While We Wait: Part 5

[a_propagandist]

Yeah and let's talk about the Keating Five again too. Oh I forgot, 4 of them were democrats. I really don't want to argue anymore, I will just have to live with Obama being president until he has a low enough approval rating that everyone agrees with me.

Is it because Sym cites sources and you don't? Why do you troll like this? No offense, but Sym demolished your argument last time; responding with a badly-shopped, strawman poster is not going to do anything for your argument.

 

[silver 2039]

So the people that are going to be on the ballot are the Presidential, House of Reps, Senate and Governors of your state right?

 

[Symphony D.]

Is it because Sym cites sources and you don't? Why do you troll like this? No offense, but Sym demolished your argument last time; responding with a badly-shopped, strawman poster is not going to do anything for your argument.

He's repeatedly demonstrated he is either unwilling or unable to respond to any sort of evidence other than with dismissive non sequiturs and strawmen. Don't waste your time. I just do it as a public service because I for one hate it when people drone on and on about something long-ago disproved ("I voted against the Bridge to Nowhere!" "I'm a maverick!"). It's something of a character flaw of mine.

So the people that are going to be on the ballot are the Presidential, House of Reps, Senate and Governors of your state right?

President and Representatives yes; Senate and Governors only if your state is up for those. Local politicians and proposals are a given.

 

[Luckymoose]

Is it because Sym cites sources and you don't? Why do you troll like this? No offense, but Sym demolished your argument last time; responding with a badly-shopped, strawman poster is not going to do anything for your argument.

Bull, I will cite my argument, but seeing as he knows everything about Obama and it was us arguing, he should have known the truth I was telling him. If you want me to cite everything then so be it. One question (APA, MLA, etc?)

 

[Symphony D.]

Bull, I will cite my argument, but seeing as he knows everything about Obama and it was us arguing, he should have known the truth I was telling him. If you want me to cite everything then so be it. One question (APA, MLA, etc?)

Since summary seems to be the order of the day:

1. All you do is complain about Obama.
2. To be fair, all I do is complain about Palin and McCain.
3. I have conjectured that McCain is far worse and provided evidence.
4. You have done nothing to refute it, and continuously go out of your way to ignore the accusations.
5. You have also methodically refused to admit McCain might be at any fault at all.
6. I have repeatedly stated that Obama is not perfect, or even spectacular. Simply good.

As I have repeatedly said, cite whatever you want about Obama. I don't care. Your goal now is to prove that he is worse than McCain. You have not met that criteria. You are nowhere near meeting it.

It is much the same as how Sarah Palin proving she can construct a coherent sentence does not qualify her to be President--and so when she did better than people expected, she still didn't come anywhere near doing well enough. You are not doing well enough. You are saying the same things over and over again in a vacuum and steadfastly ignoring the stunningly deep hypocrisy of your own candidate, which is rather remarkable considering you have already said in this very topic that you hate him.

I welcome your criticism of Obama, if it has any facts at all (and I criticize it because so far it hasn't), because it will educate me better as what to expect of him. But you have a very long march to make if you want to prove him worse than McCain. You have so far not seemed to acknowledge this. If you would like a definition of bias, that is it--one-sided criticism. Under this definition, I admit bias--I despise McCain and Palin--but I have a platform to base that bias on, and I have presented it. You have not reciprocated. So do so. Let us stack our decks and compare which is worse.

Until then, McCain is the vastly worse candidate in virtually every quantifiable fashion. Even if it is the most cynical form of evaluation, voting for the lesser evil is an intelligent fashion to proceed. If you want to convince anybody or defend your point, you had better actually begin to substantiate it. I welcome such a move.

 

[Luckymoose]

Since summary seems to be the order of the day:

1. All you do is complain about Obama.
2. To be fair, all I do is complain about Palin and McCain.
3. I have conjectured that McCain is far worse and provided evidence.
4. You have done nothing to refute it, and continuously go out of your way to ignore the accusations.
5. You have also methodically refused to admit McCain might be at any fault at all.
6. I have repeatedly stated that Obama is not perfect, or even spectacular. Simply good.

As I have repeatedly said, cite whatever you want about Obama. I don't care. Your goal now is to prove that he is worse than McCain. You have not met that criteria. You are nowhere near meeting it.

It is much the same as how Sarah Palin proving she can construct a coherent sentence does not qualify her to be President--and so when she did better than people expected, she still didn't come anywhere near doing well enough. You are not doing well enough. You are saying the same things over and over again in a vacuum and steadfastly ignoring the stunningly deep hypocrisy of your own candidate, which is rather remarkable considering you have already said in this very topic that you hate him.

I welcome your criticism of Obama, if it has any facts at all (and I criticize it because so far it hasn't), because it will educate me better as what to expect of him. But you have a very long march to make if you want to prove him worse than McCain. You have so far not seemed to acknowledge this. If you would like a definition of bias, that is it--one-sided criticism. Under this definition, I admit bias--I despise McCain and Palin--but I have a platform to base that bias on, and I have presented it. You have not reciprocated. So do so. Let us stack our decks and compare which is worse.

Until then, McCain is the vastly worse candidate in virtually every quantifiable fashion. Even if it is the most cynical form of evaluation, voting for the lesser evil is an intelligent fashion to proceed. If you want to convince anybody or defend your point, you had better actually begin to substantiate it. I welcome such a move.

I will get back to you on this, as to find enough information from reliable sources to make an argument. A day or two isn't that long to wait.

 

[das]

I just do it as a public service because I for one hate it when people drone on and on about something long-ago disproved ("I voted against the Bridge to Nowhere!" "I'm a maverick!"). It's something of a character flaw of mine.

Isn't this a bit like using nuclear weapons against Talibans, though? At least in this particular case? I mean, it's not as though anyone is actually going to agree with Luckymoose (and it's also not as though he will shut up at any point if you utterly disprove him again and again - we have more than enough empirical data to be able to say with absolute certainty that he is not phased by facts and logic). Might be good to just stop replying to him, at least until he actually says anything worth demolishing again (as opposed to the same old "taxation=communism" thing).

 

[erez87]

Luckymoose - you lied. That makes you the looser of the argument. You said obama will raise taxes AND make a communist regime. This two cannot go together as in a communist state there are no taxes. - You used dirty lying propaganda and lost that argument.

I hope you understand no one thinks obama is a saint. But Mcain is just that much worse... It is called choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[Luckymoose]

Isn't this a bit like using nuclear weapons against Talibans, though? At least in this particular case? I mean, it's not as though anyone is actually going to agree with Luckymoose (and it's also not as though he will shut up at any point if you utterly disprove him again and again - we have more than enough empirical data to be able to say with absolute certainty that he is not phased by facts and logic). Might be good to just stop replying to him, at least until he actually says anything worth demolishing again (as opposed to the same old "taxation=communism" thing).

I'm sorry that I am the only person on the entire internet that has a conservative standpoint on politics. God forbid I was to oppose the masses wishes. The main problem I have with Obama is his hero-worship, everyone is making him into a giant hype god who will not live up to expectations.

Luckymoose - you lied. That makes you the looser of the argument. You said obama will raise taxes AND make a communist regime. This two cannot go together as in a communist state there are no taxes. - You used dirty lying propaganda and lost that argument.

I hope you understand no one thinks obama is a saint. But Mcain is just that much worse... It is called choosing the lesser of two evils.

Symphony lied a few times, but no I didn't lie. A civilian army, just as powerful, just as well funded as the regular military. Obama wants to make one, he has said so himself. That is very reminiscent of the Soviets. He wants to give everyone equal healthcare, which will ruin healthcare companies because people will go with free anyday. Which will drastically reduce the income of our doctors and hospitals. It goes on and on. Don't call me out on something, you don't even live in this country.

 

[erez87]

You are spewing nonsense. You said in two posts one after the other that - 1: Obama will make a communist country out of the USA and 2: Obama will raise taxes.
Taxes do not exist in a communist state. Which means that in one of your posts you were lying. This is just common sense.

Where did Symphony lie?

 

[Supermath]

The main problem I have with Obama is his hero-worship, everyone is making him into a giant hype god who will not live up to expectations.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[das]

erez, if you are going to take this literally then I will have to point out that a "communist state" is an oxymoron anyway, given that the textbook definition of communism is a stateless, classless society.

 

[North King]

Don't call me out on something, you don't even live in this country.

Please leave the Internet. You're embarrassing us.

Moderator Action: No flaming, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Luckymoose]

You are spewing nonsense. You said in two posts one after the other that - 1: Obama will make a communist country out of the USA and 2: Obama will raise taxes.
Taxes do not exist in a communist state. Which means that in one of your posts you were lying. This is just common sense.

Where did Symphony lie?

Raising taxes on the rich is a way of making everyone closer to a single class.

Symphony mainly lied about or exaggerated Obama/Biden's claims to nuclear and clean coal technology.


I also noticed none of you replied to my comment on Obama's civilian army plan, or his healthcare ruining other healthcare businesses and doctor incomes.

 

[Kozmos]

I also noticed none of you replied to my comment on Obama's civilian army plan, or his healthcare ruining other healthcare businesses and doctor incomes.

That's because it has absolutely no base in reality much like most of your mental processes.

 

[Luckymoose]

That's because it has absolutely no base in reality much like most of your mental processes.

You say he does not want to do this? I assure you he does.

Obama talking on Civilian Army

 

[Disenfrancised]

I also noticed none of you replied to my comment on Obama's civilian army plan, or his healthcare ruining other healthcare businesses and doctor incomes.

Perhaps people have lives and jobs that are more enthralling than cleaning up infantile verbal sputum?

And reading into the 'civilian army', for starters though a twenty second snippet is probably more suited to your attention span, context can explain a lot. As 'strong' and 'well funded' are rhetoric and do not indicate a desire for being similar in size to the regular army (which Obama wants to increase by 100k men - hardly someone who's looking to build his own forcebase would ask for), Obama's campaign website says he wants to expand the diplomatic core and create a Civilian Assistance Corps of 25k, and Obama wants this 'civilian army' to do civilian things so that the US Army doesn't have to.

Now with the economy being as it is Obama may not be able to set up these changes, but he doesn't want to set up another force using branch.

He wants to give everyone equal healthcare, which will ruin healthcare companies because people will go with free anyday

The top private healthcare companies in the UK are multibillion pound affairs, and that is with a UHS. The companies will be fine, and those that can't adapt probably had crummy business models in the first place. Also, who cares about the companies? If you can get good healthcare for half the price why should you care about the stockholders?

 

[North King]

No reason this type of post should be made. Ever.

And there is no reason to tell someone they can't comment on our politics because they don't live in this country. That's nationalistic, belligerent, and chauvinistic. It doesn't belong in a reasonable discussion. Now, if you aren't going for reasonable, I quite understand.

P.S. Reported.

OK.

 

[Luckymoose]

It's not infantile, it's common sense. I know several doctors who already are losing money from these extremely low income insurance agencies. They are all against this national healthcare as it will hurt them financially.

 

[Oruc]

It's not infantile, it's common sense. I know several doctors who already are losing money from these extremely low income insurance agencies. They are all against this national healthcare as it will hurt them financially.

Its weird you guys don't have a national health service.