Jane Burgess
Official Checked Star Member
Most of the time you do not refute anything when you post. You just ramble on and on and take over threads. Sometimes I think you just like to see another posting by yourself. :2 cents:
I think Glenn Beck Will Have a Real Breakdown Very Soon!!
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
Most of the time you do not refute anything when you post. You just ramble on and on and take over threads. Sometimes I think you just like to see another posting by yourself. :2 cents:
I wonder what Hannity and Beck and most other conservatives would think of porn/erotica? Actually I don't wonder, I know they think its immoral and one of the things that has gone wrong about our culture.But were suppose to be worried about dems and Obama taking away freedoms.
Well you do actually bring up a hypothetical. I remember when Tipper Gore started the Music/Video Game rating system and all the bellyaching that the GOP created as a result of what was a moral policy that should've been a no brainer for them:dunno:
I would LOVE IT if Obama announced he wanted to create an "Anti-Porn" Movement---the Hannitys and Rushes and Becks would come out defending Porn "My gawd! Obama wants to take our porn away! When will this Socialist madness stop" It would be genius television to watch Bill O'Rally go on "The 700 Club" and defend porn...:rofl::rofl2:
Really?
You said this;
I responded with this;
That doesn't refute your assertion that GWB never asked kids for help with his policies??
You can't have it both ways. To be taken seriously you have supply evidence to support a position and then have it debated. Those with the necessary faculties will be able to discern if the points are being addressed. It is not good enough to just level an accusation. Set the terms of a debate and see where it gets you. I'm forever trying to get people on here to cite credible sources. (Shouty, high school grad TV hosts don't cut it with me.)
I don't know anything about anybody on this board but I would venture that the two individuals you cite almost certainly have friends and family that disagree with them along lines similar to your own.
So, apart from the fact that he has just about co-opted every Bush programme, what is your beef with Obama? (Please do not use the following words in any answer: Communist, marxist, birth certificate, muslim, racist or tit-wank.)
Re: Taking on Joe and Jane American ...
Thanks Facial King. I thought I had made that failrly plain. When I think of the individuals who were most saddened by the choice of Palin, they are all conservatives. (Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley etc)
Across the pond, where there was no pressure to offend the party, I am unable to recall one positive profile of Palin. This contrasts strongly with the feeling about Obama. I remember reading the stuff immediately after the VP debate where SP had winked at the camera. People would compare her performance to that of the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher, for our younger readrs) I'm not giving too much away by saying that SP came out of it unfavourably.
There is a lot wrong with the parliamentary system in the UK but at least once a week the party leaders have to stand up and think on their feet, could you imagine Palin lining up across the dispatch boxes from Maggie?
Thanks Facial King. I thought I had made that failrly plain. When I think of the individuals who were most saddened by the choice of Palin, they are all conservatives. (Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley etc)
Across the pond, where there was no pressure to offend the party, I am unable to recall one positive profile of Palin. This contrasts strongly with the feeling about Obama. I remember reading the stuff immediately after the VP debate where SP had winked at the camera. People would compare her performance to that of the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher, for our younger readrs) I'm not giving too much away by saying that SP came out of it unfavourably.
There is a lot wrong with the parliamentary system in the UK but at least once a week the party leaders have to stand up and think on their feet, could you imagine Palin lining up across the dispatch boxes from Maggie?
Okay, that wasn't rude - but it was a cop-out.
I don't know Obama very deeply as an individual. I doubt I would ever classify him as a "great man" - I'm not prone to use that phrase for any man - possibly my father. Most of us are human, and flawed, despite any appearances of greatness among some. That said, I'm not a big fan of Obama's. I think he's intelligent and well-mannered and respectable, but I have substantial disagreements with him on more than a few issues, and I noticed them even during the campaign. Those differences have only grown since he's taken office. I critique Obama from the left. Nonetheless, I'm still glad that McCain/Palin did not win.
1. I presume that what you say (write) is what you think. I read it, comprehend it to the best of my ability, and state my disagreements as they come to me.
2. My posts don't prevent anyone else from posting.
As far as I understand it, this is a forum where ideas are to be shared and discussed on any subject which isn't prohibited by the mods.
That should mean from time to time there will be subjects which will arise where people will agree or disagree with you.
Of course there will be times where people will just simply disagree. However, that doesn't mean that if someone posts something it won't be judged for credibility, consistency, accuracy or logic by others here.
I would say that if you're a person who is unable to or unwilling to defend your positions and you don't like your views critiqued for reason, logic or consistency...don't air them. Or at least don't whine about it when others rightly point out their faults.
They're not trying to get you to agree with them or any other such childish nonsense.
To me though, if a person makes an assertion and another finds fault with it and demonstrates the fault....it would seem in order that person "A" not continue to look like a fool would have 2 options. Either produce something reasonably refuting the fault found or "B", recognize where they were in error or miscalculated and admit it. I mean, that's what mature people should do.
Instead as so many do, attack the bearer of bad news to their point.
Philbert
Banned
Unless someone like yourself uses overkill to confuse and obfuscate the actual subject by quoting various facts and unrelated details to overwhelm those who prefer to speak simply and to the point...such as JaneB does.
Like when a grownup outargues a teenager who is actually correct in his evaluation, but is attacked by someone with more experience in clouding an issue with endless details that don't really change the facts but does create a lack of clarity...HotMega is a master at using lots of details to cloud the true issues.
When the Prof, who is also a master at collecting details and understanding their relevance to the issue, showed HM where he was way off base and agenda-driven to the exclusion of rational discussion, HM answered with loads more blaa-blaa details and refused to see his disconnection.
Facial-King constantly misquotes, misstates, and generally over-kills what he posts that isn't a "Police are meanies" thread...his favorite thing.
So, spare us all the holier than thou crap, you guys use several tricks to seemingly "win" an argument that shows the simple truth is not your agenda.
While I respect facts and information, deceit and lack of integrity get me going...and my internal alarms go off for just about every post ya'll make.
Sorry, is there a response or question in this mumbo jumbo related to one of the subjects in this thread?Again, how exactly is Obama going to use his address to school kids to help him get congress to pass health care reform??
The last generation of socialized education has been extremely influencial in shaping the views of adults from the standpoint of their kids, typically in a Marxist ideal concept because of the limited depth and what Marxism appeals to.
Make no mistake, Marxism is based on appealing to the under-educated. That's how it has always gathered support. It's not exclusive to Marxism either. Simple democracies do the same as well. One might say they are inter-related.
I'm a Libertarian-Capitalist. That means I need checks'n balances that are purposely inefficient in government. It means I need a government that regulates, not administers. It means I need a government that is small to limit its inefficiency while serving the purpose of a regulatory power. Not a major administrator. Not a major consumer. Not a majory power, much less the absolute.
Checks'n balances aren't for popularity or what people think is "right." There is no such thing as "right'n wrong." There is only a procedure that ensures due process so things are determined whether to be "right'n wrong." When government enters the debate on what "lifestyle" is "right'n wrong" when it harms no one, then that's a problem.
Especially when people start blanket assertions that a lifestyle is exploitative merely because one person has used it as such. For all those that scream Capitalism is exploitative, I can show so many examples of Marxism that is as well. The reality is to recognize where Capitalism is not Capitalism and Marxism is not Marxism. Both are ideals that you never seen in the world.
But the difference between Capitalism and Marxism is that the former is not the government, the latter is. Capitalism might have its influences with money, but it is not the government. And when corporations are mandated, funded or run by the government, it's not capitalism. It's facist.
The foundations are simple. The realities are not. And that's the problem. A "public good" is not something that needs to be funded or run by the government. It can be a "public good" of individual choice. Individual choice is what the US is founded on, the right of assembly was, by far, the first and most important Amendment that preceded the complementary realities of press and, correspondingly, speech.
Choice by, of and for the individual, that he/she may have not only the right, but the right to reserve support for a group. In Marxism, you take that way, "for the greater good." What happens when the majority believe it's the "greater good" and a minority do not? Individual choice is the balance. Marxism does not offer it.
So Marxism only works when you can hold individuals accountable. It excels on a small scale. Some utopias were built in the US with it. It utterly fails on a scale, and tends to outlaw all other political parties and thought, naturally. It caters to the majority of the less educated. That's always going to be a majority. Simple logic is always going to rule. It did 250 years ago when the US was founded as well. Nothing has changed.
Capitalism with regulation is the balance. Individual choice with currency backing is the way. Unfortunately, we lost our way in the US over 30 years ago. We got away from the successful. The statistics don't lie, small business owners and first time millionaires are first generation 9 times out of 10. It lets people who excel find a way to excel.
And those who want to be herded as cattle ... well ... "I just want a job." That's not much of a life, sorry. If you have responsibilities that prevent you from such, most of the time those are individual choices as well. I drive an old, beat up pick-up in live in a small home and choose to save, save and save more. That's my life, pathetic to most.
And yet I pay taxes higher than most people who live a shitload better than I. Fair is what Marxists can hold each other accountable on an individual basis. Free is the only thing you can guarantee en-masse. Small business owners have been pissed for a long time, because they get thrown in with high income earners who sit at a desk. Nevermind the small business owners are what drive this country, including the personal taxes. And that's not remotely fair.
And that's why Obama and the Democrat platform is very much disliked, for who it mistakenly targets. I don't love Republicans, but at least they get the concept that increasing taxes on small business owners hurts this country. When taxes go up, my wife will stop working. We're already well into the marriage penalty. At some point, it's not remotely worth it. And don't talk to me about write-offs, I'm honesty to a fault.
Thanks. So you believe (with a straight face) Obama was to use his speech to school kids as a means of indoctrinating them to create legions of new voters inclined to support his policies (namely health care since this is the context of my question) at some point in the future?
Aside from the fact that health care wasn't to be mention anywhere in his address....How pray-tell does that get us to the point where as the "other" poster suggested of kids getting this congress to pass his health care initiatives with his address?
(And please in your response to this....leave out any references to "small business", NAFTA, GAAT, permanent WH staff or anything else that has nothing to do with Obama addressing school kids and some yoko claiming it will be used to get kids to help him pass health care.)
I understand you're left in the awkward position of trying to defend absurdity with a reasonable explanation that won't get you laughed at but try again.
No, but more indirectly, to guilt their parents into supporting them. It's no different than LBJ's "Great Society." In the end, it's lip service based on simpleton concepts that are rooted directly in "let government help you" instead of "help your fellow man."
God I wish JFK was still around. He was the last to put it the other way (even if some of his administration's policies went in the wrong direction0.
It's about supporting government.
It's at the foundation of the concept that there is this socialist institution built on the fact that you should support government to help people, instead of just helping people directly.
Hey, most people laugh at me. Heck, it's why my wife married me and still regularly points out why she loves me. You'll have to find some other irrelevant comment to prod me into doing what you think I'll do.
If I wanted to make "one-liner" comments, I could easily compare Obama's policies to "5 year plans" of the former USSR. But it's more inflammatory to just throw out "one-liners" instead of trying to hit the heart of the issue.
And that issue is that Obama is about seeking the government for help. It started with LBJ, fell under the bus with Nixon and Carter, accelerated with Reagan, and Clinton-W. have been a combination of outsourcing and guest workers. Fewer and fewer, private job opportunities exist in this country. While people try to blame capitalism, it's the fact that we haven't had it for a long time.
But we have had a pair of generations growing up learning that only government can do things. Maybe it was the moon shot? I don't know, but I hear that quoted a lot. In all honesty, I would be against it, and I'm against various NASA programs. I look at the inefficiency and that's good enough for me.
Okayy, so the strategy was to have kids guilt their parents into supporting his health care initiatives with some Svengali-like influence over them without even mentioning health care once?
The guilty conscience parents are then going to call their congressmen in droves and present them with ultimatums on health care it passes and the coup is successful?
And it started with a 20 minute speech and exercise on the value of education and what they think school should mean to them?
Damn! If Obama is half as good as the notion you suggest here to concoct and execute a plot like this... this guy is going to solve ALL of the world's problems.
And I presume where previous presidents like Reagan and GHWB have failed in employing this method, Obama (aka "The One") will succeed...
I was right, though. He DID have a breakdown, but it didn't finish him off.... He just keeps having more and more of them... on a daily basis!
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
I can't stand NeoCunts such as Glenn Beck
It's too bad I missed this grand post back when it was *fresh*. I think this entire post carries the whiff of pseudo-intellectual. I would like to hear what an example of the bolded part is...because unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't actually been..oh, nevermind. Let's see what the supporting examples are first...:hatsoff:
