Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Crawl back through your memory.

We’ve had the “bam is a communist” argument before.

An no, none of the bullshit “look at this” is a direct refutation of a single facet of obamacare. You can try all the thinly veiled personal attacks which have littered your posts throughout this thread all you want to my inferiority all you want. Doesn’t change the fact you didn’t address a single specific part of Obamacare, all the while crying for specific evidence yourself.

Jonny: Sonny, you robbed that bank

Sonny: But 100’s of people have robbed banks before, it has happened all through out history.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Crawl back through your memory.

We’ve had the “bam is a communist” argument before.

An no, none of the bullshit “look at this” is a direct refutation of a single facet of obamacare. You can try all the thinly veiled personal attacks which have littered your posts throughout this thread all you want to my inferiority all you want. Doesn’t change the fact you didn’t address a single specific part of Obamacare, all the while crying for specific evidence yourself. [/quote]

It isn’t even clear what you’re trying to say. I made the point and have reproduced it, and you can’t articulate how or why the point is illegitimate (it isn’t). You gave up immediately, as I’ve also evidenced directly. Your posts are obfuscating the issue with vague and indirect non-responses to direct quotations I’ve offered.

Also, there are no personal attacks here; these are attacks on your argument, which has been abjectly terrible and, really, not an argument at all. I like you; I just don’t like what you’re doing here, for reasons I’ve now cited and reproduced exactly. I have little more to say unless in response to something hinting at substance. If you want to be sore about it, that’s fine too.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jonny: Sonny, you robbed that bank

Sonny: But 100’s of people have robbed banks before, it has happened all through out history.[/quote]

Oh, so now you’re saying that it is all communist. Not just Obamacare, but everything else I’ve cited.

That’s a bad argument and it betrays a literal ignorance of the meaning of “communist,” but you could have made this argument from the beginning. You didn’t, choosing instead to thrash around. OK.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
PITBULLL [/quote]

Pleased don’t say his name 2 more times… [/quote]

One would have to be looking at one’s reflection in the bong-water for the curse to be active, would one not?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jonny: Sonny, you robbed that bank

Sonny: But 100’s of people have robbed banks before, it has happened all through out history.[/quote]

Oh, so now you’re saying that it is all communist. Not just Obamacare, but everything else I’ve cited.

That’s a bad argument and it betrays a literal ignorance of the meaning of “communist,” but you could have made this argument from the beginning. You didn’t, choosing instead to thrash around. OK.[/quote]

No. I’m saying… “You didn’t actually refute anything, but instead pointed to things other than the subject matter and spoke about them”

Here is how it went down:

Beans: da obamacarez (sonny you robbed a bank)

smh: welfare, other countries (but… other people)

beans: you didn’t actually speak about obamacare, but rather welfare and other countries

smh: …

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
and you can’t articulate how or why the point is illegitimate (it isn’t). [/quote]

um no. You’re pretending talking about welfare or other countries is actually any sort of commentary on Obamacare. It isn’t.

ummm hmmm.

lmao…

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Matthew 14:15

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jonny: Sonny, you robbed that bank

Sonny: But 100’s of people have robbed banks before, it has happened all through out history.[/quote]

Oh, so now you’re saying that it is all communist. Not just Obamacare, but everything else I’ve cited.

That’s a bad argument and it betrays a literal ignorance of the meaning of “communist,” but you could have made this argument from the beginning. You didn’t, choosing instead to thrash around. OK.[/quote]

No. I’m saying… “You didn’t actually refute anything, but instead pointed to things other than the subject matter and spoke about them”

Here is how it went down:

Beans: da obamacarez (sonny you robbed a bank)

smh: welfare, other countries (but… other people)

beans: you didn’t actually speak about obamacare, but rather welfare and other countries

smh: …[/quote]

No. A perfectly legitimate tactic in debate – one of the best, in fact – is to deduce from your opponent’s argument an axiom and then test that axiom to see if it is so widely applicable/absurd/ahistorical as to dilute his argument to meaninglessness. That is exactly what I did. Your argument does not remotely satisfy the historical and ideological principles entailed by the term “communist,” and it applies the communist label to such a wide array of programs and politicians as to render your argument thin air. You are re-defining “communist” in such a way as to melt any chance it has of conveying meaning, and you’re doing it arbitrarily. My response to you accomplished all of this, legitimately and easily.

I am done explaining how this works.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
PITBULLL [/quote]

Pleased don’t say his name 2 more times… [/quote]

One would have to be looking at one’s reflection in the bong-water for the curse to be active, would one not?[/quote]

Best not to take the chance. He could be like Beetlejuice…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Best not to take the chance. He could be like Beetlejuice…[/quote]

Beaglejuice.

(Pitbull, beagle: close enough.)

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206038/two-cheers-mccarthyism/jonah-goldberg
[/quote]

Indeed.

Those, like my friend, Varq, who are eager to disparage McCarthyism don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know their history. They know what they’ve been taught but they don’t know their history.[/quote]

Even when the data from the Venona project is brought into consideration, McCarthy at best batted 9/159, which is a piss poor record in regard to counterintelligence. Does 0.056 percent accuracy vindicate the senator’s legacy? I don’t believe so. I’ll wait while you scramble to google the Verona project and a flimsy counter argument to its findings.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I’ll vote for you.

Matthew 14:15
[/quote]
???

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206038/two-cheers-mccarthyism/jonah-goldberg
[/quote]

Indeed.

Those, like my friend, Varq, who are eager to disparage McCarthyism don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know their history. They know what they’ve been taught but they don’t know their history.[/quote]

Even when the data from the Venona project is brought into consideration, McCarthy at best batted 9/159, which is a piss poor record in regard to counterintelligence. Does 0.056 percent accuracy vindicate the senator’s legacy? I don’t believe so. I’ll wait while you scramble to google the Verona project and a flimsy counter argument to its findings.
[/quote]

The point wasn’t that McCarthy was right, only that there were communists lurking around. Being a communist isn’t really a crime, it’s a fucked up political system, but it’s no crime to be one, hence McCarthy was wrong in what he did.
The point was just because McCarthy was wrong does not mean that there were not a lot of commie bastards around. Nobody is justifying McCarthyism.
There’s a lot of commie bastards around now, doesn’t mean we should round them up. They are entitled to their fucked up opinions.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I’ll vote for you.

Matthew 14:15
[/quote]
???[/quote]

15:14

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206038/two-cheers-mccarthyism/jonah-goldberg
[/quote]

Indeed.

Those, like my friend, Varq, who are eager to disparage McCarthyism don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know their history. They know what they’ve been taught but they don’t know their history.[/quote]

Even when the data from the Venona project is brought into consideration, McCarthy at best batted 9/159, which is a piss poor record in regard to counterintelligence. Does 0.056 percent accuracy vindicate the senator’s legacy? I don’t believe so. I’ll wait while you scramble to google the Verona project and a flimsy counter argument to its findings.
[/quote]

You got some reading to do there, squirt.[/quote]

I’ve read the declassified documents of the Verona project. Have you? I’d wager you were unaware of their existence until I evoked them.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No. A perfectly legitimate tactic in debate – one of the best, in fact – is to deduce from your opponent’s argument an axiom and then test that axiom to see if it is so widely applicable/absurd/ahistorical as to dilute his argument to meaninglessness.[/quote]

None of these words here mean a damn thing related to Obamacare, or our arguement except in your opinion of yourself.

America’s long, slow decline into collectivism isn’t refutation that one particular portion of said decline isn’t. Jesus, our progressive tax system, which I prefer to flat tax, is communistic in nature. It attempts to even out the classes, or at the very least takes from the able and gives to the need. ANd it for shit sure tries to control behaviors, in a limp dick somewhat ineffective manner no doubt.

Government dictation of a market (labor market in this instance) is central planning. Central planning that effects, and controls all companies and employees means those actors, outside the government don’t have freedom of choice. They don’t have ownership over their means, it is “collective” in that the government is “the people”. Obamacare controls the labor market. No not completely, but in large magnitude, magnitudes you don’t understand, and most outside of management don’t.

The (quite ridiculous I might add) additional taxation Obamacare burdens on “the upper class” is nothing short of redistribution of wealth, which the man has specifically advocated for, with his own words, that you’ll now argue mean something else. Redistribution is without question the elimination of “classes” and the “equalization” of the people.

And no, people being forced into Ponzi Schemes (SS & Medicare) and the subsequent perversion of those programs do not make the above not true. The fact we have welfare and other social programs (I’m not arguing the fact you have a legit point that we’ve been sliding down the rabbit hole for a long while) doesn’t make the above suddenly untrue, or go away.

The fucking man’s most recent tax plan is so laughably class warfare political rhetoric, I can’t believe I would have to outline it as such.

Fuck, and no. Not even close. Calling an orange, the color orange doesnt’ suddenly make it a grapefruit because they have similar colors and are both citrus.

[quote] My response to you accomplished all of this, legitimately and easily.

I am done explaining how this works.[/quote]

No, your response was a lazy way of focusing on some technical aspect of argument in order to avoid the actual point.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206038/two-cheers-mccarthyism/jonah-goldberg
[/quote]

Indeed.

Those, like my friend, Varq, who are eager to disparage McCarthyism don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know their history. They know what they’ve been taught but they don’t know their history.[/quote]

Even when the data from the Venona project is brought into consideration, McCarthy at best batted 9/159, which is a piss poor record in regard to counterintelligence. Does 0.056 percent accuracy vindicate the senator’s legacy? I don’t believe so. I’ll wait while you scramble to google the Verona project and a flimsy counter argument to its findings.
[/quote]

Where do you get that number? Firstly, he(McCarthy) mentioned 57 State Department employees who were Communists or “sympathisers.” This was at a time when the Democrats were refusing to take seriously the very real threat. He provided evidence for every person named from the FBI’s own records and other government sources. None of the accusations were false. And most of what came out that vindicated him was not from Verona but from the Soviet archives released by the chief archivist and a group of dissidents in 1991.