Political You-Tube video with more votes than any other

Remove all ads!

Uh, coin if you watched the video you can clearly see he has lost at least the lower half of his left leg as he walks off. You must have missed that.

 

yeah i guess. i stopped watching when he stopped talking, so I guess I didn't register the potent image of a cripple, crippled by war, advocating the prolongation of war. Now i get why it's so popular on YouTube, though.

Hey BTW, do you still have any democrats working in your company?


[You WILL knock off the baiting nonsense - dmc]

 

coin: Your debating techniques were much better in the 9/11 thread as well. IMO debates stop when people start insulting others -- and your attack of a disabled person was just that. I found it offensive and, quite frankly, it simply pissed me off.

If you wish to have a debate, do so on the issues. In this thread you have chosen to be personal. Change to accepted tactics and there can be a debate.

 

Just saw the video: Poor guy. Think of him and his feeling when his leaders saying the war he went to was a mistake... now he has to cope with that and a lost leg...

Anyway I too think the war was a mistake, but now the troops has to do the "job" as good as possible. And then leave. Keeping troops there for years to come doesn't solve anything it just keep the situation locked.

 

@ dmc:
I'm not trying to be baiting, but often one person's strong opinion is another's insult. I'll try to adhere to your warning, if possible. I'm not sure whether it's about T2Bruno's allegation of discrimination, or my question to martaug. But I'm sure martaug didn't mind me asking.

@ T2Bruno:
You insist that I was insulting a disabled person, even though it is clear that I didn't even know he was disabled. I still don't understand how you claim to take offense. The only thing I said was:

Disabled people should not be treated like war monuments. They may not be whole in the physical sense, but they are complete people with personalities, and all the consequences of this. My opinion of his personality was based on my observation of him talking (not walking away), and his opinions. It has no bearing on his disability.

My negative opinion of his personality can be construed as an attack on a disabled person. But it is only discriminating when it is about his disability, not his personality. If I had a negative opinion of a black person, is it discriminating regardless of whether it's about his race or skincolour? I say you pulled the discrimination card in error here.
I'm sure if you persist in your 'it's-an-outrage'-comments, that a moderator will feel obliged to come in and intervene. Just know that you're not fooling me.

Now this is an interesting aspect. I believe that mounting death tolls, disabilities and other casualties create a burden of guilt and responsibility for a nation towards the survivors(' families). This is to honour those who died in battle, and ensure that the sacrifices that were made, were not in vain. This burden will compel a nation to stay on the path it has chosen, even in light of its previous bad decisions. I can imagine that living with a disability is hard enough, but to know that your gov't's mistake is directly responsible, that's bound to make you really frustrated. Often facing up to reality is more painful than keeping up appearances, but it has to happen eventually.

 

Ignorance is no excuse coin. In the 9/11 thread you constantly complained people were making comments without watching the (really damn long) videos you posted. In this case you didn't even watch a short video. Rather hypocritical of you. If you choose to post while ignorant of the subject, expect to get flamed -- welcome to the boards.

I thought NOG did well enough at arguing against your claims and did not see an effective rebuttal on your part. In fact this comment:

shows a lack of understanding. First of all, you can only impeach a sitting president -- how could he stall an impeachment proceding for a president that will have left office before Obama can even enter the position? Not well thought out on your part. Your inference that Bush and Obama are one in the same because they are "distant cousins" is just unbelievable. We are all distant cousins -- so by your logic Putin, Bush, Obama, the Pope, Osama Bin Laden ... would all make the same decisions in office and be equally affective Presidents of the US. That's not thinking 'outside-the-box.'

Lastly, read my previous posts in this thread before you start doing any finger wagging. If I was out of line I'm sure dmc would have made a comment to me as well.

 

If I were discriminating disabled people, and was unaware that he was disabled, then there would be no excuse. But since I wasn't doing this, there's nothing to be excused for.

I was just saying to martaug yesterday, that if we don't shrink from controversy, we must be prepared to pay the price. That's about the only thing we have in common.
Since he was just standing and talking in the video, I decided to listen and read posts at the same time. You're right that the 9/11 vids are a long sit in, but they must also be watched for visual aids. I misjudged the video, in thinking that there was no visual information.

Yeah you're right here. I know what impeachment means, but my mixing up 'impeachment' with 'prosecution for war crimes' is pretty bad.
And the cousin detail was more to illustrate that he's just another member of the elite, so it remains to be seen whether he's going to effect any real change. Some people seem to think that a 'brother' was elected for president, and that he'll have their best interests at heart...

 

Coin, here you're apparent conspiracy theories really fall apart. Obama didn't even grow up in the US (for the really formative years, at least) and even in the US, his mentors were the far-left wing branch, a group that hasn't held power in a long, long, long time (in some sense, never). How can you claim that Obama is a part of 'the extablishment'?

If anything, I would expect you to notice this and re-evaluate the man's words in a new light. He's well-spoken, coherant, and sensible, so he's obviously not responding on a purely emotional level. He's really thought this through. Furthermore, he's suffered because of this war which means, if he sees any value in it at all, it must be some pretty good value. For such a man to defend the war, he must have seen/done some things that truely convinced him the war was worth it.

Here I'm pretty sure you've just shown how you aren't even really paying attention (or understanging) what we're saying. Shaitan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the point wasn't, 'He's injured and now the government is saying it was to blame, he should be really mad', but more, 'He's injured and now the government has denounced him and what he did, even though he believes it was right and good, he is probably feeling crushed and betrayed.' You essentially turned it around into the exact opposite. Again, Shaitan can feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood it.

 

NoG got my meaning as I intended it to be.

 

You won't be surprised to learn that there are veteran amputees out there that are strongly opposed to war, I'm sure. This guy has come to a different conclusion.

The "Dear Mr. Obama" guy guilt-trips people into continuing the occupation, by claiming that leaving would dishonour the sacrifices made so far.
This "Dear Senator McCain" guy shames people into stopping the war, to prevent even more meaningless sacrifices.
If I had to choose between them, I'd say stop the war, because I give priority to the living (and not-yet-amputees). It wouldn't be unpatriotic either, because the living are also americans.
Shaitan's position on the issue is clear to me now, but the facts he highlighted were relevant to my point. I described that this burden of guilt and responsibility compels you to push onwards. For you and Shaitan, this burden is a goal in itself, for me it's just an effect that can lead to unwise political decisions.

 

Coin, again you presume way to much. If the purpose really is bad, I'm usually the first to suggest cutting our losses. The difference is, I don't think the purpose is bad. Yes, both videos use non-arguements to support their arguements (keep the war going to give sacrifice meaning is no worse than assuming it's meaningless when evidence contradicts), but that hardly means everyone thinks that way.