[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And I haven’t ignored a word of yours. [/quote]
Also, laughably false.
You win though. I don’t care to bother here. We’ve been down this road, and I hate the Jon Stewart approach you take with it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
And what is lost in this is, Romney has built successful businesses that provide jobs. Sometimes you gotta fire people
[/quote]
Yes, I know.
That’s exactly what I’m saying: it’s an obvious and banal point that his campaign advisers would have told him to word differently because he was running for office in a country full of hacks and fools playing marco polo in the shallow end. It’s soundbite politics and it’s nonsense.[/quote]
Correct…and for the record I think Obama is a socialist.
I believe the fact that he has never drawn a paycheck from anybody but social institutions has warped him into thinking that business only exist to be taxed and those funds re-distributed.
His hubris is unmatched.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That you don’t have conduct to point to is not my problem.[/quote]
That you refuse to acknowledge your opinion just might not be superior, and that you refuse to admit you’re ignoring entire lines of reasoning, isn’t my problem either, Jon.
I guess that concludes this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No. The word “communist” is an actual word, with an actual political and historical meaning.
And yes, words mean less than conduct. Obviously.[/quote]
Yet, when I use his own fucking words against him, you create a false narrative to explain awy how words don’t matter, unless you want them too, like when it comes to calling someone a communist.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And I haven’t ignored a word of yours. [/quote]
Also, laughably false.
You win though. I don’t care to bother here. We’ve been down this road, and I hate the Jon Stewart approach you take with it. [/quote]
To say that you’ve got to have some, you know, evidence if you want anybody to take your position seriously – is “the Jon Stewart approach”? No, I don’t think so. It’s called “how things work.”
The sky is blue.
- no, the sky is azure, not blue, therefore you’re wrong.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
And what is lost in this is, Romney has built successful businesses that provide jobs. Sometimes you gotta fire people
[/quote]
Yes, I know.
That’s exactly what I’m saying: it’s an obvious and banal point that his campaign advisers would have told him to word differently because he was running for office in a country full of hacks and fools playing marco polo in the shallow end. It’s soundbite politics and it’s nonsense.[/quote]
Correct…and for the record I think Obama is a socialist.
I believe the fact that he has never drawn a paycheck from anybody but social institutions has warped him into thinking that business only exist to be taxed and those funds re-distributed.
His hubris is unmatched.[/quote]
Notice that I’m not arguing that he isn’t a socialist. I don’t even think there is a good definition of “socialist” for me to argue against, but I would probably agree that anything left of center-left is “European-style socialist” today, including Obama.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That you don’t have conduct to point to is not my problem.[/quote]
That you refuse to acknowledge your opinion just might not be superior, and that you refuse to admit you’re ignoring entire lines of reasoning, isn’t my problem either, Jon.
I guess that concludes this. [/quote]
Which line of reasoning did I ignore? I’m serious. I responded to literally every part of your posts. So what did I ignore?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No. The word “communist” is an actual word, with an actual political and historical meaning.
And yes, words mean less than conduct. Obviously.[/quote]
Yet, when I use his own fucking words against him, you create a false narrative to explain awy how words don’t matter, unless you want them too, like when it comes to calling someone a communist. [/quote]
I addressed “his own fucking words” multiple times with what he explicitly and at the time said they meant. You never countered at all. So, yeah.
My last post on the topic
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I addressed “his own fucking words” multiple times with what he explicitly and at the time said they meant. [/quote]
No, not at all. You spun the Vox narrative of your and leftist’s assumption of what he meant. I took his own words, words he chose to speak, just like Biz was defending before in this thread, at face value.
“You didn’t build that.” Four words, whether in or outside the rest of the line, you’re not consistently applying the same rule book as to your “he isn’t a communist, lets play the semantic game” defense.
Dude I get it. You want to defend him fine, I don’t care. I’m not going to debate about debating, which this has become, or play your silly games re: Bam being a full blow leftist.
It doesn’t matter. He’s gone in two years and I can work on forgetting this disaster.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My last post on the topic
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I addressed “his own fucking words” multiple times with what he explicitly and at the time said they meant. [/quote]
No, not at all. You spun the Vox narrative of your and leftist’s assumption of what he meant. I took his own words, words he chose to speak, just like Biz was defending before in this thread, at face value.
“You didn’t build that.” Four words, whether in or outside the rest of the line, you’re not consistently applying the same rule book as to your “he isn’t a communist, lets play the semantic game” defense.
Dude I get it. You want to defend him fine, I don’t care. I’m not going to debate about debating, which this has become, or play your silly games re: Bam being a full blow leftist.
It doesn’t matter. He’s gone in two years and I can work on forgetting this disaster.
[/quote]
Again, you haven’t responded to a single argument. I’m not talking about “historical context.” I’m talking about what explicitly and immediately preceded and followed that sentence, explicitly and immediately affecting it’s (poorly-worded) meaning. You don’t think that counts – that’s your problem. Reason says it does, and reason says that your interpretation of this non-issue is grounded in fantasy rather than reality. And reason says even more loudly that four words don’t constitute evidence of someone’s being a communist, particularly in light of the foregoing points in this paragraph, and even more particularly in light of all the actual evidence I’ve offered to the contrary, like Obama’s conduct as president being, you know, not communist.
It’s just the same thing that people did to Romney to paint him as Mr. Burns, and it’s the same thing they’ll do to Clinton/Bush/Walker/Rand/Cruz. Just surface-level piffle to keep the partisanbots fueled up on their daily diet of pablum and hackery while the few people who remain lucid and clear-eyed watch uneasily.
Also, I came in looking to expend some energy on a fight, which I got. So thanks Beans.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Note: attempts to disavow Bam’s Marxism violates the age-old rule of “You are who you surround yourself with” and “You are the average of the five people closest to you,” “ducks hang out with ducks, not cats,” etc.[/quote]
Obama’s the worst kind of marxist. He’s the kind that acts the part and calls it something else and people believe it.
The difference between Putin and obama is Putin is smarter, stronger, and more capitalist.
Obama won’t call islamic terrorism ‘islamic’, he says they are not islamic. But the Crusades were damn sure Christian and Christians did terrible things. So, Christians are bad people because the Crusades, but muslims don’t do anything wrong because the terrorists aren’t really muslims.
Hmm, let me see, oh yeah, “God bless Planned Parenthood”, another duesy.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, ooops.
“ISIS is like the JV team”, bravo.
“To the people that did not vote, I hear you too”, do what? They didn’t say anything, he just claimed a whole bunch of people who didn’t say anything to his ‘side’. Somehow, nobody managed to notice that.
This administration can be defined as ‘Opposite Day’ for the past 6 years. Democracy means socialism, ‘bad’ means ‘good’, Islamic terrorism is not islamic, ‘reccession’ means ‘recovery’, ‘Shovel ready’ means nothing really, at all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Note: attempts to disavow Bam’s Marxism violates the age-old rule of “You are who you surround yourself with” and “You are the average of the five people closest to you,” “ducks hang out with ducks, not cats,” etc.[/quote]
Which works vis-a-vis Marxism for child Obama (I guess) and college Obama.
Years later, when he came into office during a Marxist’s wet-dream of crumbling capitalist infrastructure, he surrounded himself with economic policy-makers like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Argument settled definitively.
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmm, let me see, oh yeah, “God bless Planned Parenthood”, another duesy.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, ooops.
“ISIS is like the JV team”, bravo.
“To the people that did not vote, I hear you too”, do what? They didn’t say anything, he just claimed a whole bunch of people who didn’t say anything to his ‘side’. Somehow, nobody managed to notice that.
This administration can be defined as ‘Opposite Day’ for the past 6 years. Democracy means socialism, ‘bad’ means ‘good’, Islamic terrorism is not islamic, ‘reccession’ means ‘recovery’, ‘Shovel ready’ means nothing really, at all. [/quote]
I’m sure this is all you just not understanding the King’s English or some shit man.
I apparently can’t comprehend 4 words strung together or “someone else made that happen” lmao.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmm, let me see, oh yeah, “God bless Planned Parenthood”, another duesy.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, ooops.
“ISIS is like the JV team”, bravo.
“To the people that did not vote, I hear you too”, do what? They didn’t say anything, he just claimed a whole bunch of people who didn’t say anything to his ‘side’. Somehow, nobody managed to notice that.
This administration can be defined as ‘Opposite Day’ for the past 6 years. Democracy means socialism, ‘bad’ means ‘good’, Islamic terrorism is not islamic, ‘reccession’ means ‘recovery’, ‘Shovel ready’ means nothing really, at all. [/quote]
I’m sure this is all you just not understanding the King’s English or some shit man.
I apparently can’t comprehend 4 words strung together or “someone else made that happen” lmao.
[/quote]
You brought it up, I countered with an argument that you are perfectly capable of understanding, and then you stopped arguing. So yeah.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmm, let me see, oh yeah, “God bless Planned Parenthood”, another duesy.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, ooops.
“ISIS is like the JV team”, bravo.
“To the people that did not vote, I hear you too”, do what? They didn’t say anything, he just claimed a whole bunch of people who didn’t say anything to his ‘side’. Somehow, nobody managed to notice that.
This administration can be defined as ‘Opposite Day’ for the past 6 years. Democracy means socialism, ‘bad’ means ‘good’, Islamic terrorism is not islamic, ‘reccession’ means ‘recovery’, ‘Shovel ready’ means nothing really, at all. [/quote]
I’m sure this is all you just not understanding the King’s English or some shit man.
I apparently can’t comprehend 4 words strung together or “someone else made that happen” lmao.
[/quote]
You brought it up, I countered with an argument that you are perfectly capable of understanding, and then you stopped arguing. So yeah.[/quote]
No you countered my opinion with your own, stomped around the yard declaring victory.
You think you know what he meant, I think I know what he meant, and we think different things. The liberal media confirms your bias, the righty mine.
We’re literally arguing about arguing, and it’s stupid lol. I was taking a cheap shot in my reply to pat, yes, and that’s all well and good.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No you countered my opinion with your own, stomped around the yard declaring victory.
You think you know what he meant, I think I know what he meant, and we think different things. The liberal media confirms your bias, the righty mine.
We’re literally arguing about arguing, and it’s stupid lol. I was taking a cheap shot in my reply to pat, yes, and that’s all well and good. [/quote]
Except that my opinion – it isn’t my opinion really so much as it is obviously and inarguably the case – is accompanied by direct and explicit evidence, i.e. the words that were literally surrounding the four words you’re talking about and which have obvious effect on their meaning.
But yes, the lively argument aside, you’re a great poster and a highly intelligent guy, and this is exactly the kind of fight I wanted to pick today. It’s been a rough week. (Probably for you too, I bet, given the time of year.) I don’t want to argue about arguing, so I’ll just say thanks, and Tom Brady is a cheater*.
*Just kidding, he earned his ring and his even-higher place in the Pantheon of all-time greats, crying fancyboy that he is and always will be. The Jets haven’t had a guy with heart like him since…
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Somehow this myth got started that the Muslims of yore were all peaceful and enlightened, while barbarically taking over lands and enslaving the people.[/quote]
Once they did conquer most of the Middle East and North Africa, they most certainly became more accepting of other cultures than Christians were.
Power is what matters, not the core tenets or the ideals. Those only matter for the fanatics, but how many of those are there to begin with?[/quote]
No they didn’t. Not at all. They conquered everywhere they went. Constant warfare. When the Mongols attacked them, then became Muslim, it ushered in a whole new wave of conquests. Timur, Babur, the conquest of India, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, ect.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It’s certainly better than what his predecessor did, which was to create more terrorists out of thin air in as short a span of time as possible by irrevocably (and on mendacious grounds) fucking up one of the two countries on whose destabilization IS is existentially dependent.[/quote]
What? Under Obama’s watch we had Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Libya & Yemen all fall. We have many more nations now on the verge of destabilization and a massive terrorist breeding ground the size of a US state in Syria & Iraq.