if the shoe fits...

VinylBoy is not guilty of that type of approach and while you may find persuading him to see your viewpoint difficult, it is not impossible. It is far from "futile" unless your own view or the view you're supporting is not solidly grounded in fact or reason or supported by a wide audience of respected voices.

In your defense, conntom, I suspect your comment wasn't really intended to indict VinylBoy as much as it was an attempt to try and make light of your previous back and forth with him. I think you were hoping to garner a quick snicker from those of us who do take the time to read and consider each post. Not every post is successful at communicating our actual intentions and, I suspect, yours was an example of that.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Are you an Idiot maxcok? Seriously, "for Fucks sake"? Are you and idot?

I don't believe maxcok is "an idiot", 24065. However, you very well might be... how long does it take to type and proof-read a 13-word insult? How can you include five grammatical and spelling errors in just 13 printed words (without being an idiot) and then post it without proofing it (again, unless you're an idiot)?

It's pretty clear (at least to me) who the idiot is.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It's ok, I'm a big boy I can take it. I just don't understand where these "facts" are that they keep speaking of.

Apparently, you can't defend your argument or you decided that you couldn't refute the multiple sources anyone was offering, since 90 minutes later you opted out:

I'm getting off of this merry-go-round y'all. The problem as I see it is you guys are trying to present opinion as fact. I'm not going to change your opinion as I have no facts either. If I had facts, I wouldn't have questions. The truth is the "facts" surrounding this situation have been changing since it happened. Do I think the president is lying, I don't know, but I'm not naive enough to think that he wouldn't. Name a president that hasn't. Since I've joined this thread I've been called a very sick fuck, a three year old, and a colossal waste of time and energy, all in an effort to coerce me into submission. I have no interest in a pissing contest.

It's okay... crawl back in your hole and hide behind your "doubt". You won't say you think the President is lying, but you can't / won't acknowledge that he is telling the truth either. How convenient for you. Being a 'doubting Thomas' absents you from taking a stand on most things except maybe buying breakfast cereal. I'm sure it's comforting to know you won't be called upon to defend your thinking.

You don't bother to read anything anybody posts defending their points and you misread specific items to twist them to your cause. That's fine. You never support your own points with any other citations or viewpoints -- even if it is an opinion (probably because you can't find anyone other than Andrew Breitbart who will agree with you). That's okay.

It's unfortunate, but people like you are necessary in a democracy. It reminds the rest of us what to expect to find from time to time. Without examples of self-important, self-centered viewpoints that combine equal amounts of apathy, ignorance and distrust, we might become complacent ourselves and assume everyone is logical, rationale and knowledge-seeking.

All is good, balsary... while I'll maybe miss you here, I think if you stick to commenting in the Et Cetera, Et Cetera or Funny Stuff Forums; you'll be just fine. Just don't hold your breath waiting on an OBL video to pop up on Al Jazeera with him holding up a current newspaper to prove he's alive, because (I'll go out on a pretty solid limb here) I don't think the President is lying about this.