Hillary

[StrangeSox]

other than growing the economy and lowering the deficit and creating a "golden years" for america's economy? besides that?

yeah that's even less relevant to a discussion about national security/civil liberties than the A&S acts.

[southsider2k5]

how is calling it an extension of another policy a defense of that policy? please elaborate.

 

So what were you trying to say by that? Please explain.

[Reddy]

But your subconscious did by making the line Bush. Or at least that is what you would say if this was about race.

NO! It's simply the most recent and the most convenient example because it's been a hot topic for a decade now, and Republicans unanimously supported it and now they're against drone strikes! What aren't you getting here??

 

GOP has and always will stand for "intentionally obtuse".

[StrangeSox]

But your subconscious did by making the line Bush. Or at least that is what you would say if this was about race.

 

I didn't make any line. I think you're confusing me and Reddy.

 

Even if the line is "Bush," you still have Obama being pretty much s*** on this issue, so I really don't know what you're talking about here.

[Reddy]

So what were you trying to say by that? Please explain.

i already did. i was just pointing out the hypocrisy. nothing more. why you want to make that mean something insidious is beyond me. lol

[Reddy]

ok let me further clarify. if we had a Republican president condoning drone strikes, you all would support it. end of story.

[southsider2k5]

i already did. i was just pointing out the hypocrisy. nothing more. why you want to make that mean something insidious is beyond me. lol

 

So by pointing out that it was just an extension of a Bush policy, that was no attempt to make it not as bad for Obama? lol, you are full of it.

[southsider2k5]

ok let me further clarify. if we had a Republican president condoning drone strikes, you all would support it. end of story.

 

And Dems are for them now that there is a Democratic president.

[StrangeSox]

So by pointing out that it was just an extension of a Bush policy, that was no attempt to make it not as bad for Obama? lol, you are full of it.

I read it as arguing that there's no reason to expect that the Republicans would be any better on this issue than the Democrats

[Reddy]

So by pointing out that it was just an extension of a Bush policy, that was no attempt to make it not as bad for Obama? lol, you are full of it.

no... it wasn't. because i an VEHEMENTLY against Obama's use of drone strikes.

 

you trying to corner me into something I don't even believe is just hilarious and kind of sad. grasping at straws much?

[southsider2k5]

NO! It's simply the most recent and the most convenient example because it's been a hot topic for a decade now, and Republicans unanimously supported it and now they're against drone strikes! What aren't you getting here??

 

GOP has and always will stand for "intentionally obtuse".

 

You left out most convenient PARTISAN example.

[Reddy]

And Dems are for them now that there is a Democratic president.

no we're not. at all. look at polling data. still grasping at straws, and seems you grabbed the short one.

[Reddy]

I read it as arguing that there's no reason to expect that the Republicans would be any better on this issue than the Democrats

but that's because you're not coming at it from as blatant a bias as SS is, so you actually read the words instead of make up your own.

[southsider2k5]

no... it wasn't. because i an VEHEMENTLY against Obama's use of drone strikes.

 

you trying to corner me into something I don't even believe is just hilarious and kind of sad. grasping at straws much?

 

You've been trying to corner Duke for pages. Apparently again, it is only bad when it isn't you. It is always different when it is someone else.

[Reddy]

You've been trying to corner Duke for pages. Apparently again, it is only bad when it isn't you. It is always different when it is someone else.

have i? or are you projecting again?

[pettie4sox]

wow at this thread

[southsider2k5]

no we're not. at all. look at polling data. still grasping at straws, and seems you grabbed the short one.

 

55% isn't a majority now?

[Reddy]

wow at this thread

THE FILIBUSTER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

[southsider2k5]

have i? or are you projecting again?

 

I love how you can't answer for anything, and instead just ask questions.

 

OR AM I?

[Reddy]

I love how you can't answer for anything, and instead just ask questions.

 

OR AM I?

i dont know what you want me to answer that I haven't already.

[StrangeSox]

You've been trying to corner Duke for pages. Apparently again, it is only bad when it isn't you. It is always different when it is someone else.

Duke's argument, at least to me, seems to be that somebody who is against some domestic drone policy shouldn't support Obama/Democratic candidates because of that. It's a bad argument because it assumes that "drone strikes" should override any other policy concerns. It's also bad because there's no reason to believe that the Democrats' opponents will be any better on these very same policies.

 

Pointing out previous Republican support for the things duke is concerned about or Rand Paul's statements on using drones isn't an "always different" argument. Neither Reddy nor I are excusing, justifying or support Obama's drone policies. In fact, we've both explicitly condemned it multiple times in this thread.

[StrangeSox]

55% isn't a majority now?

What is this 55% in reference to?

 

eta: yes, plenty of Democrats are dumb hypocrites on Obama's foreign and civil liberties policies, or they just have terrible policy beliefs of their own.

Edited August 26, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

What is this 55% in reference to?

 

eta: yes, plenty of Democrats are dumb hypocrites on Obama's foreign and civil liberties policies, or they just have terrible policy beliefs of their own.

^

[southsider2k5]

Duke's argument, at least to me, seems to be that somebody who is against some domestic drone policy shouldn't support Obama/Democratic candidates because of that. It's a bad argument because it assumes that "drone strikes" should override any other policy concerns. It's also bad because there's no reason to believe that the Democrats' opponents will be any better on these very same policies.

 

Pointing out previous Republican support for the things duke is concerned about or Rand Paul's statements on using drones isn't an "always different" argument. Neither Reddy nor I are excusing, justifying or support Obama's drone policies. In fact, we've both explicitly condemned it multiple times in this thread.

 

Reddy changed his tune after the fact. Until they he was trying a tired partisan argument to make Duke look bad. He is trying to have it both ways by saying after the fact he didn't support them, but yet using the topic to turn it into a republican issue, when it didn't start or end with a republican. it is a partisan slight of hand he got busted on.

 

[Reddy]

Reddy changed his tune after the fact. Until they he was trying a tired partisan argument to make Duke look bad. He is trying to have it both ways by saying after the fact he didn't support them, but yet using the topic to turn it into a republican issue, when it didn't start or end with a republican. it is a partisan slight of hand he got busted on.

you're just wrong about all of this.

 

I said:

 

Patriot Acts = GWB and supported by GOP

Drone Strikes = Obama and NOT supported by GOP

 

to me, that's hypocritical because the Patriot Acts and drone strikes are one and the same policy.

 

it is EQUALLY hypocritical for democrats to support drone strikes.

 

I have never changed my tune throughout this entire exchange. you're funny.