Telling Obama 'You Lie!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
I notice that your responses are typically formulated in some emotion-response generating format.

Hate to start a fight here, but your own posts aren’t any different. You justify socialist systems through collective guilt trip. For instance, I’ve never whipped one slave’s back, or hunted natives, or birthed children and walked away from them. Yet, you seem to argue that I should accept these original sins as mine. That decisions, even policy decisions, can be made on what “feels” fair.

It wasn’t meant as a collective guilt trip as much as a statement on the inconsistent application of inalienable rights throughout history and how it’s shaped the world we live in. We shouldn’t accept the sins as our own, but we also can’t sweep them under the rug and pretend like they never happens. I am at peace with what has transpired in the past, yet still disgusted by it, and I think some effort should be made to right past wrongs. It’s not my intention to imply YOU are responsible for slavery, geonocide, or neglect. If this has stirred up some emotions in yourself, perhaps you should persue that further and find out why that is. Do you feel guilty about these events?[/quote]

Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?

142

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, things are pretty black and white to me.

I use specific extremes to illustrate moral points. If an action is immoral in a large amount itâ??s immoral in smaller doses, itâ??s still the same action.

Sometimes it takes a look at the extreme ends of an ideology to better illustrate itsâ?? nature. The road to these extremes are often gentle slopes paved with good intentions.
[/quote]

I think this is the reason why we will never see eye to eye on political issues. I resist the temptation to see things as black or white. There are many shades of grey. The same can be said of morality. How does one define his morals? The Bible? The Constitution? There are few things in this world that can be defined categorically as right or wrong. Also, to only address the extremes you fail to address reality, which rarely exists in the extremes that you use in your arguments.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All of my examples illustrating specific errors (as I see it) with your philosophy. Facsism retorted material wealth correlated to better, censorship I donâ??t see as emotional but socialism moves all property to the state including information (it is just part of it sorry if it upsets you), Freedom is essentially the topic of discussion and Iâ??ve tried to be as even handed with laying out the lefts image of freedom without calling it wrong (other than to say I believe it wrong), abortion was only brought up as an aside to you calling conservatives hypocrites for the war (a very far fetched unrelated emotional ploy).
[/quote]

I don’t think you’ve given ANY examples which have illustrated specific errors with my philosophy - more like hypotheticals. I will concede that relating the war to healthcare wasn’t entirely fair. However, I didn’t call conservatives hypocrites - I just fail to see the moral outrage being expressed regarding healthcare in an area that I feel truly deserves moral judgement. For the record, Iraq wasn’t invaded to bring Liberty to the people. If Liberty is upheld by the fledgling Iraqi democratic government, I will be the first to acknowledge the positive impact from that conflict. To date there is no Liberty there. No peace. Only misery, death, and a shit-ton of oil.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I tend to think government philosophy to be naturally emotional anyways though. Iâ??m passionate about my beliefs and that comes across with the way I think. I donâ??t think anything Iâ??ve said has been off topic or out of line though. Youâ??ve also failed to retort my illustrations except to now refer to them as emotional ploys. Emotional or not, they illustrate points.
[/quote]

It is emotional and I respect your opinion. However, I stand by my earlier statement that there is a irrational fear of socialism in some camps. I may have chosen not to retort to your illustrations because they lack any substance that can be disputed. That doesn’t make them right. They are simply extremely hypothetical constructs of your imagination and lack any evidence or facts to be disputed.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Taxation is a form of slavery. Iâ??m sorry that slavery is an emotional word; taxation is an emotional, offensive word to me.

As for â??better offâ?? I was not dismissing the term altogether only your interpretation that better meant more materially comfortable. When I used the term I meant it to include wealth and liberty. I was attempting to note you were using a different definition that I donâ??t agree with. I personally believe liberty to be the ultimate and only true â??betterâ?? I just think itâ??s a bonus wealth tends to come with it.
[/quote]

Again, it’s not my interpretation of “better off” that should be defended. You were the one who introduced the term as an point in your argument and I was asking for clarification. My interpretation is valid as it was based on the context of how you used it in conjunction with a comment on material wealth. If you define “better off” as pertaining to Liberty, fine, perhaps having Liberty at the expense of all other aspects of life is important to you, but it is not the case for myself.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can ask the same about what socialism you are advocating. Communism, national socialism, military dictatorship variety, Marxism, progressivism? (I through in that last one to set people off)
[/quote]

I’m not advocating Socialism as the driving philosophy at all. I’m suggesting that Socialism can have it’s place in society alongside Capitalism and Democracy and result in a better life for all it’s citizens.

143

Obama is out to destroy the middle class. Now, if he tried something directly, people would march on DC with pitchforks and torches. Instead, he (like all libs) uses altruism as a cover. “Don’t you WANT everyone to have decent health care? Are you that greedy and selfish?” That’s how the game works. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass if anyone besides he and his family have health care.

The middle class is what prevents the setting up of an explicit oligarchy. Now, they have to be bothered with elections and town hall meetings. They want to do away with all that and rule directly and without question.

Our leadership’s dream is to rule like Kim jong-il.

144

All of my illustrations addressed very specific logical points I literally typed out each point alongside the situation (note everything I have brought up has happened in the real world they are far more than hypotheticals). If you donâ??t want to address these points, fine, but donâ??t try to sound like any are hypotheticals involving swine with wings.

You are also assuming liberty and wealth to be mutually exclusive. As Iâ??ve pointed out they are not.

I believe socialism to be a form of enslavement that is wrong on all levels. It has no place anywhere with human beings.

Agreeing to disagree is fine as long as you donâ??t have a say (vote) in the US. For me and my fellow citizens itâ??s impossible. You see, my definition of freedom doesnâ??t affect you and your ability or right to do anything. In my utopia, you can still fund whatever programs you want, block out whatever tv shows you want, pay for whomeverâ??s insurance you want. Your definition REQUIRES me to play a role in your system. Socialism is an inherent enemy of liberty. I will fight it wherever I see it.

For a corny reference, in the movie demolition man, Iâ??d be living in the sewers.

145

[quote]I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.[/quote]

How is NZ more socialist than canada? Its one of the most freemarket economies in the world. Even the post office is denationalised.

146

[quote]orion wrote:
Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?
[/quote]

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.

147

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.[/quote]

Why don’t you think human nature applies to politics too?

148

[quote]Unaware wrote:
I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.

How is NZ more socialist than canada? Its one of the most freemarket economies in the world. Even the post office is denationalised.[/quote]

I was under the impression that New Zealand was more socialist than Canada - but this is an impression gleaned from my discussions with my Kiwi friends and not so much from research into their political/economic history. Perhaps it’s incorrect of me to say that they are more or less socialist than Canada or the US, but they also have socialist elements that have been embraced as part of their system. By the way, my Kiwi friends are just as boggled by the opposition to public health care as I am.

149

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.[/quote]

This is really offensive. As Iâ??ve been pointing out time and again, liberty doesnâ??t mean you lack compassion. The disagreement is whether or not the government has the right to force you to be charitable (through their corrupt version of charity in which you have no say how anything works out) or not.

Like I said, rich people give tons to charity. All the wealthy people I know are very giving. But being rich doesnâ??t give anyone the right to take their money.

If you want to help somebody then help them, I donate to my church, participate in habitat for humanity, est. And Iâ??ll be damned to have you tell me I donâ??t care about people or that you think I donâ??t give enough. If you think itâ??s a shame rich people squander money instead of helping like you think they should, maybe you should work to become rich rather than telling them what they should be doing.

I think healthcare should be a private industry, does that mean I donâ??t want people to have healthcare? Because somehow thinking charity should be in private hands means I donâ??t believe in helping people. That argument has always pissed me off.

150

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All of my illustrations addressed very specific logical points I literally typed out each point alongside the situation (note everything I have brought up has happened in the real world they are far more than hypotheticals). If you donâ??t want to address these points, fine, but donâ??t try to sound like any are hypotheticals involving swine with wings.

You are also assuming liberty and wealth to be mutually exclusive. As Iâ??ve pointed out they are not.

I believe socialism to be a form of enslavement that is wrong on all levels. It has no place anywhere with human beings.

Agreeing to disagree is fine as long as you donâ??t have a say (vote) in the US. For me and my fellow citizens itâ??s impossible. You see, my definition of freedom doesnâ??t affect you and your ability or right to do anything. In my utopia, you can still fund whatever programs you want, block out whatever tv shows you want, pay for whomeverâ??s insurance you want. Your definition REQUIRES me to play a role in your system. Socialism is an inherent enemy of liberty. I will fight it wherever I see it.

For a corny reference, in the movie demolition man, Iâ??d be living in the sewers.
[/quote]

I like you and enjoy these discussions so I will leave it at agree to disagree. Hopefully you’ll never have to live in the sewers to escape the horrible Socialist nightmare that Canadians have to endure. :slight_smile:

151

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is out to destroy the middle class. Now, if he tried something directly, people would march on DC with pitchforks and torches. Instead, he (like all libs) uses altruism as a cover. “Don’t you WANT everyone to have decent health care? Are you that greedy and selfish?” That’s how the game works. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass if anyone besides he and his family have health care.[/quote]

A lot of conservatives feel this way, but I have yet to hear one explain why. So, on what do you base this presumption of ill motives? (Nevermind for a moment whether you disagree with the policy… Why do you hate the man?)

152

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.

This is really offensive. As Iâ??ve been pointing out time and again, liberty doesnâ??t mean you lack compassion. The disagreement is whether or not the government has the right to force you to be charitable (through their corrupt version of charity in which you have no say how anything works out) or not.

Like I said, rich people give tons to charity. All the wealthy people I know are very giving. But being rich doesnâ??t give anyone the right to take their money.

If you want to help somebody then help them, I donate to my church, participate in habitat for humanity, est. And Iâ??ll be damned to have you tell me I donâ??t care about people or that you think I donâ??t give enough. If you think itâ??s a shame rich people squander money instead of helping like you think they should, maybe you should work to become rich rather than telling them what they should be doing.

I think healthcare should be a private industry, does that mean I donâ??t want people to have healthcare? Because somehow thinking charity should be in private hands means I donâ??t believe in helping people. That argument has always pissed me off.
[/quote]

Whoa! That was not intended to cause you offense or to imply that you are not a giving, caring person. I also don’t think the rich are monsters. Or that they don’t give to charity. Or that they squander their wealth on frivolous pursuits without a care for their fellow man. I know a few wealthy people myself who are wonderful, caring, loving people. However, there are the cast-aways in society that don’t receive the benefits of their generosity due to geographic or socieo-economic factors. Who will help them?

153

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.

This is really offensive. As I�¢??ve been pointing out time and again, liberty doesn�¢??t mean you lack compassion. The disagreement is whether or not the government has the right to force you to be charitable (through their corrupt version of charity in which you have no say how anything works out) or not.

Like I said, rich people give tons to charity. All the wealthy people I know are very giving. But being rich doesn�¢??t give anyone the right to take their money.

If you want to help somebody then help them, I donate to my church, participate in habitat for humanity, est. And I�¢??ll be damned to have you tell me I don�¢??t care about people or that you think I don�¢??t give enough. If you think it�¢??s a shame rich people squander money instead of helping like you think they should, maybe you should work to become rich rather than telling them what they should be doing.

I think healthcare should be a private industry, does that mean I don�¢??t want people to have healthcare? Because somehow thinking charity should be in private hands means I don�¢??t believe in helping people. That argument has always pissed me off.

Whoa! That was not intended to cause you offense or to imply that you are not a giving, caring person. I also don’t think the rich are monsters. Or that they don’t give to charity. Or that they squander their wealth on frivolous pursuits without a care for their fellow man. I know a few wealthy people myself who are wonderful, caring, loving people. However, there are the cast-aways in society that don’t receive the benefits of their generosity due to geographic or socieo-economic factors. Who will help them?[/quote]

You sound like you are volunteering.

154

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama is out to destroy the middle class. Now, if he tried something directly, people would march on DC with pitchforks and torches. Instead, he (like all libs) uses altruism as a cover. “Don’t you WANT everyone to have decent health care? Are you that greedy and selfish?” That’s how the game works. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass if anyone besides he and his family have health care.

A lot of conservatives feel this way, but I have yet to hear one explain why. So, on what do you base this presumption of ill motives? (Nevermind for a moment whether you disagree with the policy… Why do you hate the man?)[/quote]

The man has degrees from Columbia and Harvard so I’m going to asumme hes not an idiot.

And yet he seemingly can’t perform simple logical deductions or arithmetic, so I have to conclude he is being dishonest.

For example he says hes plan won’t add anything to the deficit. The CBO disagrees with this. Anyone with half a brain must have doubts. And yet the president stadns by that pledge he can’t deliver.

If he came out and admitted that this is going to cost money but he thinks the trade off will be worth it I could at least respect the man. He knows he won’t get it passed if he does this though, so instead he refutes mathematics.

He’s a schemer.

155

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
Dont you get that you complain that the world was shaped by injustice but would heap more injustice upon it?

Why not just stop and wait until it blows over?

Must we perpetuate it in the name of fairness?

That’s probably not the best strategy for problem solving - waiting to see if it fixes itself.
Yes, there is injustice. No, we will never get rid of it. Yes, we can do something to make the world a better place. It doesn’t involve sitting on our hands and doing nothing, though. Or assuming human nature will magically change overnight and everyone will be hunky-dory. I think some of you really take the “Give me Liberty of give me Death” thing seriously. Easy to stand for that ideal when you’re stomach is full, you’re healthy and not living on the streets. I wonder if that philosophy would hold if you’re the poor one dying from disease with no one to help you. At least you’re free. To die.[/quote]

First of all I am not advocating let things fix themselves.

You are free to “fix” things all you want, just not at someone elses expense. I am asking you from refraining to actively engage in behavior you think rigged the game in the first place, i.e. to treat people unequally by law.

While I would agree that starving people have more pressing problems than liberty I also know for a fact that the last famine in a capitalist society was in Ireland whereas socialism produced several so you are constructing a conflict where there is none.

Finally exactly because human behavior does not change I would consider that you are just the last in a long line of people who though they could force people to do their version of good at gunpoint.

If you cannot convince people with the force of you arguments maybe your arguments are not that good. The answer can hardly be to use government as a weapon to make them do your bidding anyway.

156

[quote]orion wrote:
Excuse me, I am always forgetting that those with an elected monarch do not know how parliaments work.

A quick reminder:

  1. Our Congress protocol sucks balls when you compare it to the out and out brawl that is the English Parliament. I would totally watch a C-SPAN that was the equivalent of this questions session. THAT. was awesome.

  2. Our political protocol is way different than theirs, and Mr. South Carolina should be severely chastened for doing what he did. It was not a questions session, it was a speech. Completely out of line.

157

[quote]orion wrote:
If you cannot convince people with the force of you arguments maybe your arguments are not that good. The answer can hardly be to use government as a weapon to make them do your bidding anyway.

[/quote]

Ha! I think this is an interesting statement considering it can be reversed when it comes to just about ANY point of contention in politics. You’ve attempted to dismiss my arguments as being without any value because I’ve failed to convince YOU. What an ego. Perhaps the issue isn’t that my arguments are not that good, but that you’re closed-minded about the issue and can only resort to these type of statements because you are unable/unwilling to see the world from any other perspective than your own.

158

And no, I didn’t bother reading past the first page before I posted that reply above…I actually just wanted an excuse to say how cool that Parliament session was. It’s like the equivalent of WWE smackdown for politics.

“Cheney off the turnbuckle! OH MY! he came right off the podium!”

“Here comes Reid with the chair. Good God, he gets waylaid with the clothesline from Ron Paul (R-Texas)!”

Now that’s some politics I could watch.

159

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
And no, I didn’t bother reading past the first page before I posted that reply above…I actually just wanted an excuse to say how cool that Parliament session was. It’s like the equivalent of WWE smackdown for politics.

“Cheney off the turnbuckle! OH MY! he came right off the podium!”

“Here comes Reid with the chair. Good God, he gets waylaid with the clothesline from Ron Paul (R-Texas)!”

Now that’s some politics I could watch.[/quote]

Some Korean action in the meantime:

160

Russian maybe??