Did he now. Care to elucidate your source on that one? Hope it’s reputable.
1 Like
If you want to split hairs, no, he did not bring a trainload of paper into Russia.
Snowden acquired something between 10^5 and 2^6 documents. He electronically archived them somewhere. He knows where they are and how to get them. Putin knows where -he- is and how to get him.
Anything there you disagree with??
1 Like
when HAS (b) happened, once, in these last several years.
You seem to be punishing what MIGHT happen, which is all about your fear, which you should keep off other peoples liberties. It’s America, after all. Land of the free, home of the brave.
Here’s an official Obama inauguration poster:
I’ll save you the trouble of clicking: it says “BE THE CHANGE”.
1 Like
yes, the unstated insinuation. Connect those dot’s, enougy lazy rhetoric and innuendo.
Innuendo is the tool of the con man.
2 Likes
Yeah, you can just feel the hope draining away from the Democratz for the forthcoming election. Obama has totally lost the trust of his supporters and disappointed those that were willing to give him a chance…what a sad, lost opportunity to really make a difference!
1 Like
Hey Cory, there’s no need to put ironic quotes around “most transparent administration ever”.
I’ve been able to see through him for quite a few years. And by now, you can too, amirite??
he’s calling you a chicken little. So am I.
1 Like
Fun take but in my experience it’s more common to find people who are at once misinformed and vocal than it is to find someone who is intentionally distracting you from the truth. Never attribute to intent what can be attributed to ignorance.
Labeling someone a troll isn’t much different from labeling someone anything else. It’s easy, it’s convenient, and it let’s us discount them entirely. People do that with other labels as well such as woman, black, Mexican, democrat etc.
I’d rather see them exposed to the truth and helped to understand rather than simply taking the easy route of marginalizing them with a label.
1 Like
Anyone who enters a discussion with no chance of changing their opinion is a partisan. When they use fallacious arguments, they’re a trollin’. I’m not labeling anyone anything though, other than you as a seemingly reasonable interlocutor, with the facts on your side.
1 Like
Everything on your post is incorrect. He does not have the documents. He destroyed his copy. The press has the only remaining copies. Also, do your math. You stated he took between 64 and 100,000 documents. He took 1.7 million documents.
2 Likes
That’s true. You did not label him a troll and I see how my post would make it sound like you did. I was referring to the others calling him a troll and I should have been clear on that point.
I don’t know that there is no change of changing his mind. But either way, I can try. I don’t mind at all. His arguments are fallacious by definition since they are based on mistaken beliefs which is exactly why I don’t think he’s trolling - just someone who needs more facts and less Fox.
1 Like
I find that generous. Surely though, a good example is the best option.
1 Like
Okay, so your contention is that a) Obama ran on a platform that cleverly parsed worse to suggest that he would deliver change when really he had no intention of doing so; and b) No one should criticize him for that now?
I mean, “Be the change” was a slogan that were supposed to understand to mean, “Vote for Obama”. That sort of suggests that voting for Obama was supposed to be part of being the change, that is voting for Obama was changing something, that is that Obama was going to change something while in office. At least I think that’s how absolutely everyone interpreted it.
But if you were clever enough to notice his wordplay at the time, and believed that he was promising no change whatsoever but encouraging people to make change by doing things themselves while voting him into office so he could be president just because, then bravo to you I guess. I think Obama is a terrible disappointment, but I don’t think that’s what he meant to be when he was running for office.
Fun fact: there is no such thing as a trolley. People who say stupid things on the internet are just actually that stupid!
Oh wait, you mean someone said stupid things on the internet and I thought they were stupid? Joke’s on me, I guess!
1 Like
I didn’t call anyone a troll, nor address you once in the conversation.
But other people say stupid reactionary things on the internet all the time. Yep.
You can make a non-fallacious argument with incorrect facts, it jsut falls apart when examined.
But it’s the appeal to authority, the strawman, the appeal to emotion, the begging of the question… etc… those can never be logical. they’re a con game, and in my expericence, are used intentionally to disrupt a conversation that someone does not like the direction of.
“turd in the punchbowl” is another way to make my point. There are a few cynical statements above that are just simply turds, from commenters who often drop similar nuggets in threads where the facts just are not on their side.
I’m not attributing ill intent, I AM pointing at a possible selfish aversion in the commenters to letting other people have dissenting opinions without mocking them and injecting shit they made up on the spot. I’m personally pretty careful to stick to criticisms of the logic though, because the irrational have no place in forming sane public policy.
2 Likes
His words are plain as can be, and his speeches expand on them. No clever parsing is needed.
People obviously read all kinds of absurd things into his slogans and speeches. Maybe he should have used smaller words.
Sorry for talking, won’t happen again.
Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws…
Unfortunately, perhaps he has. Just not in the direction that we had hoped.
3 Likes
You mean, like Chelsea Mannings? 'Cause that’s one person who got off an ass and tried to bring change about…
3 Likes
