Obama honors a well-reknowned American hater with the Medal of "FREEDOM"

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

guantanamo bay

That place Obama is having difficulty finding places to move people from? That place where people intent on killing Americans are housed? That place where home states won't take their citizens back from? It sucks that it exists but it would seem that these difficulties lend merit to the assertion that the people there should be locked up.

Anyway, you didn't answer the question to whom have we lost this moral high ground? Because the blanket refusal of any european nation to take any of the prisoners denies them claim to that position.

Blah blah blah... mostly rhetorical... I know you want this argument as much as I do so I'm done

Originally Posted by Typofile

Do you always answer questions with questions?

Yep.

I'm dumb.

Seriously, we all oppose things. We all oppose American things. Does that make us all terrorists/anti-American?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur

Pronunciation: \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, it does not follow Date: 1540 1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

[J. Fees]

no reason to argue with you, youre playing conservative talk show host again.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

no reason to argue with you, youre playing conservative talk show host again.

sure and you're Rosie as per usual - looney left and making as much sense


you missed my edit above btw

[Typofile]

I thought conservatives weren't very fond of government.

Seems a little antithetical to me.

[vinnie97]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so just because she's said the US lost 'moral high ground', which is what we have done, that means shes focused on winning the 'minds and hearts'(no reason for quotes in the orig article, it just wants you to think she said that) of terrorists?? c'mon

"Just?"

"Since 9/11" is what was mentioned in the article, so I wouldn't be surprised if she expressed pity for the hijackers and their plight while simultaneously deriding US foreign policy that resulted in their unfortunate environment.

And she's lambasted Israel for being tough on defense while simultaneously ignoring Palestinian aggression...neverending appeasement only works in that environment if suicide is the goal.

She takes a haughty moral high ground that suggests her own shit doesn't stink: http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/002141.html

[J. Fees]

The point is made that the enemy is not a nation state and is not willing to respect fundamental standards of international law which protect civilians. Fighting terrorism, it is said, therefore requires new strategies and sometimes "exceptional measures". This implies that human rights are somehow to be curtailed, that the security imperative outweighs all other considerations. I do not believe that, not least because if we follow that course we will lose the moral high ground — the capacity to influence the minds and hearts.

In this context, we must recognize — and regret — the degree to which the US has surrendered its moral authority. We must also acknowledge that it is not good for the world that the largest, most powerful country is seen to be out of line on human rights, and that this leaves an uncomfortable void.

so what part do you have a prob with?