[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
The question is not about Democrat verses Republican. It is about statism verses nonstatism; …
I wasn’t aware that was on the ballot.[/quote]
It’s not; nevertheless, it remains a core question to the future of American policy: More or less government?
If we survived the Bush presidency (it’s not over yet) we can survive an Obama presidency.
Some of you guys need to get a bit more realistic… your hysterics are laughable.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we survived the Bush presidency (it’s not over yet) we can survive an Obama presidency.
Some of you guys need to get a bit more realistic… your hysterics are laughable.[/quote]
Some of us are in positions where an Obama presidency would have much more of a negative impact on our lives than a Bush presidency.
And I think you’re “reading” the posts here wrong. I can write about what an idiot Obama is and how his policies are going to screw up this nation…and still be very relaxed and in a pleasant mood. Like right now.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we survived the Bush presidency (it’s not over yet) we can survive an Obama presidency.
Some of you guys need to get a bit more realistic… your hysterics are laughable.[/quote]
Why is it that many liberals are prone to “argument by ridicule” or “argument by (moral outrage)?” If you’ve got a point to make about where we’re wrong, why don’t you make it and back it up with facts, reasoning, and argumentation?
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I can write about what an idiot Obama is and how his policies are going to screw up this nation.
[/quote]
No, you can’t.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why is it that many liberals are prone to “argument by ridicule” or “argument by (moral outrage)?” If you’ve got a point to make about where we’re wrong, why don’t you make it and back it up with facts, reasoning, and argumentation? [/quote]
LOL
Yep, just the Liberals.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why is it that many liberals are prone to “argument by ridicule” or “argument by (moral outrage)?” If you’ve got a point to make about where we’re wrong, why don’t you make it and back it up with facts, reasoning, and argumentation? [/quote]
Have you been listening to Rush too much? Don’t you believe for a minute that such characteristics are applicable only to the “other” side.
[quote]ovalpline wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
I can write about what an idiot Obama is and how his policies are going to screw up this nation.
No, you can’t.[/quote]
Yes, I can.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
ovalpline wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
I can write about what an idiot Obama is and how his policies are going to screw up this nation.
No, you can’t.
Yes, I can.[/quote]
I’m beginning to see it your way.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t want higher taxes, but cutting social programs to fund this war would be unethical.
Really?
When did it become the federal governments responsibility to make sure that some single slut who can’t keep her legs closed and who spits out kids faster than a peds dispenser kicks out candy gets her illegitimate kids health costs paid for?
That is UNETHICAL!
After Clinton I have no reason to believe that a Dem will take anywhere near as much of my money as a Republican.
There was a good reason for the Clinton economic success. It was called Newt Gingrich and the the Contract With America…remember that?
The republican Congress at the time created a little thing called “workfare” and Bill Clinton was savy enough to sign it into law.
Obama as President with an democratic Congress spells serious trouble for the US in many areas. But you’ll just have to wait and see as you are blinded by your hate for Bush and the republicans and a war that you don’t support. And you have stars in your eyes for your Obama…who represents C H A N G E…ha ha. Just look at his liberal voting record in the Senate, it’s unmatched. Is that change? Is that bipartenship?
Obamas rhetoric does not seem to match his voting record.
Anyway…
Just as I say to anyone who wants to listen. This economy is not nearly as bad as the liberal media is making it out to be. In fact by any historical standard the unemployment rate is actually low. That means people are working and contributing in many ways to the economy. That will all change when the inexperienced liberal Senator is elected.
But as I have stated it will make the republican party strong for 2012. We might even get 12 years of republican rule, like we did after Jimmy Carter made us the laughing stock of the world and trashed our economy.
[/quote]
I’m not sure if you realize this, but valid arguments are formed with valid assertions and valid conclusions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Why is it that many liberals are prone to “argument by ridicule” or “argument by (moral outrage)?” If you’ve got a point to make about where we’re wrong, why don’t you make it and back it up with facts, reasoning, and argumentation?
Have you been listening to Rush too much? Don’t you believe for a minute that such characteristics are applicable only to the “other” side.[/quote]
I find the “conservative” punditry rather off-putting.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we survived the Bush presidency (it’s not over yet) we can survive an Obama presidency.
Some of you guys need to get a bit more realistic… your hysterics are laughable.[/quote]
If Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate, I’d give his presidency about a year and a half. Hillary will then ‘replace’ him (like Vince Foster got ‘replaced’). Black people will go absolutely crazy and try to burn down every city in the US. Martial law will be imposed and Hillary gets to be El Presidente for life.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Martial law will be imposed and Hillary gets to be El Presidente for life. [/quote]
That’ll be La Presidenta.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
ovalpline wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t want higher taxes, but cutting social programs to fund this war would be unethical.
Really?
When did it become the federal governments responsibility to make sure that some single slut who can’t keep her legs closed and who spits out kids faster than a peds dispenser kicks out candy gets her illegitimate kids health costs paid for?
That is UNETHICAL! [/quote]
This is called taking an argument to an extreme. As a logical tactic it is fine, but not when you base an entire argument on it without mention of other instances in which social programs may help people or hurt people.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but there is plenty of research demonstrating that in environments of despair, menarche occurs earlier and reproductive fitness is enhanced by having as many children as possible.
Now, this in itself does not make it ethical to support these women. I’m just trying to convey that the idea of ethics is not easily reduced in to attacks on individuals’ character. There is way more at play here.
[quote]After Clinton I have no reason to believe that a Dem will take anywhere near as much of my money as a Republican.
There was a good reason for the Clinton economic success. It was called Newt Gingrich and the the Contract With America…remember that?
The republican Congress at the time created a little thing called “workfare” and Bill Clinton was savy enough to sign it into law. [/quote]
I never realized how definitive that argument was. Please present your dissertation research.
Truth is, that may have had an effect, but you are not only making a questionable one-to-one cause-effect relationship, but also implying that this was the ONLY reason.
[quote]Obama as President with an democratic Congress spells serious trouble for the US in many areas. But you’ll just have to wait and see as you are blinded by your hate for Bush and the republicans and a war that you don’t support.
And you have stars in your eyes for your Obama…who represents C H A N G E…ha ha. Just look at his liberal voting record in the Senate, it’s unmatched. Is that change? Is that bipartenship? [/quote]
This isn’t an argument. This is an ad hominem.
This is a false assertion. And if it were your conclusion, it lacks premises and its logical force is too strong.
It will change? How? Why? Where in your argument here were you able to make that leap? Furthermore, your argument bases the entire strength of the economy on one factor.
Were those previous 12 years of Republican rule so great?
Also, in an argument above, you accused a previous poster of having stars in his eyes as a means of dismissing his argument. In this argument, you do the exact same thing. Now, I won’t dismiss your argument on this point, however, I will question why the same logical rules you use for others don’t apply to you.
[quote]I’m not sure if you realize this, but valid arguments are formed with valid assertions and valid conclusions.
Apparently not by you.
If you can refute what I have written you should begin that process now.
[/quote]
Well, I’ve refuted your arguments.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
bigstu wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
ovalpline wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t want higher taxes, but cutting social programs to fund this war would be unethical.
Really?
When did it become the federal governments responsibility to make sure that some single slut who can’t keep her legs closed and who spits out kids faster than a peds dispenser kicks out candy gets her illegitimate kids health costs paid for?
That is UNETHICAL!
This is called taking an argument to an extreme. As a logical tactic it is fine, but not when you base an entire argument on it without mention of other instances in which social programs may help people or hurt people.
And what you’ve done is “assume” that I don’t think that there are any worthy social programs simply because I didn’t mention them.
And…that is called being a dumb ass.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but there is plenty of research demonstrating that in environments of despair, menarche occurs earlier and reproductive fitness is enhanced by having as many children as possible.
Now, this in itself does not make it ethical to support these women. I’m just trying to convey that the idea of ethics is not easily reduced in to attacks on individuals’ character. There is way more at play here.
That argument isn’t even valid.
When the woman I described above is somehow able to support those children then she can have 50 of them for all I care…each being more healthy than the previous. Until then she should keep her legs closed.
After Clinton I have no reason to believe that a Dem will take anywhere near as much of my money as a Republican.
There was a good reason for the Clinton economic success. It was called Newt Gingrich and the the Contract With America…remember that?
The republican Congress at the time created a little thing called “workfare” and Bill Clinton was savy enough to sign it into law.
I never realized how definitive that argument was. Please present your dissertation research.
Truth is, that may have had an effect, but you are not only making a questionable one-to-one cause-effect relationship, but also implying that this was the ONLY reason.
Ha ha…I hope you’re getting a good grades in school junior because you’re not winning any points in the real world.
If you want me to write a dissertation…you’ll have to pay me for my time.
Here’s a clue for you…and I’ll type slow so you can understand:
T h i s i s A m e s s a g e b o a r d…
DUH
Obama as President with an democratic Congress spells serious trouble for the US in many areas. But you’ll just have to wait and see as you are blinded by your hate for Bush and the republicans and a war that you don’t support. And you have stars in your eyes for your Obama…who represents C H A N G E…ha ha. Just look at his liberal voting record in the Senate, it’s unmatched. Is that change? Is that bipartenship?
This isn’t an argument. This is an ad hominem.
Wrong again kid.
This is a fact and a good argument:
He is THE most liberal Senator in the US Senate accordnig to his voting record.
Here is an ad hominem:
You are a stupid kid who needs to live at least another 10 years before he is able to grasp what’s going on in the real world.
See the difference?
Obamas rhetoric does not seem to match his voting record.
This is a false assertion. And if it were your conclusion, it lacks premises and its logical force is too strong.
That’s a factual assertion junior.
But here is more opinion for you:
I get a kick out kids like you posting fresh from Philosophy class…
Just as I say to anyone who wants to listen. This economy is not nearly as bad as the liberal media is making it out to be. In fact by any historical standard the unemployment rate is actually low. That means people are working and contributing in many ways to the economy. That will all change when the inexperienced liberal Senator is elected.
It will change? How? Why? Where in your argument here were you able to make that leap?
There are economic cycles in play. I can’t tell you when it will change. Some of the best economic minds in the country can’t say when it will change.
But as I have stated it will make the republican party strong for 2012. We might even get 12 years of republican rule, like we did after Jimmy Carter made us the laughing stock of the world and trashed our economy.
Were those previous 12 years of Republican rule so great?
Far better than the CRAP economy left by liberal icon Jimmy Carter…not to mention that we were the laughing stock abroad. See Iran Contra hostage crisis.
If you can refute what I have written you should begin that process now.
Well, I’ve refuted your arguments.
You’ve refuted nothing. But you did give me a good belly laugh. Post again real soon sparky.
[/quote]
Your entire post was an ad hominem against me. What’s the point of continuing this discussion with you? Would you really like me to continue or do you just want the last word?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
bigstu wrote:
Your entire post was an ad hominem against me. What’s the point of continuing this discussion with you? Would you really like me to continue or do you just want the last word?
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861591318/blowhard.html
Sniff…sniff…that blowhard comment really hurts kid.
Now what would your Professors say about that? bad…bad …boy.
Ha ha…I don’t give a fuck if you respond or not. If you do, I’ll answer you in kind and have another laugh. You add nothing to this discussion but humor.
[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand the hostility; I didn’t intend to question your e-sensibilities. However, you are right, there’s no point in further discussion with you. You clearly have the upper hand here, what with your real-world experience having shown you how to present yourself with so much class.
P.S. - I’ll PM you with what my social psych professor has to say about our exchanges, you know, since the relevance of my having graduated as a Bio-archaeology major only three years ago is more than a deflective circular argument intended to disqualify me from questioning your reasoning.
Wow, this is painful. The reason he’s calling you a kid is because you expect him to write an essay full of examples for why his argument makes sense. Who’s going to do that?
Like when he mentions a voting record you expect him to give you a list of everything Obama has ever voted on and highlight all the important points for you? Some of us think that takes a little too much effort. Just because someone doesn’t go into detail to explain his reasoning doesn’t mean it’s wrong.