Bush was crucified for having a deck of cards, Obama is praised for having a hit list

[Peach]

And Obama's hit list has American names on it. Where the fuck is Code Pink?

What is the reference to the deck of cards? The playing cards with Iraqi targets on the cards? Who crucified Bush for the cards, and who is praising Obama for the kill list?

The cards were uncalled for in such a serious matter, and if there is a "hit list" termed that, no praise from me.

 

[daveman]

You accept his claim with no proof, but I have to prove a negative. You're an idiot.

I claim you have sex with animals.

Disprove it.

No, you moron, you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove that the majority of the left holds an opinion opposite that which he claims they do.

You have failed to do so. Moreover, you laughably say I'm asking you to prove a negative.

You're not nearly as bright as you tell yourself you are.

Once again, you're asking him to prove a negative - specifically, the "negative" of what Grampa has claimed.

He's offered nothing to back up his claims, and you're demanding that others prove him wrong.

You're just as stupid as he is.

So, in the end, you can't refute Grampa's claim. NOTE: "Nuh-UH!!" is NOT a valid refutation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And Obama's hit list has American names on it. Where the fuck is Code Pink?

These kinds of criticisms are always silly. Presidents often push through policies or ideas that engender strong resistance but are eventually accepted by the people. The fact that future Presidents in turn similar tactics is no reflection on anything or anyone, other than the fact that with time the public's attitudes towards things evolves. It was Bush that ultimately convinced the people that a hit list was an acceptable tactic in the fight against terrorism. The people now accept the practice. It's not much different than how Clinton convinced the people that personal marital infidelity should not be a metric of a person's suitability for office. We've had multiple GOP politicians who have since survived exposed sex scandals.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, you moron, you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove that the majority of the left holds an opinion opposite that which he claims they do.

You have failed to do so. Moreover, you laughably say I'm asking you to prove a negative.

You're not nearly as bright as you tell yourself you are.

Once again, you're asking him to prove a negative - specifically, the "negative" of what Grampa has claimed.

He's offered nothing to back up his claims, and you're demanding that others prove him wrong.

You're just as stupid as he is.

So, in the end, you can't refute Grampa's claim. NOTE: "Nuh-UH!!" is NOT a valid refutation.

It's not up to us to "refute" his claim. It's up to him to provide evidence for it.

Which he has not done.