Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

2016 Obama's America

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 7:30pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

Perhaps you could show me some examples of widespread corruption within the US Federal Government then?

Inside trading just to name one. Obama tried to stop inside trading.
All the Republican voted against it. Why? Because they make lots of money out of it even though it's illegal outside the government's boundaries.
Lobbyists that are payed big bucks to pressure honest congressman to pass crooked bills. Because of this situation, American pay 5 times more for their medications which drives the Insurance prices through the roof.
All the money stolen by Penis Cheney through Halliburton after the aggression of Iraq as part of the rebuilding scam., etc.
If I'm going to find all the corruption going on in the Republican camp It'll take me a year and that is without counting the thieves on the Democrat camp as well.

Which would be... But what about the Occupy Protestors? Seeing as they have a similar means as the Tea Party, I assume you detrst them just as much? After all, they do get arrested in droves.

Don't you know how to read? Look at all the example that nichodemus patiently wrote in the thread.

SSTG seemed to be talking about it earlier; argumentum ad ridiculum, if you will.

You sound exactly like O'Reilley or worse, racist Hannetty...

The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.

It would work if the conservatives would stop blindly voting for weasels just because they are Republican. Believe it or not some Democrats or independants can do a better job so why not vote for the competent person instead of the one representing your party?

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 9:36pm

EnigmaX

EnigmaX

100 posts

Inside trading just to name one. Obama tried to stop inside trading.

Which is stopped 99% of the time because in the aftermath of a sellout it becomes blatantly obvious what happened. Remember Martha Stuart?

All the Republican voted against it. Why? Because they make lots of money out of it even though it's illegal outside the government's boundaries.

Or perhaps excessive financial regulations goes against the economic principals of conservatism and free market principals.

I also like how you assume that only Republicans make money outside of government. Not only is that wrong, it's also stereotyping since you cast making money in a negative light in association with a group, which could also be Falacy of Composition.

Lobbyists that are payed big bucks to pressure honest congressman to pass crooked bills. Because of this situation, American pay 5 times more for their medications which drives the Insurance prices through the roof.

1) Lobbyist pressure all congressmen.
2) if it's an honest congressmen, than they wouln't pass a corrupt bill. If they did pass it, then they were never honest to begin with.
3) Then I assume you're opposed to Obamacare?

Don't you know how to read? Look at all the example that nichodemus patiently wrote in the thread.

Nope. I can't write either. I just move that clicky thing and randomly smash the buttons on this other rectangular thing. Monkey with a type writer, you know.

Argumentum ad hominem, to use the correct fallacy. Also, a shoutout to Nichodemus for participating with a patient example. You can take that to the bank.

You sound exactly like O'Reilley or worse, racist Hannetty...

Ad hominem number two and fallacy number three, not that I'm keeping count or anything.

It would work if the conservatives would stop blindly voting for weasels just because they are Republican. Believe it or not some Democrats or independants can do a better job so why not vote for the competent person instead of the one representing your party?

Your mantra of blaming Republicans/Conservatives/The Right is getting old. Out of curiosity, you wouldn't be Barack Obama in disguise, would you? You both sound eerily similar.

Actually, about 95% of the population votes by party, because they assume that the respective party has their best interest at heart. And so they'll justify it to them selves and won't be swayed: Vote for Obama or you're a racist **** sucker. Or vote Republican because all Democrats are communists. Or vote for Al Gore or I'll rage so much I'll be a contributing factor to global warming.

You yourself could even be used as a case study: You bashed wealthy Republicans in a post, but when I bought uo the fact that Obama was in the top 1% of wealth in the US, you dropped the point and have yet to respond, even though this will be the second time I've bought it to your attention.

So look in the mirror my friend; you might find a few of your demons staring back at you.

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 9:55pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,069 posts

Knight

The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.

Uh-huh. Doesn't it contradict the Constitution that states church and government shouldn't be mixed? Yet many of these candidates are heading to this area.

But sanctions have no affect on the nuclear process. If anything, it encourages the development of nuclear weapons since the weapons could be used as a bargaining tool in the removal of the sanctions.

Care to link to these statements? Because a recent BBC article I read had Netanyahu urging the US to declare a red line. Likewise, news organizations (BBC, CNN, FOX) have all stated in the past months reporting on this that neither the US nor Israel have taken the strike option off the table.

My mistake, not that strikes shouldn't be allowed but Iran is rational, implying, they won't use the nukes.

In an interview on CNN, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that 'we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor,'.

The Iranian regime is 'very rational' and is moving deliberately in its secretive nuclear program, the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency says.

'Maybe it's not exactly rational based on what I call ‘Western thinking,' but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their actions,' Meir Dagan said in an interview with CBS' '60 Minutes” that aired Sunday.

A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.
In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns.  It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.

We all assume Iran is a rational actor - even the most hawkish people in this debate - when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor.

Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Mao's China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly don't do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.

From Iran's point of view, they are surrounded by hostile nations. Russia, it's traditional enemy. Saudi Arabia, one of the more powerful Sunni states, and hence its enemy. Iraq, which invaded it just three decades ago. Pakistan, another regional power. And of course, all the US bases in the region. And Israel. It's not exactly hard to see why they would want another shield.

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 9:56pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

Which is stopped 99% of the time because in the aftermath of a sellout it becomes blatantly obvious what happened. Remember Martha Stuart?

Nope, they just tweaked it but it won't stop the crooked deals.

I also like how you assume that only Republicans make money outside of government. Not only is that wrong, it's also stereotyping since you cast making money in a negative light in association with a group, which could also be Falacy of Composition.

You twisted my words again. Inside trading is illegal outside the government boundaries which is why Martha Stewart got in trouble.

Ad hominem number two and fallacy number three, not that I'm keeping count or anything.

I'm just applying their tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >:)

You yourself could even be used as a case study: You bashed wealthy Republicans in a post, but when I bought uo the fact that Obama was in the top 1% of wealth in the US, you dropped the point and have yet to respond, even though this will be the second time I've bought it to your attention.

Because your conservative ranting gets boring so when I realize that I'm talking to a wall I drop the subject.
You're only trying to get the last word so you keep going with your illusion of conservative purity and bad government, bla, bla, bla, it get's annoying. Why aren't Republican complaining when they are in power and keep giving each other tax breaks and wasting money?
That's hypocritical don't you think?
Anyway I remember when I was 8yo my dad told me to stop wasting my time with people who argue just for the sake of it.
So here, get the last word if it makes you happy. You'll grow up eventually.

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 9:59pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,069 posts

Knight

Actually, about 95% of the population votes by party, because they assume that the respective party has their best interest at heart. And so they'll justify it to them selves and won't be swayed: Vote for Obama or you're a racist **** sucker. Or vote Republican because all Democrats are communists. Or vote for Al Gore or I'll rage so much I'll be a contributing factor to global warming.

Not really. A large chunk are independents; these are the folks who pay attention and then decide.

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 10:00pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

I'm just applying their tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >:)

Oops, it should have read: "I'm just applying their (Republicans) tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >:)

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 10:28pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Oops, it should have read: "I'm just applying their (Republicans) tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >:)

Wait, so when Democrats mock Republicans they aren't bullies?

My mind has been blown.

 

Posted Sep 18, '12 at 10:33pm

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

Wait, so when Democrats mock Republicans they aren't bullies?

They're just applying the same immature tactic except for the "I will kill you with my big gun or gang up on you and scare you" part.
Now you see how annoying it is.

 

Posted Sep 19, '12 at 1:46am

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

I found this article that might be of interest to anyone who likes to think. Can you tell who's an ignorant conservative vs a smarter one that thinks or a Democrat with common sense?

http://www.squidoo.com/teaparty912

 

Posted Sep 19, '12 at 1:47am

SSTG

SSTG

11,008 posts

Knight

http://www.squidoo.com/teaparty912

I'm passed my bed time...

 
Reply to 2016 Obama's America

You must be logged in to post a reply!