Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 108
  1. #81
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Last summer, President Donald Trump signed a classified directive giving U.S. Cyber Command leeway to mount cyberoffensive operations at its own initiative. Before then, such operations—even tactical operations on the battlefield—had to be personally approved by the president."
    Now putting aside whether you think this is good or bad....

    Your OP: Trump refuses to defend us against foreign attacks. You implied this is due to his relationship with Putin.
    My Rebuttal: Trump has given more freedom to Cyber Command to go on the offensive and, as a result, Cyber Command has been less constrained than under the previous admin.

    This contradicts your OP. If Trump wanted to protect Russia/Putin, he wouldn't be giving Cyber Command greater freedom to direct attacks against Russia. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Your personal assessment of Trump's directive means exactly nothing to me. Now, if Squatch offered a take, I'd listen. You? Not so much. Let it be perfectly clear, I have not offered my personal opinion on this whatsoever. Nor shall I.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #82
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let it be perfectly clear, I have not offered my personal opinion on this whatsoever.
    Neither have I. I used your own source in post 80 to show it wasn't Trump at all, rather it was cybercommand's idea because Trump can't be trusted because he's a fool or compromised. The comparison with Obama - which was untrue and unsupported - therefore failed.

    If you or Squatch, your big brother or Aunt Tilley want to make the argument and support it that their efforts are lead to more effective results, then go ahead.

  3. #83
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I used your own source in post 80 to show it wasn't Trump at all, rather it was cybercommand's idea because Trump can't be trusted because he's a fool or compromised.

    This is materially incorrect. The post referenced a specific activity being originated within Cybercommand. Ibelsd's point was on the devolution of authorities. Apples and Oranges.

    If I were to give my son permission to go the movies, he wouldn't object to the fact that I gave him permission by pointing out which movie he later chose to go to. One is about permissions, the other is about which actions are taken within that given permission set.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. Thanks Ibelsd thanked for this post
  5. #84
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    If I were to give my son permission to go the movies, he wouldn't object to the fact that I gave him permission by pointing out which movie he later chose to go to. One is about permissions, the other is about which actions are taken within that given permission set. [/COLOR]
    But knowing that you are untrustworthy he might not tell you his plans for the evening.

    For his point to be made he'd have to show that Obama's way was any less effective.

    Oh, and was the directive his idea even?
    Last edited by CowboyX; July 23rd, 2019 at 08:11 AM.

  6. #85
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But knowing that you are untrustworthy he might not tell you his plans for the evening.

    For his point to be made he'd have to show that Obama's way was any less effective.

    Oh, and was the directive his idea even?
    No. The point is that Squatch gave his son permission to go see a movie. If Squatch didn't want his son seeing a particular movie, he wouldn't have given his son carte blanche permission to see a movie. He'd have restricted the permission. What his son does with that permission isn't relative to the argument. Whether he then went ahead and saw movies without asking (already having been given permission) isn't relevant.

    Let's go back to the quote you offered:
    Last summer, President Donald Trump signed a classified directive giving U.S. Cyber Command leeway to mount cyberoffensive operations at its own initiative.

    First, you have been conflating what CC may have done with this new authority and what Trump purposefully did. Trump knowingly gave CC permission to take initiative. We know it was purposeful because he signed off on it. Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea... I am not making a claim either way. It is clearly a more aggressive approach than was taken under the previous admin which is supported by the response from CC that they feel less constrained than they did during the Obama admin. Again, good? Bad? I don't know. Does not matter for this thread. To be quite honest, I have no idea because I do not know enough about how CC operates, how well it did during the Obama admin, nor what it is achieving now. All I am claiming is that your OP is contradicted by Trump's actual behavior which is to give CC more authority to conduct offensive operations.

    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #86
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    All I am claiming is that your OP is contradicted by Trump's actual behavior which is to give CC more authority to conduct offensive operations.
    I'll accept that they are less constrained.

  9. #87
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    July 24, 2019

    Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.

    Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.

    But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn't give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.


    Under Senate rules, any one senator can ask for consent to pass a bill, but any one senator is able to object.

    The floor drama comes after Mueller warned about election interference during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election "as we sit here."

    “We are expecting them to do it again during the next campaign,” Mueller said.

  10. Thanks Vandaler thanked for this post
  11. #88
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Trump's intelligence chief resigned after the White House repeatedly suppressed his warnings about Russian interference, New York Times reports

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats repeatedly found his warnings about the threat posed by Russia suppressed by the White House, The New York Times reported Sunday amid his resignation from the post.

    According to The Times, Coats has often found himself at odds with President Donald Trump over Russia, a situation that worsened in recent months.

    A secret report by Coats on Russia's attempt to interfere in the 2018 midterms by spreading disinformation was reportedly altered by the White House. A public statement on Coats' conclusions contained less critical language than the original, The Times said.

    Trump Intelligence Nominee The ‘Least Qualified Individual Ever’

    In an unusually strident news release, Wyden called Ratcliffe “the most partisan and least qualified individual ever nominated to serve as Director of National Intelligence” and warned he’s not much more than a Trump acolyte:

    “The sum total of his qualifications appears to be his record of promoting Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories about the investigation into Russian interference and calling for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies,” Wyden said.

    “Furthermore, he has endorsed widespread government surveillance and shown little concern for Americans’ rights,” Wyden added, “except for those of Donald Trump and his close associates.”

    Ratcliffe is a former prosecutor who has limited experience in intelligence oversight.

    “Confirming this individual would amount to an endorsement of this administration’s drive to politicize our intelligence agencies,” Wyden warned. “This is a dangerous time, and America needs the most qualified and objective individuals possible to lead our intelligence agencies. Anything less risks American lives.”

  12. #89
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    These last two posts don't amount to an argument. They are links with quotes. If you have something relevant to the discussion to add, great. Otherwise, I'll accept that your OP is without merit.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #90
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    These last two posts don't amount to an argument. They are links with quotes. If you have something relevant to the discussion to add, great. Otherwise, I'll accept that your OP is without merit.
    They materially support the OP.

    Your post is meaningless.

  14. #91
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Given that Ibelsd's initial line of argument (which stands unrefuted) was a defeator to your OP, no amount of "evidence" is going to make your OP valid. Unless you can directly address Ibelsd's point, he is correct that your OP is rebutted. This is not a thread where you can just post links willy nilly for fun, it must materially, with argument, support the OP.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #92
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Given that Ibelsd's initial line of argument (which stands unrefuted) was a defeator to your OP, no amount of "evidence" is going to make your OP valid. Unless you can directly address Ibelsd's point, he is correct that your OP is rebutted. This is not a thread where you can just post links willy nilly for fun, it must materially, with argument, support the OP.
    My OP is not just about Trump. His point was.

  16. #93
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Your entire OP is about Trump. Aside from the title (the group being mentioned is also led by President Trump), you reference no other argument that isn't related to Trump. So if you remove the sections about Trump based on Ibelsd's critique all it is left with is a folksy story about listening to the radio. That would be a dead OP unless you can directly address and counter Ibelsd's critique.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #94
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your entire OP is about Trump. Aside from the title (the group being mentioned is also led by President Trump), you reference no other argument that isn't related to Trump. So if you remove the sections about Trump based on Ibelsd's critique all it is left with is a folksy story about listening to the radio. That would be a dead OP unless you can directly address and counter Ibelsd's critique.
    Hmm, possibly true. I can see how that radio guy was just following Trump's lead - "Russia if you're listening".

    The more I think about it it doesn't make sense that I wouldn't be including all on the right. The republican party is in power, true, so it would be them that would be able to defend us. But that leaves out a large segment of the population that follows - independents, libertarians, etc., and that was my point with the second part of my post - that a certain segment thought this was good.

    Further, the intent of them not defending us wasn't against all attacks - it was for political purposes. So again, attacks against a political opponent are seen as good and beneficial.

    And we've seen that from Trump - again the leader - denying and ignoring the intelligence assessments - Helsinki embarrassment - then trying to walk it back.

    and again:

    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Thursday questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller's assessment that Russia is already interfering in the 2020 presidential election, dismissing the notion just as he did after the 2016 election.

    "You don't really believe this. Do you believe this?" Trump told reporters at the White House as he prepared to leave for a political rally in Cincinnati.

    His words were in response to a direct question about whether he raised Mueller's assessment during a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said he did not discuss election interference with Putin during a phone call Wednesday.

    Mueller, whose staff prepared a report detailing efforts by Russians to hack Democrats and manipulate social media platforms during the 2016 election, said last week they will try it again in 2020.

    “They’re doing it as we sit here,” Mueller said during high-profile House hearing.
    Last edited by CowboyX; August 3rd, 2019 at 07:48 AM.

  18. #95
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Hmm, possibly true. I can see how that radio guy was just following Trump's lead - "Russia if you're listening".
    Interesting bait and switch, but it isn't applicable. Go re-read your OP, which is about Trump. If you don't have a supporting, coherent argument aside from the OP, then the thread is over given Ibelsd's standing point.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #96
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interesting bait and switch, but it isn't applicable. Go re-read your OP, which is about Trump. If you don't have a supporting, coherent argument aside from the OP, then the thread is over given Ibelsd's standing point.
    I did, and it wasn't exclusively about Trump. How's that a bait and switch? Explain and maybe I'll see it.

    I'll agree that Ibsled's point is about Trump, one republican, head of the party, true. Are you saying the Senate Majority Leader is without power?

  20. #97
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I did, and it wasn't exclusively about Trump. How's that a bait and switch? Explain and maybe I'll see it.
    Easily, you don't mention a single Republican in your OP that isn't Trump. You don't imply or hint at or reference other Republicans. Trump is literally the only person in the OP referenced. Hard to argue your OP is about other people when you don't actually mention them.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #98
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Easily, you don't mention a single Republican in your OP that isn't Trump. You don't imply or hint at or reference other Republicans. Trump is literally the only person in the OP referenced. Hard to argue your OP is about other people when you don't actually mention them.
    But how's that a bait and switch?

    This is absurd. How would I have been able to predict McConnel's future actions when I started the thread? I would have also had to have known about the Democrats winning the house in 2018.

  22. #99
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But how's that a bait and switch?

    OP = A
    Cowboy's argument = B

    Bait, and switch.

    The point being that what you are arguing is a different argument than what was presented in your OP. The OP has been defeated unless you can specifically address the defeator's points.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    This is absurd. How would I have been able to predict McConnel's future actions when I started the thread?
    Indeed. Absurd is a good word for it. You seem to be implying here that you started a thread without the evidentiary basis for a larger argument you wanted to make. I'm not sure if it is supposed to make us feel more charitable that you held that position without evidence.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #100
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [COLOR="#800080"]
    OP = A
    Cowboy's argument = B

    Bait, and switch.

    The point being that what you are arguing is a different argument than what was presented in your OP. The OP has been defeated unless you can specifically address the defeator's points.
    That's so not true. The OP mentions two separate incidents. Bringing up a third example under the same umbrella ("Republicans") as support is not a bait and switch.

 

 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood
    By Scarlett44 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: March 11th, 2014, 02:15 PM
  2. For those who defend your beloved GOP
    By Ibelsd in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 09:42 PM
  3. Defend the Monster
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2006, 06:12 AM
  4. Personal Attacks Enforcement
    By Apokalupsis in forum Announcements
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2005, 01:33 PM
  5. Relious freedom to refuse medical treatment for children
    By tinkerbell in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 02:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •