Another Lesson in How to 'Argue' with a Liberal
The exhange below occurred in an on-line chat room at Boston.com (yes, I know, not the most intelluctually challenging venue). My original post was in response to an editorial by the liberal extremist H.D.S. Greenway who picked-up on President Obama's suggestion that Obama has to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. The exchange is with a "regular" at Boston.com who had previously demonstrated some intelligence. I share the exchange because the person I was engaged with is so typical of those on the Left; maybe there is something here that a conservative or Republican can use if they, too, want to make a liberal's head explode. I suppose that liberals who frequent this site can use this exchange as a training tool for their own kind so that fewer look like idiots in on-line chat rooms, at dinner parties or all the other places where liberals prove their ignorance and hypocrisy.
ZACKlyRight:
Of course, a liberal media operating as part of Obama's White House communications operation would repeat Obama's lie that he's "finishing the job".
There is no job to finish. As people who see the intelligence tell us over and over and over again (including Obama!), that which Congress authorized with its Afghanistan vote was accomplished by President Bush.
Obama is not finishing a job, he's starting a new one - which I support, by the way.
Obama is starting a full-scale counter-insurgency war, with a nation-building component, which is completely different than Bush's counter-terrorism war. This is why Obama needs thousands and thousands of more troops.
When President Obama, with the advice of Biden, Clinton, Blair, Jones, Panetta, Mullen, Petraeus, McChrystal, and dare I say Sen. Kerry, tells me it is in the national security interest of the United States that we do this, who am I to argue - I DON'T SEE THE INTELLIGENCE - I'm trusting the people who do to get it right.
I'm a conservative and a registered Republican; I do not have a double-standard: I support President Obama's Bush-like troop surge.
Liberal:
zacklywrong wrote:"There is no job to finish. As people who see the intelligence tell us over and over and over again (including Obama!), that which Congress authorized with its Afghanistan vote was accomplished by President Bush."Obama is not finishing a job, he's starting a new one - which I support."
So you're saying that President Bush defeated the terrorism threat in Afghanistan and he finished that job?
In that case President Obama is wasting our resources by creating a US colony in Afghanistan and you support that?
If this is, completely different than Bush's counter-terrorism war how can this be a Bush-like troop surge?
ZACKlyRight:
I'm really not saying Bush defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan as much as I'm repeating the words of President Obama's National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Rep. Michael Capuano (D, MA). These guys write and/or see the intelligence so they would certainly know. I certainly don't think President Obama's National Security Adviser is a liar.
When every reputable news agency is reporting that Obama modeled his Afghan surge after Bush's Iraq surge, I'm very comfortable using the extremely accurate descriptor: Bush-like.Again, I'm trusting Obama that Obama's new counter-insurgency strategy is in our national interest as he argues it is. If you think my trust is misplaced, please explain.
(I then quickly researched and posted support for the claim in my post immediately above.)
ZACKlyRight:
Some quotes; if Capuano (D, MA) or Jones are wrong or are lying, please let us all know. Also, please let us know what intelligence you see that a member of Congress and President Obama's National Security Adviser don't see so we all know your support is credible:
"Very simply: We've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan. We went there to get al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and I believe that if we switch the mission now we will be doing nothing but beginning to get ourselves in the morass that we've tried to avoid since Vietnam. We should come home." - Rep. Michael Capuano, on NECN, November 27, 2009.
"The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country (Afghanistan), no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." - Gen. James Jones, President Obama's National Security Adviser, presser, October 3, 2009.
ZACKlyRight:
"Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security." - President Barack Hussein Obama explaining his interpretation of the 98 - 0 and 420 - 1 votes in Congress, December 1, 2009.
I support President Obama protecting our security.
Liberal:
Okay zackly so if we finished the terrorists why are we still there? The Taliban are not a threat to us if they are not terrorists. Sounds like we are being imperialists. Sounds like you approve.
ZACKlyRight:
President Obama is not so much focusing on a handful of terrorists (al Qaeda; counter-terrorism) as he is looking to completely wipe out the Taliban (counter-insurgency).We're still there to fight the Taliban. We're still there because President Obama (with the advice of his entire war counsel) says it is in our national security interest. I do not think Obama is lying therefore I support President Obama.
Having answered your question, please answer mine:
Do you think Obama is a liar?
Do you think our national security is not threatend by a Taliban government in Afghanistan?
What support do you have to argue against Obama that is credible in this forum?
Liberal:
zackly I don't think our national security is threatened by the Taliban because I don't think the Taliban has, or indeed ever likely to have, the capacity to invade the United States of America.
ZACKlyRight:
Well I certainly do not share your logic that (in)ability to invade is the threshold for threatening our national security.
I think I'll stand with Obama, Biden, Gates, Clinton, Blair, Jones, Panetta, Mullen, Petraeus and McChrystal (Obama's hand-picked General to lead Obama's new, comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy) who say otherwise and who represent the argument against your failed logic.
I'm disappointed that it sounds like you choose to stand with the al Fedaban-Americans and the pro-terrorist lobby (according to Obama, not destroying the Taliban means al Qaeda may enjoy a safe haven in Afghanistan thus my pro-terrorist lobby link).
Liberal:
zackly who are the al Fedaban-Americans?
The Taliban are a political party, you know like the Republicans are a political party. You cannot defeat a political party by force only by removing its support, just like the Republicans are trying to do.
ZACKlyRight:
The al Fedaban-Americans are the Americans who rooted for al Qaeda, the Fedayeen Saddam and the Taliban against the United States of America during the Bush Administration. I thought they would have disappeared with the election of President Obama, but I see they have not.
Again, Obama and his entire war counsel think it is important to fight the Taliban despite your protestations. Obama has convinced me.
As I rooted for the United States under Bush, I root for the United States under Obama.
Liberal:
I understand, presumably they live with the fairies at the bottom of your garden!
ZACKlyRight:
Naturally I'm disappointed that you go for the cheap personal attack rather than defend your anti-Obama position against my massive wall of fact, logic, and quotes from the Obama Administration and a Democrat in Congress (who sees the intelligence presumably that you do not see).
I'm disappointed a lot on this site, as you can imagine, what, with my use of logic and fact and the maturity level of the people who cannot argue against me.
Liberal:
zackly once you start speaking about al Fedaban-Americans you lose all credibility.
ZACKlyRight:
Re-read the thread, the only one whose credibility is in tatters is you.
I support President Obama's Bush-like surge in Afghanistan for all the reasons President Obama and his war counsel provide.
(End of exchange.)
The exhange below occurred in an on-line chat room at Boston.com (yes, I know, not the most intelluctually challenging venue). My original post was in response to an editorial by the liberal extremist H.D.S. Greenway who picked-up on President Obama's suggestion that Obama has to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. The exchange is with a "regular" at Boston.com who had previously demonstrated some intelligence. I share the exchange because the person I was engaged with is so typical of those on the Left; maybe there is something here that a conservative or Republican can use if they, too, want to make a liberal's head explode. I suppose that liberals who frequent this site can use this exchange as a training tool for their own kind so that fewer look like idiots in on-line chat rooms, at dinner parties or all the other places where liberals prove their ignorance and hypocrisy.
ZACKlyRight:
Of course, a liberal media operating as part of Obama's White House communications operation would repeat Obama's lie that he's "finishing the job".
There is no job to finish. As people who see the intelligence tell us over and over and over again (including Obama!), that which Congress authorized with its Afghanistan vote was accomplished by President Bush.
Obama is not finishing a job, he's starting a new one - which I support, by the way.
Obama is starting a full-scale counter-insurgency war, with a nation-building component, which is completely different than Bush's counter-terrorism war. This is why Obama needs thousands and thousands of more troops.
When President Obama, with the advice of Biden, Clinton, Blair, Jones, Panetta, Mullen, Petraeus, McChrystal, and dare I say Sen. Kerry, tells me it is in the national security interest of the United States that we do this, who am I to argue - I DON'T SEE THE INTELLIGENCE - I'm trusting the people who do to get it right.
I'm a conservative and a registered Republican; I do not have a double-standard: I support President Obama's Bush-like troop surge.
Liberal:
zacklywrong wrote:"There is no job to finish. As people who see the intelligence tell us over and over and over again (including Obama!), that which Congress authorized with its Afghanistan vote was accomplished by President Bush."Obama is not finishing a job, he's starting a new one - which I support."
So you're saying that President Bush defeated the terrorism threat in Afghanistan and he finished that job?
In that case President Obama is wasting our resources by creating a US colony in Afghanistan and you support that?
If this is, completely different than Bush's counter-terrorism war how can this be a Bush-like troop surge?
ZACKlyRight:
I'm really not saying Bush defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan as much as I'm repeating the words of President Obama's National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Rep. Michael Capuano (D, MA). These guys write and/or see the intelligence so they would certainly know. I certainly don't think President Obama's National Security Adviser is a liar.
When every reputable news agency is reporting that Obama modeled his Afghan surge after Bush's Iraq surge, I'm very comfortable using the extremely accurate descriptor: Bush-like.Again, I'm trusting Obama that Obama's new counter-insurgency strategy is in our national interest as he argues it is. If you think my trust is misplaced, please explain.
(I then quickly researched and posted support for the claim in my post immediately above.)
ZACKlyRight:
Some quotes; if Capuano (D, MA) or Jones are wrong or are lying, please let us all know. Also, please let us know what intelligence you see that a member of Congress and President Obama's National Security Adviser don't see so we all know your support is credible:
"Very simply: We've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan. We went there to get al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and I believe that if we switch the mission now we will be doing nothing but beginning to get ourselves in the morass that we've tried to avoid since Vietnam. We should come home." - Rep. Michael Capuano, on NECN, November 27, 2009.
"The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country (Afghanistan), no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." - Gen. James Jones, President Obama's National Security Adviser, presser, October 3, 2009.
ZACKlyRight:
"Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security." - President Barack Hussein Obama explaining his interpretation of the 98 - 0 and 420 - 1 votes in Congress, December 1, 2009.
I support President Obama protecting our security.
Liberal:
Okay zackly so if we finished the terrorists why are we still there? The Taliban are not a threat to us if they are not terrorists. Sounds like we are being imperialists. Sounds like you approve.
ZACKlyRight:
President Obama is not so much focusing on a handful of terrorists (al Qaeda; counter-terrorism) as he is looking to completely wipe out the Taliban (counter-insurgency).We're still there to fight the Taliban. We're still there because President Obama (with the advice of his entire war counsel) says it is in our national security interest. I do not think Obama is lying therefore I support President Obama.
Having answered your question, please answer mine:
Do you think Obama is a liar?
Do you think our national security is not threatend by a Taliban government in Afghanistan?
What support do you have to argue against Obama that is credible in this forum?
Liberal:
zackly I don't think our national security is threatened by the Taliban because I don't think the Taliban has, or indeed ever likely to have, the capacity to invade the United States of America.
ZACKlyRight:
Well I certainly do not share your logic that (in)ability to invade is the threshold for threatening our national security.
I think I'll stand with Obama, Biden, Gates, Clinton, Blair, Jones, Panetta, Mullen, Petraeus and McChrystal (Obama's hand-picked General to lead Obama's new, comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy) who say otherwise and who represent the argument against your failed logic.
I'm disappointed that it sounds like you choose to stand with the al Fedaban-Americans and the pro-terrorist lobby (according to Obama, not destroying the Taliban means al Qaeda may enjoy a safe haven in Afghanistan thus my pro-terrorist lobby link).
Liberal:
zackly who are the al Fedaban-Americans?
The Taliban are a political party, you know like the Republicans are a political party. You cannot defeat a political party by force only by removing its support, just like the Republicans are trying to do.
ZACKlyRight:
The al Fedaban-Americans are the Americans who rooted for al Qaeda, the Fedayeen Saddam and the Taliban against the United States of America during the Bush Administration. I thought they would have disappeared with the election of President Obama, but I see they have not.
Again, Obama and his entire war counsel think it is important to fight the Taliban despite your protestations. Obama has convinced me.
As I rooted for the United States under Bush, I root for the United States under Obama.
Liberal:
I understand, presumably they live with the fairies at the bottom of your garden!
ZACKlyRight:
Naturally I'm disappointed that you go for the cheap personal attack rather than defend your anti-Obama position against my massive wall of fact, logic, and quotes from the Obama Administration and a Democrat in Congress (who sees the intelligence presumably that you do not see).
I'm disappointed a lot on this site, as you can imagine, what, with my use of logic and fact and the maturity level of the people who cannot argue against me.
Liberal:
zackly once you start speaking about al Fedaban-Americans you lose all credibility.
ZACKlyRight:
Re-read the thread, the only one whose credibility is in tatters is you.
I support President Obama's Bush-like surge in Afghanistan for all the reasons President Obama and his war counsel provide.
(End of exchange.)
posted by Zack at 5:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home