[Brian]

(12-07-2011 11:14 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

You're not a dumb hick, but you are quite partisan, and when one reads a majority of your post, it is quite evident, that your truth is based upon partiality. If you railed against the house/senate, and Republicans, as much as you did Obama, then you would be considered neutral, and, one who seeks a solution to what ails the country. The problem that you are having (when it comes to credibility), is that you have assigned majority of the blame to one man, and you are all too willing to display your knowledge based on one side of the story. As educated as you are, you are fully aware that it is systematic, yet, you lean to one side, more so than the other, as if the truth, is prejudice. Why don't you present your arguments with no partiality?

I'm not a fan of most the Republicans in Congress either, but in my view the Democrats are way way worse when it comes to spending and entitlements. Its not even close. If you were to take all the leaders of the Democrat party in Congress - Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Rankel, Weiner, Waters, etc. you wouldnt be able to run a lemonade stand. Every now and then I'll watch a Congressman and think to myself "wow, that person actually has a clue" and its rarely, if ever a democrat. As for Obama, a lot of my negative feelings towards him are because he is such an unqualified phony, liar and fraud. that being said, I've also said John McCain was an unqualified moron also who never actually accomplished anything other then not becoming a snitch in the Vietnamese prison camp he was in.

[Dannyboy]

Yeah I mean how come no blame has been attributed to Bush & Cheney, Reagan and the republican neocon war profiteers. They managed to get away with the biggest thefts in the world, has everyone forgotten that they are the ones that got us into two wars thats pretty much destroying the country inside & out. Put Goldman Sachs in important positions in the U.S which eventually led to the biggest fraud perpetuated in U.S history, defiled and broke apart the U.S military by allowing defense contractors to leech and drink the blood of Iraqi's and ordinary U.S soldiers. Overturned the U.S constitution by implementing the fascist patriot act. Got us into a trillion dollars in debt that the U.S can never pay off, gave exemptions to corporate corruption and handling of Government. Without them & their actions, the U.S would have never gotten into the mess it is in today Don't tell me it's Obamas fault when these guys were the real perpetrators of U.S decline in the past 6 years or so.

[hydrogonian]

Tenderman, it would be a waste of time to point out all of the unsupported opinions and rhetorical fallacies in your arguments. I've done that in the past with people, but you are entirely too myopic and too much of a 'team player' to make it worth my while. It's funny that you take most of your statements to be 'evidence'. Most of them are 'assertions', not 'evidence'. When you do lay out facts, they are mostly out of context. Your 'emotion' is what is wrapped around all of that and disallows you to see where you have frequently veered of into rhetorical invalidity. That's why it makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously, even if some of us do resonate with some of the things you say. If your crazy uncle Charlie is right 25% of the time, you still don't want to be associated with him when he's off his rocker the other 75% of the time. Case in point: your continued psychological profiling of Obama, and his supporters (demagoguery), is sophomoric in its analysis, in its supporting evidence, is completely irrelevant (especially when compared to other presidents and even some of the symptoms that you have displayed in being a narcissist yourself) and is excessively tiring to read over and over again.

Furthermore, WTF are you doing on this forum if you are busy making 'so much money'? Huh? I don't know one businessman who has time to linger and post drawn out detailed posts in threads on a forum. Day after day. Something wreaks of bullshit. And if they did have time, they wouldn't care to.

Also, you don't know what the background is of anyone with whom that you are talking to. Before you use your supposed big money making business as an 'appeal to authority' (a rhetorical fallacy) in making your opinions more valid then others, consider that you might be talking with people who can smell bullshit and aren't impressed by unvalidated statements of your big business and all of the money that you make. There are some successful men on this forum, and they view your claims in the appropriate context, not how you would have them take the claims. I'm happy that you can put food on your table in a way that strokes your ego, but give us a break, please. Save it for your wife and family. You know, people who don't have a sense of perspective.

Furthermore, in regard to your take on conservatism, you aren't as educated as you think that you are. Just a tip. Fox news, Glenn beck, and what they tell you to read is a very unbalanced view of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't live and die with social programs and the budget. Every 'conservative' president since world war two has been excessively liberal (one of the reasons that I cannot be bothered to get over-emotional about politics - both parties are on the same team). Can you tell me in what significant ways that they have been consistently and excessively liberal? Doubt it. Be sure you know what you are talking about before you lecture on conservatism.

In short, you aren't interested in a conversation. You are interested in people agreeing with your narrow and over-emotional view of politics. If they don't, the venom and emotion comes out. You are entitled to your views, as I suspect we all have some passionate convictions about narrow political views, but the way that you are venting them here isn't so skilled in terms of engaging in conversation. That's all I'm saying. If conversation isn't the goal, then the thread is dead. I move that to be the case.

[Pusscrook]

(12-07-2011 11:34 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 11:14 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

You're not a dumb hick, but you are quite partisan, and when one reads a majority of your post, it is quite evident, that your truth is based upon partiality. If you railed against the house/senate, and Republicans, as much as you did Obama, then you would be considered neutral, and, one who seeks a solution to what ails the country. The problem that you are having (when it comes to credibility), is that you have assigned majority of the blame to one man, and you are all too willing to display your knowledge based on one side of the story. As educated as you are, you are fully aware that it is systematic, yet, you lean to one side, more so than the other, as if the truth, is prejudice. Why don't you present your arguments with no partiality?

I'm not a fan of most the Republicans in Congress either, but in my view the Democrats are way way worse when it comes to spending and entitlements. Its not even close. If you were to take all the leaders of the Democrat party in Congress - Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Rankel, Weiner, Waters, etc. you wouldnt be able to run a lemonade stand. Every now and then I'll watch a Congressman and think to myself "wow, that person actually has a clue" and its rarely, if ever a democrat. As for Obama, a lot of my negative feelings towards him are because he is such an unqualified phony, liar and fraud. that being said, I've also said John McCain was an unqualified moron also who never actually accomplished anything other then not becoming a snitch in the Vietnamese prison camp he was in.

You just proved my point. You are not willing to dig as deep into the Republican "black box", and that is why you qualify as someone who can't fathom the thought of being impartial. Examples:How often do you think you rail against George Bush in this forum? How often do you think you rail against the prescription drug benefit plan d in this forum? Do you know how much that is costing you? How often do you rail against the two wars that George Bush got us into, and had no way of paying for it ,in this forum? Do you rail against the fact that in 8 years in office , George Bush only created 3 million jobs, although he inherited a surplus, in this forum?How often do you rail against Reagan and his amnesty program that has us up in arms about illegals in this country, in this forum? Have you railed against Phil Gramm for being the architect of deregulating the mortgage industry , which we know has caused a backlash of shit hole loans, today ? These are just several examples we can use from thousands more. Point being, read your post, and you would see for yourself how impartial you are. You can't remain objective about truth, and be partial . That amounts to a full blown hypocrite.

[el mechanico]

He's ......ok

[tenderman100]

(12-07-2011 12:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Tenderman, it would be a waste of time to point out all of the unsupported opinions and rhetorical fallacies in your arguments. I've done that in the past with people, but you are entirely too myopic and too much of a 'team player' to make it worth my while. It's funny that you take most of your statements to be 'evidence'. Most of them are 'assertions', not 'evidence'. When you do lay out facts, they are mostly out of context.

Your 'emotion' is what is wrapped around all of that and disallows you to see where you have frequently veered of into rhetorical invalidity. That's why it makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously, even if some of us do resonate with some of the things you say. If your crazy uncle Charlie is right 25% of the time, you still don't want to be associated with him when he's off his rocker the other 75% of the time. Case in point: your continued psychological profiling of Obama, and his supporters (demagoguery), is sophomoric in its analysis, in its supporting evidence, is completely irrelevant (especially when compared to other presidents and even some of the symptoms that you have displayed in being a narcissist yourself) and is excessively tiring to read over and over again.

Talk about making unsupportable assertions -- this paragraph is the poster child for it.

So, let's take a look first at my "psychological profiling" of Obama.

First, I said he was a hypocrite. Is there any doubt about this? Did he not say he was going to close Guantanamo is his first year? Did he not say the healthcare negotiations would be broadcast on CSPAN? Did he not say that he would keep lobbyists out of his administration but actually bring in a bunch? Did he not say that a President shouldn't go to war with the approval of Congress, and then went ahead with the Libya thing without Congress's approval? (Oh sure, you can parse that as "not really a war" but we did spend dough and used our military, so yeah, it was a war). This just beings to scratch the surface of examples.

Next, I said he spouts off stuff without having the facts at hand. Did he not say an amputation costs $50,000? When it in fact costs much much less than that? Did he not say that the Solyndra loan "predates" his administration when in fact the Solyndra loan was done on auspices of a program that stemmed from the Stimulus? There are many more FACTUAL examples of this quality.

Next, I said he is a narcissist. Did he not say that "they talk about me like I am a dog." Have you not see the many pictures of him with his chin thrust in the air, an absolutely conscious pose, a la Mussolini?



Look at that picture, and tell me this is NOT a picture of a haughty self-absorbed asshole? And did he not say, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."? How could this banal piece of rhetorical trash be seen as anything OTHER than a narcissistic remark, and an effort to gather up followers in that self-same narcisssim? And here, too, the potential list of narcissistic examples is very very long.

Next, I said he was a demagogue. There isn't enough space on the board to detail the factual examples of this. But here's a classic example from a speech he gave this year....

Quote:

. ..I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win.

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America

I mean wow. Just wow. This kind of rhetoric, where the straw men and the false choices pile up against one another like a chain of freeway car wrecks, is disgusting. This is the rhetoric of a superficial thinker, a demagogue, who does not want to talk to us like adults.

(12-07-2011 12:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Furthermore, WTF are you doing on this forum if you are busy making 'so much money'? Huh? I don't know one businessman who has time to linger and post drawn out detailed posts in threads on a forum. Day after day. Something wreaks of bullshit. And if they did have time, they wouldn't care to.

Ah, what a nice segue from my discussion of Obama's use of false choices to YOUR use of false choices. But go ahead. Live in the world where it's either/or. It's a simpler world for simpler minds.

(12-07-2011 12:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

In short, you aren't interested in a conversation. You are interested in people agreeing with your narrow and over-emotional view of politics. If they don't, the venom and emotion comes out.

But here I am, having a conversation with you.

Face it, you simply don't like to be challenged. It doesn't bother me one bit to be challenged. I make my living on making arguments. Doing this is like working on game. It's exercising the chops. But a mind in the grip of false choices may have difficulty seeing that.

[Brian]

(12-07-2011 01:00 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 11:34 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 11:14 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

You're not a dumb hick, but you are quite partisan, and when one reads a majority of your post, it is quite evident, that your truth is based upon partiality. If you railed against the house/senate, and Republicans, as much as you did Obama, then you would be considered neutral, and, one who seeks a solution to what ails the country. The problem that you are having (when it comes to credibility), is that you have assigned majority of the blame to one man, and you are all too willing to display your knowledge based on one side of the story. As educated as you are, you are fully aware that it is systematic, yet, you lean to one side, more so than the other, as if the truth, is prejudice. Why don't you present your arguments with no partiality?

I'm not a fan of most the Republicans in Congress either, but in my view the Democrats are way way worse when it comes to spending and entitlements. Its not even close. If you were to take all the leaders of the Democrat party in Congress - Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Rankel, Weiner, Waters, etc. you wouldnt be able to run a lemonade stand. Every now and then I'll watch a Congressman and think to myself "wow, that person actually has a clue" and its rarely, if ever a democrat. As for Obama, a lot of my negative feelings towards him are because he is such an unqualified phony, liar and fraud. that being said, I've also said John McCain was an unqualified moron also who never actually accomplished anything other then not becoming a snitch in the Vietnamese prison camp he was in.

You just proved my point. You are not willing to dig as deep into the Republican "black box", and that is why you qualify as someone who can't fathom the thought of being impartial. Examples:How often do you think you rail against George Bush in this forum? How often do you think you rail against the prescription drug benefit plan d in this forum? Do you know how much that is costing you? How often do you rail against the two wars that George Bush got us into, and had no way of paying for it ,in this forum? Do you rail against the fact that in 8 years in office , George Bush only created 3 million jobs, although he inherited a surplus, in this forum?How often do you rail against Reagan and his amnesty program that has us up in arms about illegals in this country, in this forum? Have you railed against Phil Gramm for being the architect of deregulating the mortgage industry , which we know has caused a backlash of shit hole loans, today ? These are just several examples we can use from thousands more. Point being, read your post, and you would see for yourself how impartial you are. You can't remain objective about truth, and be partial . That amounts to a full blown hypocrite.

1) The Prescription drug plan that Bush signed was a compromise with the Democratic plan that would have cost 4 times as much. Again, lesser of two evils.

2) Its hard to rail against wars when those wars were caused by the largest terrorist attack ever on our home soil, and a dictator who refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441 stating that he had to allow UN weapons inspectors in to his country. He wouldnt do that. Unfortunately the worthless UN didnt follow up on their threats and we got stuck handling the problem.

3) Phil Gramm is a whore. I know this from people who have directly dealt with him.

Do you really truly understand how financially fucked this country is? Do you realize they couldnt to an agreement on how to cut 1 Trillion dollars over 10 years from a hypothetical budget even though we are running a 1.5 trillion deficit every year??

[tenderman100]

(12-07-2011 01:00 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

You just proved my point. You are not willing to dig as deep into the Republican "black box", and that is why you qualify as someone who can't fathom the thought of being impartial. Examples:How often do you think you rail against George Bush in this forum? How often do you think you rail against the prescription drug benefit plan d in this forum? Do you know how much that is costing you? How often do you rail against the two wars that George Bush got us into, and had no way of paying for it ,in this forum? Do you rail against the fact that in 8 years in office , George Bush only created 3 million jobs, although he inherited a surplus, in this forum?How often do you rail against Reagan and his amnesty program that has us up in arms about illegals in this country, in this forum? Have you railed against Phil Gramm for being the architect of deregulating the mortgage industry , which we know has caused a backlash of shit hole loans, today ? These are just several examples we can use from thousands more. Point being, read your post, and you would see for yourself how impartial you are. You can't remain objective about truth, and be partial . That amounts to a full blown hypocrite.

Bush, and Republicans, were bad in many ways.

But think of it this way. Suppose someone were to say to you, "How can you be a player when you spent all those years in betatude?"

You would naturally find that a totally useless and unhelpful comment. Because it's not about where you've been, but where you're going.

And where we're going in this nation is not pretty. It's about the now, the future, not the mistakes of the past.

Bush and Cheney are gone. Get over it. Move on.

[Menace]

No political argument has ever been won on the internet. What I find interesting is how people who agree on game have such divergent political views, e.g. Pusscrook, g manifesto and Roosh are liberal leaning (for lack of a better phrase) and Brian, tenderman, are right/conservative leaning. Even though I disagree with tenderman on much of his political views, I think he's right that Obama is a hypocrite (but that is almost a truism for most politicians) and a narcissist. I disagree he is one of the worst, I think he is probably somewhere in the middle.

[tenderman100]

Here's another "false choice" piece of demagoguery from the Bestest-Most Smartest-President-EVAH. This from yesterday's speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec...ama-speech

Quote:

After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Yes, that’s it...that sums it up...it's either the chaos of everyone playing by their own rules....or Obama's vision, whatever the hell THAT is.

Let me see, eeeny, meeny, miney, mo.........

[tenderman100]

(12-07-2011 01:31 PM)Menace Wrote:  

No political argument has ever been won on the internet. What I find interesting is how people who agree on game have such divergent political views, e.g. Pusscrook, g manifesto and Roosh are liberal leaning (for lack of a better phrase) and Brian, tenderman, are right/conservative leaning. Even though I disagree with tenderman on much of his political views, I think he's right that Obama is a hypocrite (but that is almost a truism for most politicians) and a narcissist. I disagree he is one of the worst, I think he is probably somewhere in the middle.

Political arguments in general in any venue are never won or lost...some become more prominent, some recede, in a kind of ebb and flow.

On game related to politics, I will say this. I think the liberal/leftist/statist world view is antithetical to the game mentality. The feminazi pedestalization of women is in my view largely attributable to leftist political thinking.

That's not to say you can't compartmentalize. You can be a sexually independent gamer entrepreneur, a believer in individual freedom in a very libertarian way sexually, and on the other hand, believe government should be "big and helpful and kind and empathetic" and think being a liberal means you're more enlightened politically and will thus allow you henceforward to fart sunshine only.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Talk about making unsupportable assertions -- this paragraph is the poster child for it.

This is an absolutely perfect example of your nonsense and why talking with you is a waste of time. Translation: "I know you are but what am I". Name one unsupportable assertion in my paragraph.

Quote:

First, I said he was a hypocrite. Is there any doubt about this?

Oh, do you know of a president that isn't a hypocrite? I'd be interested in that. I'm waiting. You can make a list of 'examples' for every single president. Your focusing on Obama is transparently biased. That's okay, because we all have our political leanings, but its fucking boring to read over and over and over again, when every adult knows that its par for the course. When the common denominators are canceled out, you have to focus on whats left. Reading about common denominators is tedious, and lacks argumentative relevance in the context of presidents. My god.

Quote:

Next, I said he spouts off stuff without having the facts at hand. Did he not say an amputation costs $50,000? When it in fact costs much much less than that? Did he not say that the Solyndra loan "predates" his administration when in fact the Solyndra loan was done on auspices of a program that stemmed from the Stimulus? There are many more FACTUAL examples of this quality.

Again, do you really want to make an argument out of behavior and inconsistencies that can be pointed out for every president? This is why we view your arguments as, how can I put this without violating forum rules, irrelevant.

Quote:

Next, I said he is a narcissist. Did he not say that "they talk about me like I am a dog." Have you not see the many pictures of him with his chin thrust in the air, an absolutely conscious pose, a la Mussolini?

haha...dude, you are wasting everyone's time here. You have a fixation and you are subjecting us all to it, therefore the bad reactions. You are making conclusions based on "poses", and furthermore not keeping these conclusions to yourself? This is precisely what I mean when i say that your emotion disallows you to see when you are making arguments and assertions based on rhetorical invalid 'evidence'. A pose? Are you fucking serious? You really expect other adults to consider this a valid argument? All this accomplishes is outing your emotional and clouded views on the topic. No one cares about this weak shit except you.

Quote:

Look at that picture, and tell me this is NOT a picture of a haughty self-absorbed asshole? And did he not say, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."? How could this piece of rhetorical be seen as anything OTHER than a narcissistic remark, and an effort to gather up followers in that self-same narcisssim? And here, too, the potential list of narcissistic examples is very very long.

Again, irrelevant and not necessarily a mark of narcissism. Do you know what narcissism is? I mean, really? I've read a college textbook on it. How about you? I can recommend it if you need it. This quote is 1. out of context and 2. not nearly enough to be able to diagnose narcissism, even if we assume the worst possible context. Again, this is why you are getting bad reactions to your emotional arguments. Many, many of your points aren't based in anything concrete or valid. You can work that out and come back with something better, but for now its been a waste of our collective time and it has worn me out as far as having a conversation with you goes.

Quote:

I mean wow. Just wow. This kind of rhetoric, where the straw men and the false choices pile up against one another like a chain of freeway car wrecks, is disgusting. This is the rhetoric of a superficial thinker, a demagogue, who does not want to talk to us like adults.

You are cherry-picking a very typical, campaign style presidential speech and making an analysis which, frankly, I can't find any validity for but in the loosest of terms. He is talking about campaign promises and a general perspective. The speech isn't very specific and therefore not very pertinent.

What president that you know doesn't use false choices? Every president speaks in black and white terms. First of all, that is what is effective for most of the morons in this country. To speak about shades of grey in presidential speeches just isn't done. Second, Bush was the King of 'false choices', contextualized in black and white terms (not a rhetorical fallacy, btw, -your so called 'false choice' is actually a very rhetorically valid technique and therefore is a bit beyond your ability to legitimately criticize.) I'm sure that you can think of a few examples, off-hand. did you have the same criticisms of him?

Get ready for more 'false choices' by every other president to come down the pike in your lifetime. And from reading your reaction to Obama, get ray to be upset. Its never going to stop, even if the reality of dealing with the situation is much more complex.

Although, I have a feeling that you spare any and all 'conservative' presidents the same analysis and scrutiny.

(12-07-2011 12:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Furthermore, WTF are you doing on this forum if you are busy making 'so much money'? Huh? I don't know one businessman who has time to linger and post drawn out detailed posts in threads on a forum. Day after day. Something wreaks of bullshit. And if they did have time, they wouldn't care to.

Quote:

Ah, what a nice segue from my discussion of Obama's use of false choices to YOUR use of false choices. But go ahead. Live in the world where it's either/or. It's a simpler world for simpler minds.

My choice wasn't a false choice. Its my suspicion of what is going on based on what I know of people who make a lot of money, as you claim to. There is no choice. Just my suspicion based on experience. I may be wrong, but in my opinion, I'm not. We all weigh the evidence when we form our maps of the world, no? That's what you have done with Obama. And that's what I have done with you.

Its ironic how you make a "simpler mind" comment but can't go one post without calling someone a name as part of your argument. Also, the "weaker minds" statement is classic narcissism. Much, much stronger, evidence, mind you, then any of the evidence that you have provided for Obama. The ad-hominems and narcissism has been consistent throughout your posts. The former being a prime example of a 'weaker mind' (at least I stay within the limits of rhetorical validity) and the latter pointing to your own hypocrisy and what looks to be, transference of your own narcissism to someone else.

(12-07-2011 12:40 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

In short, you aren't interested in a conversation. You are interested in people agreeing with your narrow and over-emotional view of politics. If they don't, the venom and emotion comes out.

Quote:

But here I am, having a conversation with you.

Most of your rhetoric hasn't been conversational. We can take a vote if you think that I'm wrong. Here's a tip: make on nasty ad-hominem attack and it colors the entirety of your post. Yes, yes, your the smartest, richest guy around. We're all simpletons who have much less knowledge and perspective then you. Got it.

Quote:

Face it, you simply don't like to be challenged.

Look, your pretty new on the board, and as such you have to realize that you don't know anyone here. "Face it", huh. Okay. Again, we'll take a poll to see if I don't like to be challenged. You have no idea. While I prefer a debate partner that actually knows how to have a legitimate debate, and doesn't try to win based in invalid techniques and emotion, and can edit their posts to exclude all else, i have waded through your nonsense because I dislike that fact that you were being so rude to others here.

Quote:

But a mind in the grip of false choices may have difficulty seeing that.

Again, an attack. You also have no concept as to the relative rhetorical validity or invalidity of a so called false choice. There is no such thing, in an argument. Otherwise, attorney's wouldn't be able to use such choices in courts of law.

Again, what are my false choices that my mind is 'in the grip' of?

You are fixating, again, on a concept that has no validity in this argument or any - at least as far as rhetoric goes. As far as the real world is concerned, yes, it is always more complex then the semantic cage in which we place it. However, just because a concept isn't broken down into the nth degree of complexity before a choice is presented, doesn't make the choice invalid nor 'false'.

Have fun arguing with yourself and dealing with that anger. I'm sure you'll come back with some more rebuttals that I could again counter. But I'll leave it here.

[Brian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8

[tenderman100]

(12-07-2011 02:11 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Oh, do you know of a president that isn't a hypocrite?

Again, do you really want to make an argument out of behavior and inconsistencies that can be pointed out for every president? This is why we view your arguments as, how can I put this without violating forum rules, irrelevant.

You are cherry-picking a very typical, campaign style presidential speech and making an analysis which, frankly, I can't find any validity for but in the loosest of terms. He is talking about campaign promises and a general perspective. The speech isn't very specific and therefore not very pertinent.

What president that you know doesn't use false choices? Every president speaks in black and white terms. First of all, that is what is effective for most of the morons in this country. To speak about shades of grey in presidential speeches just isn't done. Second, Bush was the King of 'false choices', contextualized in black and white terms (not a rhetorical fallacy, btw, -your so called 'false choice' is actually a very rhetorically valid technique and therefore is a bit beyond your ability to legitimately criticize.) I'm sure that you can think of a few examples, off-hand. did you have the same criticisms of him?

Get ready for more 'false choices' by every other president to come down the pike in your lifetime. And from reading your reaction to Obama, get ray to be upset. Its never going to stop, even if the reality of dealing with the situation is much more complex.

Although, I have a feeling that you spare any and all 'conservative' presidents the same analysis and scrutiny.

So you agree...he's a hypocrite and a demagogue? Just like every other president? Right? Then what you previously said about me -- that I was taking facts of context -- is wrong? Correct?

(12-07-2011 02:11 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

My choice wasn't a false choice. Its my suspicion of what is going on based on what I know of people who make a lot of money, as you claim to. There is no choice. Just my suspicion based on experience. I may be wrong, but in my opinion, I'm not.

You are.

(12-07-2011 02:11 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Again, what are my false choices that my mind is 'in the grip' of?

That if I were really successful in business I wouldn't be posting on here, remember?

And here's another one, a bit more implicit: that my argument about Obama's qualities isn't significant or doesn't hold because every President is like that. Right?

[Moma]

I've been reading this debate and allow me to chime in if I may. Since you say Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in history, why is this?

If he is a hypocrite like the rest, what makes him worse than any of the others?

What qualities as he shown, since he is like the others, that are glaringly unlike the others, that qualify him as the 'worst' in history?

[Brian]

(12-07-2011 03:15 PM)Moma Wrote:  

I've been reading this debate and allow me to chime in if I may. Since you say Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in history, why is this?

If he is a hypocrite like the rest, what makes him worse than any of the others?

What qualities as he shown, since he is like the others, that are glaringly unlike the others, that qualify him as the 'worst' in history?

a combination of high hopes due to false promises and lies (see my link above) and complete ineptitude to solve the major problems we are facing today at a time when its probably more crucial then ever. not only has he not solved the economic problems he has made them worse. since he likes to use car analogies - its as if a car was heading towards a cliff at 50 mph, he told everyone he was the best driver in the world and the old driver sucked, he took the wheel, pressed the gas to the floor, and as the car sped towards the cliff he didnt change direction while constantly blaming the old driver.

[kerouac]

Arguing with these guys is almost masochistic.

They are too partisan and too closed-minded. In other words, they are block-headed ignoramuses. They might not be hicks, but they sure sound like some.

[Brian]

(12-07-2011 12:53 AM)Brian Wrote:  

obviously he can take as many vacations as he wants, but by choosing to go away for 17 days that doesnt look very good to the rest of the country struggling. it would have been a very nice gesture for him to say something like "everyone is struggling and i've got a lot of work to do so we wont be taking as much time off to travel this year as we have in years past." instead he justs is saying "f it, i dont care about the rest of the problems, lets go to hawaii, ride bikes and golf. see you suckers in 2 1/2 weeks." there's also the sad little reality that he was actually elected to govern. you know, come up with solutions to the problems, and get them implemented. but he doesnt really like doing that. he likes campaigning. so here we are 1 year away from the election, he's gone into full campaign mode, isnt dealing with the problems we have because its not the fun part of his job that he actually likes, and now he's going to go spend 17 days in Hawaii relaxing. I just hope all those OccupyWhatever protesters are sitting out in the cold in December when they realize Mr. 1% himself is sunning himself on the Hawaiian coastline. I guess its good to be king.

well it looks like the Messiah actually took my advice and did something right...

"President Obama won't go to Hawaii while payroll tax is in limbo"

[Moma]

(12-07-2011 03:29 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 03:15 PM)Moma Wrote:  

I've been reading this debate and allow me to chime in if I may. Since you say Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in history, why is this?

If he is a hypocrite like the rest, what makes him worse than any of the others?

What qualities as he shown, since he is like the others, that are glaringly unlike the others, that qualify him as the 'worst' in history?

a combination of high hopes due to false promises and lies (see my link above) and complete ineptitude to solve the major problems we are facing today at a time when its probably more crucial then ever. not only has he not solved the economic problems he has made them worse. since he likes to use car analogies - its as if a car was heading towards a cliff at 50 mph, he told everyone he was the best driver in the world and the old driver sucked, he took the wheel, pressed the gas to the floor, and as the car sped towards the cliff he didnt change direction while constantly blaming the old driver.

Is America at the worst it has ever been in history?

[Brian]

Financially, yes

[tenderman100]

(12-07-2011 04:15 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Is America at the worst it has ever been in history?

Not yet, but we're headed to a very dark place.

The Civil War was clearly the worst time, and the Great Depression the next worst. In the first instance we had a great President who put principle above politics and truly understood what America was about. In the second, we had a president who probably prolonged the economic downturn by his policies, but is to be commended for how he guided our nation in wartime.

But right now we are on the path -- on the way but not arrived -- to a fiscal catastrophe of gigantic proportions. We're spending $4 trillion a year, and taking in $2 trillion. And right now there is no end in sight to the borrowing.

Our government is bloated and inefficient.

California and Illinois -- two of our most important states -- are bankrupt.

We have a down market in housing that will take even longer to recover given the "remedies" provided by this administration.

We have a Federal Reserve that is pumping huge amounts of dollars into the financial system both domestically and globally -- which will lead invariably to crippling inflation.

We have huge tax increases coming down the pike with Obama care -- along with the inevitable disastrous unintended consequences that are going to arise when you engage in quasi-nationalization of a huge swath of the market place like health care.

We have seen the effects of crony capitalism, and instability that comes from a too-interconnected financial system...and unless we change course it is only going to get worse.

We have a higher education bubble.

And after all the groveling efforts to placate the Arab street, we now have an "Arab Winter" as radical Sharia-advocating Islamists are about to take control of important MIddle East countries...with Iran trying and trying to get nuclear weapons, an outcome sure to destabilize the region in horrific ways.

So, it's bad now, but it can get much much worse. And soon. Unless we change course dramatically, I give us 5-7 years and then we are on a glide path to being irrevocably weaker and irrevocably poorer

[kerouac]

Tender man, we were economically stable until Bush stepped in and started two large wars. We had a surplus. Your buddies in the GOP are down for another big war that will spiral us down into greater debt. What are some of the solutions you propose for the great American comeback?

What are your solutions to a market place that doesn't really need unskilled workers anymore?

Also, if you don't understand why California is in a fiscal mess don't bring it up. It definitely has nothing to do with Obama.

Until you talk some sense you're just an old man with an unexercised brain. Talk points are great for entertainment and emotional response but if you want to have an intellectual debate offer up some solutions and stop acting like a chump.

[Pusscrook]

(12-07-2011 01:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 01:00 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

You just proved my point. You are not willing to dig as deep into the Republican "black box", and that is why you qualify as someone who can't fathom the thought of being impartial. Examples:How often do you think you rail against George Bush in this forum? How often do you think you rail against the prescription drug benefit plan d in this forum? Do you know how much that is costing you? How often do you rail against the two wars that George Bush got us into, and had no way of paying for it ,in this forum? Do you rail against the fact that in 8 years in office , George Bush only created 3 million jobs, although he inherited a surplus, in this forum?How often do you rail against Reagan and his amnesty program that has us up in arms about illegals in this country, in this forum? Have you railed against Phil Gramm for being the architect of deregulating the mortgage industry , which we know has caused a backlash of shit hole loans, today ? These are just several examples we can use from thousands more. Point being, read your post, and you would see for yourself how impartial you are. You can't remain objective about truth, and be partial . That amounts to a full blown hypocrite.

Bush, and Republicans, were bad in many ways.

But think of it this way. Suppose someone were to say to you, "How can you be a player when you spent all those years in betatude?"

You would naturally find that a totally useless and unhelpful comment. Because it's not about where you've been, but where you're going.

And where we're going in this nation is not pretty. It's about the now, the future, not the mistakes of the past.

Bush and Cheney are gone. Get over it. Move on.

A. Far be it from you to equivocate what has happened, and what is happening, by using an example of what is a useless/unhelpful comment based on a question about where a player should be after spending years in "betatude". I expect more from you old friend.


I understand your analogy, but , it is beyond the scope of this argument in terms of moving on. I will indulge you in a misplaced analogy, by framing the debate with your "it's not about where you've been , but, where you're going" ,sentence.


Would it be fair for me to say this: "Why are you still broke after going thru such a nasty divorce with your wife? Just because she took everything, caused you to file bankruptcy, yet, you're still paying child support, alimony, a mortgage on a house you no longer live in , and ,her credit card bills, doesn't mean your finances should be suffering". Get over it . Move on. Why complain? After all , you married the whore.

Well you would still be complaining because you are still fucking paying, now wouldn't you? If you are not paying, who gives a shit? Let her go kick rocks. I would happily put my ex -wife ,and anyone who wanted to debate my suffering, in a ditch, if, I was still paying for all of this. Wouldn't you?

It would have been better if your argument had started out this way , because that is what makes it so hard to move on and get over it , old friend. We are reeling from the effects of what has happened to this very day. I could see your point if one was blaming Lyndon Johnson (who created class warfare). You seem to have forgotten that the past administration is the main reason we are in the position we are in right now.

Fact remains, that whore, (bush administration) put you in the financial ruin that you are in today. The only people that would blame you for your financial suffering, are her filthy stinking pussy friends, (insert right wingers) and her pompous wretched family members( Republicans in denial) . Now the whore (Bush)has left town, to start a new family , and she bares no fault for fucking your life around to this very day.

Meanwhile, you have been reduced to that of a surrogate dad, a paypal account, a routing number , and guess what....you, have no choice. The day you miss a payment, the court( public opinion) will stretch your anus from here to Egypt, and, may even increase the amounts. You have to eat it, Tender. You eat the hand you were dealt, and until you pay it all off, you are stuck with it.

[All or Nothing]

(12-07-2011 06:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Fact remains, that whore, (bush administration) put you in the financial ruin that you are in today. The only people that would blame you for your financial suffering, are her filthy stinking pussy friends, (insert right wingers) and her pompous wretched family members( Republicans in denial) . Now the whore (Bush)has left town, to start a new family , and she bares no fault for fucking your life around to this very day.

Meanwhile, you have been reduced to that of a surrogate dad, a paypal account, a routing number , and guess what....you, have no choice. The day you miss a payment, the court( public opinion) will stretch your anus from here to Egypt, and, may even increase the amounts. You have to eat it, Tender. You eat the hand you were dealt, and until you pay it all off, you are stuck with it.

The Republicans had everything to do with current economic climate? That is a load of bull. Republicans AND Democrats both played their parts to dig this country into the deep hole it is in. If I remember correctly, the current recession has more to do with the crushing debt hurting our dollar and the weakening of regulations on banks.

Do you really think the U.S. would be in the shitty position it is in right now, if it wasn't for Adjustable Rate Mortgages being handed out like candy? Bush had little to do with this economic recession. It is the banks, the culture of buy more, earn less and the people that kowtow to these banks and culture that created this recession. Also, let's not forget how extraordinarily weak our own internal companies are? Does GM and AIG ring a bell? Both those companies essentially going under helped stoke the fires of this current recession.

Also, Bush created this huge debt? Again, a load of bull. The debt is on an exponential curve and has been on one for decades.

Take a good look at that chart. The debt created in Bush's era is merely a continuation in the increase of debt that was already there. It's the same with Obama.

[Pusscrook]

(12-07-2011 06:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(12-07-2011 06:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Fact remains, that whore, (bush administration) put you in the financial ruin that you are in today. The only people that would blame you for your financial suffering, are her filthy stinking pussy friends, (insert right wingers) and her pompous wretched family members( Republicans in denial) . Now the whore (Bush)has left town, to start a new family , and she bares no fault for fucking your life around to this very day.

Meanwhile, you have been reduced to that of a surrogate dad, a paypal account, a routing number , and guess what....you, have no choice. The day you miss a payment, the court( public opinion) will stretch your anus from here to Egypt, and, may even increase the amounts. You have to eat it, Tender. You eat the hand you were dealt, and until you pay it all off, you are stuck with it.

The Republicans had everything to do with current economic climate? That is a load of bull. Republicans AND Democrats both played their parts to dig this country into the deep hole it is in. If I remember correctly, the current recession has more to do with the crushing debt hurting our dollar and the weakening of regulations on banks.

Do you really think the U.S. would be in the shitty position it is in right now, if it wasn't for Adjustable Rate Mortgages being handed out like candy? Bush had little to do with this economic recession. It is the banks, the culture of buy more, earn less and the people that kowtow to these banks and culture that created this recession. Also, let's not forget how extraordinarily weak our own internal companies are? Does GM and AIG ring a bell? Both those companies essentially going under helped stoke the fires of this current recession.

Also, Bush created this huge debt? Again, a load of bull. The debt is on an exponential curve and has been on one for decades.

Take a good look at that chart. The debt created in Bush's era is merely a continuation in the increase of debt that was already there. It's the same with Obama.

If you paid attention to his argument, Obama is responsible for anything and everything we are going thru today, thereby making him the worst President ever. UMMM where have you been? If we used your chart, we could blame every administration for everything that has gone wrong , which wold bolster your argument, and mine. Have you been reading?