Chumpgate

[koriwhat]

The whole concept of 'upright moral character' is entirely trivial. What your moral code means to you is not the same that what it means to somebody else.

Who is a 'upright moral character' under your definition in this world?

Well obama is a criminal and a traitor to the USA! Theres no denying that and when the truth comes out in black & white the whole world will have a hard time swallowing that pill.

[ElNono]

That might be a low bar, especially in the world of Washington; but seriously, that's pretty much the line you're consistently towing. There was no need for me to argue anything even more devious than that; that's how hardcore a sperm shield you've become.

You didn't answer the question. I'm trying to get a barometer on what you think fits into your own personal 'upright moral character' box, but you keep dodging.

This is some arbitrary definition you brought in, so it would be good to know what you're talking about.

[ElNono]

Well obama is a criminal and a traitor to the USA! Theres no denying that and when the truth comes out in black & white the whole world will have a hard time swallowing that pill.

I don't do futurology kori. You have a gut feeling he's a criminal and a traitor, good for you. Everybody is en led to an opinion. That's not what we're talking about here, coz when you try to pass that as some sort of truth, you're going to be asked to back it up.

[ChumpDumper]

kori's feelings

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question. I'm trying to get a barometer on what you think fits into your own personal 'upright moral character' box, but you keep dodging.

This is some arbitrary definition you brought in, so it would be good to know what you're talking about.

Do you think Obama is a morally upright character?

Yes or no.

[ElNono]

Do you think Obama is a morally upright character?

Yes or no.

I asked you to define 'morally upright character'... dodge #2

[ElNono]

Seriously, you're asking me if person X is Y, but you don't tell me what Y is. It's impossible to answer that question.

[ElNono]

Heck, if you can't even put the definition in your own words, do tell who do you see as a 'morally upright character' in the current landscape, so we can compare a bit.

[Spurtacular]

I asked you to define 'morally upright character'... dodge #2

You know what it means. I shouldn't have to define basic words for you.

[ElNono]

You know what it means. I shouldn't have to define basic words for you.

Anything that has 'moral' in it is inherently personal, period. So, yes, we're talking about your own moral standards here. I don't know you, so if you want me to opine on your moral standards, the first thing you have to do is spell them out.

[Spurtacular]

Anything that has 'moral' in it is inherently personal, period. So, yes, we're talking about your own moral standards here. I don't know you, so if you want me to opine on your moral standards, the first thing you have to do is list them.

Then use your own personal judgment. That's really the crux of what I'm asking.

[ElNono]

Again, if you have trouble with this, just point out who do you find as a fine, 'morally upright character' so we can at least get some degree of reference here.

[Spurtacular]

Again, if you have trouble with this, just point out who do you find as a fine, 'morally upright character' so we can at least get some degree of reference here.

He's an immoral shady person, I would assess. What is your assessment?

[ElNono]

Then use your own personal judgment. That's really the crux of what I'm asking.

But you already know what I think. I think he's a flawed individual, meant well in some areas (Health reform, good rescuing the economy, civil, good communicator), and was a sellout in others (Health reform too, war, intelligence), and I don't think he's a criminal (yet anyways).

He ranks #3 in my POTUS rankings, tbh.

[ElNono]

He's an immoral shady person, I would assess. What is your assessment?

You keep dodging this. Give me somebody that's as close to your perfect 'morally upright character' that you can find.

Because if you can't even point out that person yourself, then you're just wasting my time.

[Spurtacular]

You keep dodging this. Give me somebody that's as close to your perfect 'morally upright character' that you can find.

Because if you can't even point out that person yourself, then you're just wasting my time.

You can't make a very basic assessment, SpermShieldYumYum.

[Spurtacular]

But you already know what I think. I think he's a flawed individual, meant well in some areas (Health reform, good rescuing the economy, civil, good communicator), and was a sellout in others (Health reform too, war, intelligence), and I don't think he's a criminal (yet anyways).

He ranks #3 in my POTUS rankings, tbh.

So he spawned ISIS among many other travesties, and he's #3 somehow. What is your #1 and #2?

[ElNono]

You can't make a very basic assessment, SpermShieldYumYum.

You can't even define your own criteria and you have expectations to be taken seriously

So he spawned ISIS among many other travesties, and he's #3 somehow. What is your #1 and #2?

See, this is where it always goes wrong for you, and not just with me. You can't back up he 'spawned ISIS', whatever that means, but you'll still make the claim. Until you're asked to support the contention and you'll inevitably fold.

It's not that everyone else is not 'next level', or 'enlightened', it's that it's all in your head. Everyone else simply have an expectation that you can back up what you're saying. But you can't.

I have #1. Bush Sr, #2. Clinton, #3. Obama. Again, my rankings don't necessarily reflect the quality of the individuals. I'm much less concerned about the person as I am with what the nation felt and looked like during their tenures.

[Spurtacular]

You can't even define your own criteria and you have expectations to be taken seriously



See, this is where it always goes wrong for you, and not just with me. You can't back up he 'spawned ISIS', whatever that means, but you'll still make the claim. Until you're asked to support the contention and you'll inevitably fold.

It's not that everyone else is not 'next level', or 'enlightened', it's that it's all in your head. Everyone else simply have an expectation that you can back up what you're saying. But you can't.

His funding of terrorists in Iraq/Syria is well known.
We were getting a slew of beheadings daily for months while he boasted that they were just JV as they lasted for years.
Funny how that got turned on its head in no time after Trump took office.

It's not about being next level. It's just you sticking your head in the ground like an idiot.

[Spurtacular]

I have #1. Bush Sr, #2. Clinton, #3. Obama. Again, my rankings don't necessarily reflect the quality of the individuals. I'm much less concerned about the person as I am with what the nation felt and looked like during their tenures.

That's a terrible list. I guess since you never really studied American history all that much, I can't say that bothers me that you have such a recency bias though.

[ElNono]

His funding of terrorists in Iraq/Syria is well known.
We were getting a slew of beheadings daily for months while he boasted that they were just JV as they lasted for years.
Funny how that got turned on its head in no time after Trump took office.

It's not about being next level. It's just you sticking your head in the ground like an idiot.

lol 'well know', back it up.

The only thing 'well known' is the US funding of Iran and Al-Qaeda during the Reagan administration. But that's a common problem in the Middle East, your allies of today are your enemies of tomorrow.

BTW, ISIS never stopped. You can take a look at the list right here since 2017 onwards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...linked_to_ISIL

As a matter of fact, they have roughly as many attacks under this administration as they do on the last one.
That you're not aware, and you drink the Trump koolaid is no excuse. Talk about sticking your head in the ground like an idiot.

[ElNono]

That's a terrible list. I guess since you never really studied American history all that much, I can't say that bothers me that you have such a recency bias though.

It's no recency bias, I said in my lifetime. What part of that is not clear? I'm not old, so I don't have a lot to pick from. ie: I couldn't pick Reagan, I wasn't living here then yet.

[Chucho]

You know what it means. I shouldn't have to define basic words for you.

Yeah, you really shouldn't. The reason you shouldn't is because you simply cant.

[Spurtacular]

lol 'well know', back it up.

The only thing 'well known' is the US funding of Iran and Al-Qaeda during the Reagan administration. But that's a common problem in the Middle East, your allies of today are your enemies of tomorrow.

BTW, ISIS never stopped. You can take a look at the list right here since 2017 onwards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...linked_to_ISIL

As a matter of fact, they have roughly as many attacks under this administration as they do on the last one.
That you're not aware, and you drink the Trump koolaid is no excuse. Talk about sticking your head in the ground like an idiot.

Sure, ISIS will always be out there to some fleeting degree (or significant degree under an Obama). No more caliphate under real leadership though.

As for Reagan, you can do your whataboutism there. Frankly, I don't disagree. I think CIA Bush (#1 in your book) sold Reagan on that horse with a bunch of lies.
For that reason among others, I don't hold Reagan in high esteem. Lefties hated the out of him just like Dubya. But they sure lined up to cry their eyeballs out when he died.
Just like Ellen buddy buddies with him now and the media is all too happy to sing his praises now when he's doing the NWO bidding.

And the funding of terrorists by Obama is well known. Were you waiting for CNN to confirm that or something? Willfully ignorant.

[ElNono]

Sure, ISIS will always be out there to some fleeting degree (or significant degree under an Obama). No more caliphate under real leadership though.

So what you're really saying is that they're still attacking, at roughly the same rate as they were under the previous admin, but your double standard has everything to do with you hating Obama and loving Trump. I mean, just say it, it's pretty transparent, and your opinion is no different than anybody's else.

As for Reagan, you can do your whataboutism there. Frankly, I don't disagree. I think CIA Bush (#1 in your book) sold Reagan on that horse with a bunch of lies.
For that reason among others, I don't hold Reagan in high esteem. Lefties hated the out of him just like Dubya. But they sure lined up to cry their eyeballs out when he died.
Just like Ellen buddy buddies with him now and the media is all too happy to sing his praises now when he's doing the NWO bidding.

I comment on Reagan based on what I've studied about his administration but I just can't rank it, as I just simply didn't live here and didn't experience it first hand.
I will say that back then geopolitics were different, that much we know, and the US was much more active worldwide, not just in the middle east but all over the world.

And the funding of terrorists by Obama is well known. Were you waiting for CNN to confirm that or something? Willfully ignorant.

You can put whatever adjective you want on me, it won't deflect for the fact that this answer is more code-word for "I can't back it up".
You keep falling for this again and again, and it's all your own doing. Don't say you don't get opportunities to display your immense knowledge on the topic. You earn your credibility, it's not handed to you (and I don't watch CNN).