Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
(Tunisia? Are you kidding?). [/quote]

No, do you know how many foreign fighters in Syria who are members of ISIS are from Tunisia?[/quote]

And how exactly did Tunisia get the way it is today, do you know?[/quote]

They had a revolution, the start of the so-called Arab Spring, heralded by Obama as some sort of birth place of Arab Democracy where they would all dance with unicorns under rainbows and sing kum-by-ah.

Well now we got ISIS.

Do you think Libya is more safe now or under Qaddafi? Was it wise for us to help his people overthrow him? You may laugh at Tunisia, but there’s no denying Obama had a hand in the destabilization of Libya.

And how exactly do you hold Bush accountable for 9-11? It happened at the beginning of his term. Obama has been in for 2 terms.

And please tell me how the world is a safer place under Obama.[/quote]

I don’t hold Bush responsible for 9-11, at all. Did you really not understand that point?

Re: Tunisia, I am asking what specific decision Obama made about Tunisia which you are criticizing, and what you’d have done differently given the information available at the time, and why you’d have done it differently.

[/quote]

And I am asking questions of my own that you have failed to answer.

Obama praised the Arab Spring and claimed it was a great thing. What would I have done differently? I would have first stood by Mubarak in Egypt and not supported the Muslim Brotherhood take over of the government there. I would not have agreed to let NATO jets bomb Libya and drive the country into turmoil. I would have supported an exit treaty with Iraq leaving some of our forces in the country to prevent the take over by ISIS. And when I heard about ISIS I would not have called them the J.V. team and I would have treated it seriously.
[/quote]

I’ll vote for you.

362

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. [/quote]

lmao…

Riiigggghhhhttt

Keep telling yourself that. It’s only poppycock I your opinion because your perspective isn’t there. It just isn’t.

Spend the next decade in business, see the world from that perspective. Then re-visit all the points I made and not just some…

363

[quote]pushharder wrote:

So Geithner and Summers pretty much reverse the tide, eh?
[/quote]

Best part of these moves… These two fellows were knee deep playing their part in creating the bubble they were “tasked” with fixing. (They were far from sole causes.) Who better to “fix” a fuck up than some of the very folks that set up a section or two of dominos in the first place?

Secondly, the notion that any POTUS cabinet appointments isn’t at least equal parts favors to donors/party heavy weights (ie: completely political/career advancement in nature) is silly on its face.

But the strict standard of “irrefutable proof” held to us, not held to himself will follow this I’m sure.

364

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. [/quote]

lmao…

Riiigggghhhhttt

Keep telling yourself that. It’s only poppycock I your opinion because your perspective isn’t there. It just isn’t.

Spend the next decade in business, see the world from that perspective. Then re-visit all the points I made and not just some…[/quote]

I gave you reasons, which you ignored. That’s your issue.

I also asked this question twice, and you never answered it: Is the current president pro-tem of the senate a communist? I am actually curious to know how you will answer this (or whether you will).

365

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
That pesky Obama… he seeks to overthrow capitalism through a proletarian revolution, to facilitate the social ownership of the means of production, and to create a classless society, and has taken tangible steps toward those ends. He is worse than the Constitutional Democrats, the Social Revolutionaries, and even the Mensheviks of the Social Democratic Labour Party! He’s a Bolshevik, a Communist I tell you! If I don’t respond, then the Cheka has hauled me off to the Gulag for corrective labour. [/quote]

Oh, for Trotsky’s sake, Bismark. Do you have to be so frigging literal?! Every good red blooded Murkin knows that you don’t actually have to be a member of the Communist Party, or implement any Communist practices, or even explicitly espouse any Communist principles, to be a gol-durned pinko commie rat bastard!

I mean, if the McCarthy trials taught us anything, it’s that anybody can be a commie, if we hate 'em bad enough.[/quote]

rolls eyes

Right. He’s such a bastion of liberty, individualism and pro-capitalist policy…

sigh.

366

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. [/quote]

lmao…

Riiigggghhhhttt

Keep telling yourself that. It’s only poppycock I your opinion because your perspective isn’t there. It just isn’t.

Spend the next decade in business, see the world from that perspective. Then re-visit all the points I made and not just some…[/quote]

I gave you reasons, which you ignored. That’s your issue.

I also asked this question twice, and you never answered it: Is the current president pro-tem of the senate a communist? I am actually curious to know how you will answer this (or whether you will).[/quote]

You ignore my points initially, I ignore yours. That’s your issue.

367

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

So Geithner and Summers pretty much reverse the tide, eh?
[/quote]

Best part of these moves… These two fellows were knee deep playing their part in creating the bubble they were “tasked” with fixing. (They were far from sole causes.) Who better to “fix” a fuck up than some of the very folks that set up a section or two of dominos in the first place?

Secondly, the notion that any POTUS cabinet appointments isn’t at least equal parts favors to donors/party heavy weights (ie: completely political/career advancement in nature) is silly on its face.

But the strict standard of “irrefutable proof” held to us, not held to himself will follow this I’m sure. [/quote]

Push’s standard, not mine. And either the likes of Geithner and Summers are communists, or Obama isn’t one. By Push’s own standard, remember. Sorry tha tthat’s how this worked out, but it is.

But I don’t want to walk in circles. This shit is actually too easy, arguing against Breitbart-comments-section level shit like “Obama is a communist.”

368

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
That pesky Obama… he seeks to overthrow capitalism through a proletarian revolution, to facilitate the social ownership of the means of production, and to create a classless society, and has taken tangible steps toward those ends. He is worse than the Constitutional Democrats, the Social Revolutionaries, and even the Mensheviks of the Social Democratic Labour Party! He’s a Bolshevik, a Communist I tell you! If I don’t respond, then the Cheka has hauled me off to the Gulag for corrective labour. [/quote]

Oh, for Trotsky’s sake, Bismark. Do you have to be so frigging literal?! Every good red blooded Murkin knows that you don’t actually have to be a member of the Communist Party, or implement any Communist practices, or even explicitly espouse any Communist principles, to be a gol-durned pinko commie rat bastard!

I mean, if the McCarthy trials taught us anything, it’s that anybody can be a commie, if we hate 'em bad enough.[/quote]

rolls eyes

Right. He’s such a bastion of liberty, individualism and pro-capitalist policy…

sigh. [/quote]

More fallacious bullshit:

A: “Obama is a communist.”

B: “No he isn’t.”

A: OOOOOH, YOURE RIGHT HE IZ DE BASTION OF TEH GREATNESS AND LIBERTIES.

This is what I call a sarcastic strawman. (It is a strawman, because to say that someone is “not a communist” is not to say that they are a bastion of liberty, individualism and pro-capitalist policy, as any high school student could probably figure out). It is one of the silliest and shittiest ways to try to argue – Youtube-comments-level argumentation. It’s also an enormous waste of time, so I’ll leave you to your e-eye-rolls.

Edit: And before you try any bullshit here, please note that V’s post was sarcastic but not in any way a strawman, because it was taking aim at an actual line of reasoning you’re trying to employ hereabouts – namely, that someone can be a communist without actually, you know, being a communist/implementing communist practices/appointing communists to economic policymaking positions.

369

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You ignore my points initially, I ignore yours. That’s your issue.
[/quote]

Except for when I went point by point offering specific counter-arguments to each thing you wrote. And then you knocked the chess pieces over and started keening, ending, finally, with a sarcastic strawman like you just gave to V. And I don’t deal with the level of debate.

370

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Except for when I went point by point offering specific counter-arguments to each thing you wrote. [/quote]

This must have disappeared into vast e-universe, never to be seen by human eyes again?

protip: you didn’t refute shit. You offered a bunch of words around each other that didn’t actually refute anything I said.

371

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It is one of the silliest and shittiest ways to try to argue – Youtube-comments-level argumentation. [/quote]

Sure riles you up though.

372

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. [/quote]

lmao…

Riiigggghhhhttt

Keep telling yourself that. It’s only poppycock I your opinion because your perspective isn’t there. It just isn’t.

Spend the next decade in business, see the world from that perspective. Then re-visit all the points I made and not just some…[/quote]

I gave you reasons, which you ignored. That’s your issue.

I also asked this question twice, and you never answered it: Is the current president pro-tem of the senate a communist? I am actually curious to know how you will answer this (or whether you will).[/quote]

You certainly have a bug up your tookis for Orrin Hatch. Hatch is a Mormon, Mormons believe that atheist commies are DA DEBIL…so I would doubt he is.

Also, Hatch hates progressives, calling them “dumbass liberals wrapped in a media cloak”.

But I am sure you asked the question because you have something to say about it, so let’s hear it.

373

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Except for when I went point by point offering specific counter-arguments to each thing you wrote. [/quote]

This must have disappeared into vast e-universe, never to be seen by human eyes again?

protip: you didn’t refute shit. You offered a bunch of words around each other that didn’t actually refute anything I said. [/quote]

Protip: the vast e-universe is still available to me a few pages back. On Obamacare’s being communist, I said this:

[quote]
In other places, the government just takes the money and gives it to the other people. And has been doing so for a long, long time.

I am as against the forcing of people to buy from a third party as you are. It is ludicrous. (And, because the third party is often a private business, a fucked-up hybrid of liberalism and crony capitalism). But it’s not more communist than my being forced to buy food for people who live a few blocks over.

Communism is a specific ideology with specific tenets. None of what you’re trying to get at here is coming close to hitting the mark.[/quote]

Which, whether you agree or not, is a specific counter-argument: that my being forced to subsidize health care for people is no more “communist” than my being forced to subsidize food and living expenses for people. It isn’t even new: I’ve been subsidizing health care for the poor all along, as have we all.

And your response was this:

[quote]

[quote]
But it’s not more communist than my being forced to buy food for people who live a few blocks over.

Communism is a specific ideology with specific tenets. None of what you’re trying to get at here is coming close to hitting the mark.[/quote]

Holy fuck. Again with the literalist bullshit.

You’re sucking any fun out of this today. [/quote]

Which is

A] Not any kind of response at all.

and

B] Not even intelligible in a non-sequiturish kind of way.

That concludes my participation here.

Edited.

374

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

And the media just goes right along with it. Goebbels would be impressed.

377

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Edited.[/quote]

You’re entire rebuttal was “but look at this instead” and expect me to bother to come back with anything remotely substantive? To only have you point out fallacy in my remarks?

“but other countries do it” and “we have welfare already” are in no way refutations about Obamacare. They dont’ even speak to Obamacare at all.

It’s hilarious. This is like the 3rd time you’ve gotten all riled up at this conversation, and I’ve loved doing it each time.

379

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Edited.[/quote]

You’re entire rebuttal was “but look at this instead” and expect me to bother to come back with anything remotely substantive? To only have you point out fallacy in my remarks?

“but other countries do it” and “we have welfare already” are in no way refutations about Obamacare. They dont’ even speak to Obamacare at all.
[/quote]

They speak to Obamacare’s not being any more particularly “communist” than other programs of other presidents of both the Left and Right. Programs, even, support of which is presently a sine qua non for being nominated and elected president. Which is a direct and apposite response to the point of yours it was meant to address. This is all very obvious to anyone even casually glancing at the conversation. What you’re trying to do here is a waste of your time. Back away, tell me you’re trying to “rile” me up all you want: you made a PITBULLL argument and it got what it deserved. That’s all.

380

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
PITBULLL [/quote]

Pleased don’t say his name 2 more times…