REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama The Evil Tyrant

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, January 17, 2014 13:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5871
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I got sent this link...wouldn't normally quote from them, but I'm so sick to f*cking death of the "Obama The Tyrant" meme that it struck a chord. So what the hell...someone else may fee good to have the dichotomy put down in black and white, too:
Quote:
Very young children often have imaginary friends. Most grow out of this phase. Not our dear friends on the Tea Party right. They have an Imaginary Tyrant they play with every day. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Emphasis always on the “Hussein.”

It’s been all the rage now for five years. Glenn Beck and Michael Savage love to insist that President Obama is equal to Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Mao. They might as well compare him to Barney the Purple Dinosaur. It makes as much sense.

An article in the New York Times today might highlight the difference. The Times reports that the guillotine used to execute Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans has been found. The two young Germans were part of the White Rose protest movement during World War II. On February 18, 1943, they were spotted distributing anti-government leaflets. They were arrested, tried and convicted, and beheaded in only four days.

By contrast, here in America, Tea Party protests typically involve signs portraying Obama as Hitler. And yet, no one gets killed.

Perhaps, then, it’s time for an intervention. Time for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and all the Fox News crew to grow up! Let’s look at some of the “subtle” differences between tyranny and garden variety political ideas the right just doesn’t like. "Tyranny" would be Caligula plotting to make his horse a Roman consul. "Not tyranny" would be Ted Cruz, that horse’s ass. Whatever we liberals might think, he was duly elected. And he’s a real, live human being.

Tyranny: hanging witches at Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, or the French breaking heretics on the wheel as late as the 1750s.

Not tyranny: President Obama opposing waterboarding and (slowly) clearing the cells at Guantanamo Bay.

Tyranny: Under British rule the Irish were denied the right to vote or own land. Marriages between Catholics and Protestants were not allowed. (Conservatives do love to restrict marriage rights!) During the potato famine millions faced the choice of starving or emigrating.

Tyranny: Shortly after Hitler won election as German chancellor his agents set fire to the Reichstag. This would be the equivalent of Obama burning down Congress. The Nazis said this was proof of an impending communist takeover. (Sound familiar to you dudes on the right?) Hitler then persuaded President Hindenburg to sign a decree suspending sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Four thousand Communist officials, Social Democrats and liberal leaders were arrested. Many victims were tortured and beaten.

Not tyranny: President Obama can’t convince the Senate to approve his executive appointments. Senator Cruz filibusters for fun. The House of Representatives refuses to pass a budget. Tea Party crazies shut down the entire U. S. government.

Tyranny: Nazi doctors carried out medical experiments on Jews and other prisoners. How long could individuals survive in freezing water? (Death usually resulted in sixty minutes.) Could bone transplants work from one patient to another? (No, they could not.) Did castration cure gays? (No; but don’t give Michele Bachmann any more zany ideas.)

Not tyranny: the Affordable Health Care Act extended health care coverage to countless Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. Three million young people are allowed to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

Tyranny: In November 1938, widespread violence broke out across Germany after a Jewish student killed a German official in Paris. During Kristallnacht, or “Night of Glass,” mobs attacked Jewish homes, shops and synagogues. Thousands of businesses were looted. Hundreds of homes were destroyed. Dozens of Jews were murdered. This included a young boy thrown from a third-story window. Police arrested 26,000 Jews and threw them in jail.

Not tyranny: Imaginary Tyrant Obama favors separation of church and state. Your right to read the New Testament shall not be infringed. That does not mean the teacher in your child’s public school can read the same verses to Muslim, Jewish or non-believing kids. (Feel free, however, to wish all your friends a “Merry Christmas.”) Note to Glenn Beck: If Mitt Romney had won he could not have read a chapter from the Book of Mormon to Lutheran or Baptist school kids.

Tyranny: Fidel Castro takes power in 1959. He holds it for decades. All private businesses are seized.

Not tyranny: Obama bails out the U. S. auto industry. As of September 2013 Bill Gates is worth $72 billion. Harold Simmons pours tens of millions into the 2012 election cycle. Why? Simmons claims Obama is “the most dangerous man in America.” Obama plans to “eliminate free enterprise in this country.” Simmons dies December 30, 2013. He leaves behind an estate worth $10 billion. A day later the stock market ends 2013 on a high note. The market is up 10,000 points from a low shortly after Imaginary Tyrant Obama took office. (No one on the right, not even the geniuses at Fox Business, notices the irony.)

Tyranny: In 1989 Chinese protestors gather at Tiananmen Square. The government sends in tanks. Thousands are slaughtered. Chinese censors then purge the internet of terms like ‘democracy” and “Tiananmen Square.”

Not tyranny: The Tea Party folks hold dozens of protests and rallies starting in 2009. Sometimes this involves carrying semi-automatic weapons slung over their shoulders to show the Second Amendment is totally dead. Meanwhile, right-wingers post “Obama is a Tyrant” memes all over Facebook.

Tyranny: Kim Jong-un takes power on the death of his father, Kim Jong-il. This continues power in the family line, by way of Kim Jong-ugh and Kim Jong-Minnie Me. Virtually the entire population of North Korea faces starvation.

Not tyranny: Obama asks Congress to fund the food stamps program. GOP lawmakers refuse.

Tyranny: Communist China continues one-party rule for six decades.

Not tyranny: GOP candidates post huge gains during the 2010 mid-term elections. They do this partly by scaring supporters into believing tyranny is moments away. GOP chances of winning in 2012 also look good. Then GOP candidates start opening their mouths and spewing lunatic ideas. (God says, “Rape is part of My plan,” etc.) Meanwhile, GOP forces at the state level gerrymander districts in Ohio and other states into improbable shapes. This makes more than 200 GOP-controlled seats in the U. S. House of Representatives totally safe.

Tyranny: In Syria, the Assad family unleashes chemical weapons on its citizens.

Not tyranny: Obama purportedly plots to overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment. He will run again in 2016, 2020, etc. Obama will be a tyrannical Energizer Bunny. Right-wingers simultaneously warn that Hilary Clinton plans to run for president in 2016. Chants of “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!” are heard. Logic is not the strong suit of the modern right-wing.

Tyranny: Vladimir Putin locks up pretty much everyone he doesn’t like. Russia passes legislation making it illegal for gays and lesbians to protest. (Doe anyone else see the similarities between the jailing of Pussy Riot and right-wing reaction to the Dixie Chicks?)

Not tyranny: Liberals believe inmates should have greater access to DNA testing in cases where this type of evidence might establish innocence.

So, relax right-wingers. Five years after Imaginary Tyrant Obama took office the Bill of Rights still lives and breathes.

Sean Hannity, master of bombast, remains on the air. It isn’t tyranny if his lips move and he still spews. See also: Fox News. Freedom of speech is not dead!

Sarah Palin can read any newspaper she likes. She can pick up any book. So long as there are plenty of pictures. Ann Coulter can pen idiotic books. Freedom of the press lives!

Bill O’Reilly can attend mass any Sunday. Muslims can go to mosques (at least where right-wingers allow them to build them at all). Non-religious types can sleep in if they prefer. Imaginary Tyrant Obama is not coming to take the Christmas ornaments. The Christmas lights are safe. Freedom of religion survives.

Second Amendment: Those aren’t imaginary guns right-wingers are buying. You can blame Imaginary Tyrant Obama for an imaginary plot to curtail your ammunition supplies. Or you can hide behind the couch and wait for imaginary U. N. troops in blue helmets to come take your guns. But you look really dumb.

Voting: actually, the right of suffrage is under attack. Yep. The right has done all it can to keep college students, minorities, etc. away from the polls. Ohio, for example, passed a voter ID law to limit “massive voting fraud.” Total cases uncovered in 2012: seventeen.

How about the right of privacy? The developing story surrounding NSA snooping should worry us all. That includes Americans, right and left and middle. In this case there has been bipartisan support for enhanced Congressional oversight. This is a positive beginning. Meanwhile, the New York Times has urged clemency for Edward Snowden. Damn those liberals with their concern for the rights of all! http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/11/imaginary-reign-tyranny/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I got sent this link...wouldn't normally quote from them, but I'm so sick to f*cking death of the "Obama The Tyrant" meme that it struck a chord.




He's a tyrant.

Or sure as hell wishes he were.

1. House of Cards "I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient," Obama said, of the Washington ruled by Spacey's fearsome character, House majority whip Frank Underwood.

"This guy's getting a lot of stuff done,"

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/news/odd+news/obama-wishes-real-life-washing
ton-was-like-house-of-cards/article/365577#ixzz2qCZ2ELR6

2. Immigration

“…if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. But we are a nation of laws.”

( Apparently not, as that's exactly what he ORDERED be done, with out the approval of Congress, not long after. )



3. Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”

http://www.edcgop.com/index.cfm/press_release_299.htm


When you keep opining for how you wish things were, as Obama does, it's a pretty clear indication of who this man really is.

He's a lone child of parents who basically abandoned him, was raised by wealthy socialists, sent to finest schools, and has been pampered and catered to his whole adult life.

The dude feels he's ENTITLED to rule. There's really no question about that, at all. He's a diva. Don't make fun of his * ears, but DO what he ** tells you to do.

*
Quote:
On Sunday, December 10, roughly 50 days later, noted in a column by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama took on Dowd over arguably the least relevant item in that sentence:

Obama is very sensitive about his press. After his press conference, he headed toward New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and chided her — in a kidding way — for a comment in the 12th of 14 paragraphs in an Oct. 21 column. She wrote that Obama’s “ears stick out.”

“I just want to put you on notice,” he said.

“I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.”

Wow — 50 days later, the guy was still stewing over four words about his ears.


** You can't keep your own doctor, you can't keep your healthcare plan unless *I* say you can.

Also -
Quote:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.


And as Michelle put it..." Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Require ? Demand ?

Tyrant, straight up.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 6:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Niki,

It seems to me that the NSA controversy was something that Obama inherited from the previous admin, much like the economy. He has done his best to tackle these crisis (such as the IRS debacle) and has been more than willing to restructure and recommit the resources toward a better country.

Of course, there are those that would argue as much in support of the Bush Admin.


SGG


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I got sent this link...wouldn't normally quote from them, but I'm so sick to f*cking death of the "Obama The Tyrant" meme that it struck a chord. So what the hell...someone else may fee good to have the dichotomy put down in black and white, too:
Quote:
Very young children often have imaginary friends. Most grow out of this phase. Not our dear friends on the Tea Party right. They have an Imaginary Tyrant they play with every day. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Emphasis always on the “Hussein.”

It’s been all the rage now for five years. Glenn Beck and Michael Savage love to insist that President Obama is equal to Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Mao. They might as well compare him to Barney the Purple Dinosaur. It makes as much sense.

An article in the New York Times today might highlight the difference. The Times reports that the guillotine used to execute Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans has been found. The two young Germans were part of the White Rose protest movement during World War II. On February 18, 1943, they were spotted distributing anti-government leaflets. They were arrested, tried and convicted, and beheaded in only four days.

By contrast, here in America, Tea Party protests typically involve signs portraying Obama as Hitler. And yet, no one gets killed.

Perhaps, then, it’s time for an intervention. Time for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and all the Fox News crew to grow up! Let’s look at some of the “subtle” differences between tyranny and garden variety political ideas the right just doesn’t like. "Tyranny" would be Caligula plotting to make his horse a Roman consul. "Not tyranny" would be Ted Cruz, that horse’s ass. Whatever we liberals might think, he was duly elected. And he’s a real, live human being.

Tyranny: hanging witches at Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, or the French breaking heretics on the wheel as late as the 1750s.

Not tyranny: President Obama opposing waterboarding and (slowly) clearing the cells at Guantanamo Bay.

Tyranny: Under British rule the Irish were denied the right to vote or own land. Marriages between Catholics and Protestants were not allowed. (Conservatives do love to restrict marriage rights!) During the potato famine millions faced the choice of starving or emigrating.

Tyranny: Shortly after Hitler won election as German chancellor his agents set fire to the Reichstag. This would be the equivalent of Obama burning down Congress. The Nazis said this was proof of an impending communist takeover. (Sound familiar to you dudes on the right?) Hitler then persuaded President Hindenburg to sign a decree suspending sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Four thousand Communist officials, Social Democrats and liberal leaders were arrested. Many victims were tortured and beaten.

Not tyranny: President Obama can’t convince the Senate to approve his executive appointments. Senator Cruz filibusters for fun. The House of Representatives refuses to pass a budget. Tea Party crazies shut down the entire U. S. government.

Tyranny: Nazi doctors carried out medical experiments on Jews and other prisoners. How long could individuals survive in freezing water? (Death usually resulted in sixty minutes.) Could bone transplants work from one patient to another? (No, they could not.) Did castration cure gays? (No; but don’t give Michele Bachmann any more zany ideas.)

Not tyranny: the Affordable Health Care Act extended health care coverage to countless Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. Three million young people are allowed to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

Tyranny: In November 1938, widespread violence broke out across Germany after a Jewish student killed a German official in Paris. During Kristallnacht, or “Night of Glass,” mobs attacked Jewish homes, shops and synagogues. Thousands of businesses were looted. Hundreds of homes were destroyed. Dozens of Jews were murdered. This included a young boy thrown from a third-story window. Police arrested 26,000 Jews and threw them in jail.

Not tyranny: Imaginary Tyrant Obama favors separation of church and state. Your right to read the New Testament shall not be infringed. That does not mean the teacher in your child’s public school can read the same verses to Muslim, Jewish or non-believing kids. (Feel free, however, to wish all your friends a “Merry Christmas.”) Note to Glenn Beck: If Mitt Romney had won he could not have read a chapter from the Book of Mormon to Lutheran or Baptist school kids.

Tyranny: Fidel Castro takes power in 1959. He holds it for decades. All private businesses are seized.

Not tyranny: Obama bails out the U. S. auto industry. As of September 2013 Bill Gates is worth $72 billion. Harold Simmons pours tens of millions into the 2012 election cycle. Why? Simmons claims Obama is “the most dangerous man in America.” Obama plans to “eliminate free enterprise in this country.” Simmons dies December 30, 2013. He leaves behind an estate worth $10 billion. A day later the stock market ends 2013 on a high note. The market is up 10,000 points from a low shortly after Imaginary Tyrant Obama took office. (No one on the right, not even the geniuses at Fox Business, notices the irony.)

Tyranny: In 1989 Chinese protestors gather at Tiananmen Square. The government sends in tanks. Thousands are slaughtered. Chinese censors then purge the internet of terms like ‘democracy” and “Tiananmen Square.”

Not tyranny: The Tea Party folks hold dozens of protests and rallies starting in 2009. Sometimes this involves carrying semi-automatic weapons slung over their shoulders to show the Second Amendment is totally dead. Meanwhile, right-wingers post “Obama is a Tyrant” memes all over Facebook.

Tyranny: Kim Jong-un takes power on the death of his father, Kim Jong-il. This continues power in the family line, by way of Kim Jong-ugh and Kim Jong-Minnie Me. Virtually the entire population of North Korea faces starvation.

Not tyranny: Obama asks Congress to fund the food stamps program. GOP lawmakers refuse.

Tyranny: Communist China continues one-party rule for six decades.

Not tyranny: GOP candidates post huge gains during the 2010 mid-term elections. They do this partly by scaring supporters into believing tyranny is moments away. GOP chances of winning in 2012 also look good. Then GOP candidates start opening their mouths and spewing lunatic ideas. (God says, “Rape is part of My plan,” etc.) Meanwhile, GOP forces at the state level gerrymander districts in Ohio and other states into improbable shapes. This makes more than 200 GOP-controlled seats in the U. S. House of Representatives totally safe.

Tyranny: In Syria, the Assad family unleashes chemical weapons on its citizens.

Not tyranny: Obama purportedly plots to overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment. He will run again in 2016, 2020, etc. Obama will be a tyrannical Energizer Bunny. Right-wingers simultaneously warn that Hilary Clinton plans to run for president in 2016. Chants of “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!” are heard. Logic is not the strong suit of the modern right-wing.

Tyranny: Vladimir Putin locks up pretty much everyone he doesn’t like. Russia passes legislation making it illegal for gays and lesbians to protest. (Doe anyone else see the similarities between the jailing of Pussy Riot and right-wing reaction to the Dixie Chicks?)

Not tyranny: Liberals believe inmates should have greater access to DNA testing in cases where this type of evidence might establish innocence.

So, relax right-wingers. Five years after Imaginary Tyrant Obama took office the Bill of Rights still lives and breathes.

Sean Hannity, master of bombast, remains on the air. It isn’t tyranny if his lips move and he still spews. See also: Fox News. Freedom of speech is not dead!

Sarah Palin can read any newspaper she likes. She can pick up any book. So long as there are plenty of pictures. Ann Coulter can pen idiotic books. Freedom of the press lives!

Bill O’Reilly can attend mass any Sunday. Muslims can go to mosques (at least where right-wingers allow them to build them at all). Non-religious types can sleep in if they prefer. Imaginary Tyrant Obama is not coming to take the Christmas ornaments. The Christmas lights are safe. Freedom of religion survives.

Second Amendment: Those aren’t imaginary guns right-wingers are buying. You can blame Imaginary Tyrant Obama for an imaginary plot to curtail your ammunition supplies. Or you can hide behind the couch and wait for imaginary U. N. troops in blue helmets to come take your guns. But you look really dumb.

Voting: actually, the right of suffrage is under attack. Yep. The right has done all it can to keep college students, minorities, etc. away from the polls. Ohio, for example, passed a voter ID law to limit “massive voting fraud.” Total cases uncovered in 2012: seventeen.

How about the right of privacy? The developing story surrounding NSA snooping should worry us all. That includes Americans, right and left and middle. In this case there has been bipartisan support for enhanced Congressional oversight. This is a positive beginning. Meanwhile, the New York Times has urged clemency for Edward Snowden. Damn those liberals with their concern for the rights of all! http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/11/imaginary-reign-tyranny/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 7:29 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


The more desperate Obama haters get to be heard, the more shrill and hysterical they become, and the more people ignore them. It's a vicious circle.

Amusing to watch though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 11:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
The more desperate Obama haters get to be heard, the more shrill and hysterical they become, and the more people ignore them. It's a vicious circle.

Amusing to watch though.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Quite the contrary. The more folks finally see how his policies impact their personal lives, the more 'shrill' cries will be heard BY EVERYONE !



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 11:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Sight unseen on whatever article posted, he's not an evil tyrant.....

He's more like Chevy Chase co-starring in a John Candy-centric film....

We're all going to be hanging on every word today, but 5 years from now we wont' even remember the plot......



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 12:10 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

He's more like Chevy Chase co-starring in a John Candy-centric film....


Was there ever such a movie ? I'm drawing a blank.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 1:21 PM

STORYMARK


I have a couple right-wing friends who like to go on about tyranny all the time. They always tend to fall silent when pressed on particulars.

Most recently, they were bitching about the "Tyranny of the minority" because the Duck Dynasty idiot got a week off, and last year were complaining about the "Tyranny of the majority" because they didn't think it was fair that they had to put up with President Obama again simply because he got more votes (seriously, these guys were saying it was undemocratic that the guy with the most votes wins.... amazing).

So, I laid out a few of their arguments, one after another, and asked them where was the actual tyranny (as in loss of rights, a=inability to soeak out against the rulers, etc) and asked if they knew the difference between actual tyranny, and just not getting their way.

They didn't ever answer. I can't imagine why...




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 1:37 PM

BYTEMITE


I tried for a little while yesterday to formulate a response one way or another or somewhere in between to this thread, and then gave up.

I see the odds of my participation have not improved with time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 3:00 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
The more desperate Obama haters get to be heard, the more shrill and hysterical they become, and the more people ignore them. It's a vicious circle.

Amusing to watch though.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Quite the contrary. The more folks finally see how his policies impact their personal lives, the more 'shrill' cries will be heard BY EVERYONE !


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall


*nods politely*


*backs away*

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 4:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

*nods politely*


*backs away*

It's not personal. It's just war.


You honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that o-care disaster stories won't get worse and worse, and folks see how they are impacted, in a very real way, as time goes on ?

Really?

Wow.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 4:40 PM

STORYMARK


Its nice not to live in the moron echo chamber, and be capable of seeing more potential results than just one, almost entirely invented dooms-day outcome.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 4:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


More patents seeing fewer doctors will unquestionably lead to higher rates and lower quality care.

There's nothing which can keep that from taking place.

Add more water to a sinking boat, it's going to sink.

How folks are blind to such basic truisms, is beyond belief.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 4:56 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

*nods politely*


*backs away*



Internet arguments: sometimes it is the only response you can make.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 5:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

*nods politely*


*backs away*



Internet arguments: sometimes it is the only response you can make.



Wish more would take note.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 5:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.




RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 5:43 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
You honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that o-care disaster stories won't get worse and worse, and folks see how they are impacted, in a very real way, as time goes on ?

I'm bored of copying your wrong predictions to the predictions thread. But if you really believe in it, you post it there.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 6:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
You honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that o-care disaster stories won't get worse and worse, and folks see how they are impacted, in a very real way, as time goes on ?

I'm bored of copying your wrong predictions to the predictions thread. But if you really believe in it, you post it there.

It's not personal. It's just war.


I copied nothing. But maybe if you keep ignoring it, it won't happen?

Huh.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 6:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 8:14 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
You honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that o-care disaster stories won't get worse and worse, and folks see how they are impacted, in a very real way, as time goes on ?

I'm bored of copying your wrong predictions to the predictions thread. But if you really believe in it, you post it there.

It's not personal. It's just war.


I copied nothing. But maybe if you keep ignoring it, it won't happen?

Huh.

What exactly won't happen?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 9:26 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
You honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that o-care disaster stories won't get worse and worse, and folks see how they are impacted, in a very real way, as time goes on ?

I'm bored of copying your wrong predictions to the predictions thread. But if you really believe in it, you post it there.

It's not personal. It's just war.


I copied nothing. But maybe if you keep ignoring it, it won't happen?

Huh.

What exactly won't happen?

It's not personal. It's just war.


It takes a real toot to misread such a simple statement.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 13, 2014 9:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What exactly won't happen?

It's not personal. It's just war.


Some how you think O-Care will " work itself out " and there won't be a colossal cluster fuck for the nation.

You really think that won't happen, or that it's not happening now ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


O-care notwithstanding, Obama IS an evil tyrant. Please stop defending him.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:38 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
O-care notwithstanding, Obama IS an evil tyrant. Please stop defending him.



How so?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:08 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
O-care notwithstanding, Obama IS an evil tyrant. Please stop defending him.


How so?



Signed Patriot Act renewal, compromised integrity and did not close Gitmo, still bombing and occupying the bejesus out of the middle east (imperialism), approved the Utah NSA Data Center, executive branch witch hunt for Edward Snowden, is a politician in a system of government that regularly ignores the interests of the citizens that are the basis of their legitimacy and whom they supposedly represent, other stuff we may or may not know about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:20 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
O-care notwithstanding, Obama IS an evil tyrant. Please stop defending him.


How so?



Signed Patriot Act renewal, compromised integrity and did not close Gitmo, still bombing and occupying the bejesus out of the middle east (imperialism), approved the Utah NSA Data Center, executive branch witch hunt for Edward Snowden, is a politician in a system of government that regularly ignores the interests of the citizens that are the basis of their legitimacy and whom they supposedly represent, other stuff we may or may not know about.


Like it or not the Patriot Act was passed by congress, not very tyranical.

Gitmo, block by congress.

Got out of Iraq, waiting to see if defence pack is sign by Afganistan government or will be leaving.

Snowden for right or wrong did indeed break the law.

Obama is a politician whom was voted into office by a mojority of the voters in this country.

...not very tyanical or evil.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Like it or not the Patriot Act was passed by congress, not very tyranical.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto

Quote:
Gitmo, block by congress.


http://www.thewire.com/politics/2011/03/obama-changes-his-mind-gitmo-t
ribunals-resume/35666/

Gitmo is kept open by executive order. It's run by the military. Congress might have hamstringed the closure by refusing to allow the detainees to be brought stateside for trial (another lovely piece of authoritarian suspension of habeus corpus asshattery), but there are other avenues that Obama could explore that have not been explored because other political priorities took precedence.

Quote:
Got out of Iraq, waiting to see if defence pack is sign by Afganistan government or will be leaving.


Bombed Libya. Still bombing Pakistan, using predator drones against villages. Unofficial wars are still wars.

Quote:
Snowden for right or wrong did indeed break the law.


By releasing documents... That were already public. Please. The information released couldn't reasonably be considered classified because everyone and their DOG knew about it, so calling Snowden a whistleblower is even a stretch, though his actions arguably still fall under the whistleblower protections, because they were in the best interest of the public.

At best the military has a civil case against Snowden for violating the terms of the confidentiality agreement they had with the contractor Snowden was working for. Criminal? Espionage? Treason? Nonsense. Classic case of trumped up charges.

Snowden was driven out of the country by doing what any journalist could have done if all of our journalists right now were not ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS and COMPLETELY GUTLESS. He was driven out of the country because he pointed out the intelligence agencies have some obvious egg on their face and they're petty and spiteful and hate any challenge to their directive no matter how insignificant.

Quote:

Obama is a politician whom was voted into office by a mojority of the voters in this country.


In a two party system, where all the options are bad. Furthermore, public support is not in of itself an exemption from tyranny- in fact the term in ancient Greece referred to an authoritarian who rose up with the support of the middle and lower classes to replace the reigning aristocrats of the Greek city states.

All that is necessary to justify the term is an absence of legitimacy and/or a ruthless authoritarian prosecution and quashing of dissent. I'm prepared to argue that despite a democratic voting system, both angles are firmly in play here, for Obama as well as every other politician that we have.

Quote:
...not very tyanical or evil.


He is not just the poor beset upon guy from Chicago who congress won't play nice with. He has some damn responsibility for the military intelligence and executive branch of this country, and for two administrations they've been running rampant and unchecked.

I will grant you that he is weak-willed, cowardly, and pathetic, and more of a figurehead than anything else - but he is still part of an authoritarian tyrannical machine. And his non-action counts as cooperation with those elements.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:45 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto


...and? Yes President Obama could have vetoed it. That does not change the fact that he did not act on his own or above the law in any way. Which are kinda the hallmarks of a tyrant.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Gitmo is kept open by executive order. It's run by the military. Congress might have hamstringed the closure by refusing to allow the detainees to be brought stateside for trial (another lovely piece of authoritarian suspension of habeus corpus asshattery), but there are other avenues that Obama could explore that have not been explored because other political priorities took precedence.


Gitmo is kept open with money approprated from congress as well. Those still imprisoned there that are still seen as a danger are having military tribunals, the others the administration is looking for somewhere to put them.


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Bombed Libya. Still bombing Pakistan, using predator drones against villages. Unofficial wars are still wars.


Helped NATO bomb Libya, still have backing of the Pakistan government to use drones against Al Qaeda which members hide in villages. Again all of which is funded by congress.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
By releasing documents... That were already public. Please. The information released couldn't reasonably be considered classified because everyone and their DOG knew about it, so calling Snowden a whistleblower is even a stretch, though his actions arguably still fall under the whistleblower protections, because they were in the best interest of the public.

At best the military has a civil case against Snowden for violating the terms of the confidentiality agreement they had with the contractor Snowden was working for. Criminal? Espionage? Treason? Nonsense. Classic case of trumped up charges.

Snowden was driven out of the country by doing what any journalist could have done if all of our journalists right now were not ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS and COMPLETELY GUTLESS. He was driven out of the country because he pointed out the intelligence agencies have some obvious egg on their face and they're petty and spiteful and hate any challenge to their directive no matter how insignificant.


Dispite you saying the documents were not classified they were. Snowden could have been protected by Whistleblower laws but didn't go throught the proper channels. He could have disclosed to members of Congress and been protected. Someone like Rand Paul would have loved to introduce all the documents into congressional record.


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
In a two party system, where all the options are bad. Furthermore, public support is not in of itself an exemption from tyranny- in fact the term in ancient Greece referred to an authoritarian who rose up with the support of the middle and lower classes to replace the reigning aristocrats of the Greek city states.

All that is necessary to justify the term is an absence of legitimacy and/or a ruthless authoritarian prosecution and quashing of dissent. I'm prepared to argue that despite a democratic voting system, both angles are firmly in play here, for Obama as well as every other politician that we have.


Fist off as much as it operates as one the US is not a two party system. The issue is that the voters vote for to main parties more so than others by a large margin. Seem like a lot of people think there are some good choices.

Than go ahead and make your argument that the government is quashing dissent. You also have the fact that Tyrants are almost always defind as working unrestrained by laws.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
He is not just the poor beset upon guy from Chicago who congress won't play nice with. He has some damn responsibility for the military intelligence and executive branch of this country, and for two administrations they've been running rampant and unchecked.

I will grant you that he is weak-willed, cowardly, and pathetic, and more of a figurehead than anything else - but he is still part of an authoritarian tyrannical machine. And his non-action counts as cooperation with those elements.


...and here is the rant at the end to tie it all together. President Obama is not a tyrant or part of some authoritarian tyrannical machine. He is the President of a democratic republic who's government you disagree with.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:07 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
That does not change the fact that he did not act on his own or above the law in any way. Which are kinda the hallmarks of a tyrant.


There is a lot more to being a tyrant than that. Routine beheadings for a particular racial class could be the law, but a leader who enforced that law would be a tyrant.

Quote:
Those still imprisoned there that are still seen as a danger are having military tribunals, the others the administration is looking for somewhere to put them.


Riiiight, and you don't see the slightest problem with the military conducting these trials or determining appropriate lengths of imprisonment. I'm sure justice will be served.

And still doesn't counter my original point, which was that Obama did not close Gitmo.

Quote:
still have backing of the Pakistan government to use drones against Al Qaeda which members hide in villages.


Hahaha, haha no. We don't have the backing of the Pakistan government there. We're pretty much doing whatever the hell we want at this point.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us
-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down?lite

And you still seem to be arguing that just because something is legal or just because there is consent (which there ISN'T in this case), it is legitimate and justifiable and exempted from being called tyranny. No.

Quote:
Dispite you saying the documents were not classified they were.


Yeah, U.S. bills and legislature are designated classified all the time. 9_9 Seriously, everything that Snowden leaked was standards and procedures made clear in the Patriot Act. If anyone in the public didn't know about what was going on, they simply weren't paying attention.

If the powers that be are embarrassed that someone merely says, "hey, there's a law that allows them to do this," and there's public outrage, then maybe there's a problem with the law.

Quote:
Seem like a lot of people think there are some good choices.


Pure propaganda.

Seems a lot of people don't recognize it if it bites them in the face.

Quote:
Than go ahead and make your argument that the government is quashing dissent. You also have the fact that Tyrants are almost always defind as working unrestrained by laws.


And I'll even give you that - because I'm also prepared to argue that passing laws that remove the restraints of prior laws and protections is functionally the same damn thing.

Quote:
...and here is the rant at the end to tie it all together. President Obama is not a tyrant or part of some authoritarian tyrannical machine. He is the President of a democratic republic who's government you disagree with.


Nice little strawman rant you put together at the end to tie it all together. Shame none of it is true and contradicted by all available evidence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:40 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
There is a lot more to being a tyrant than that. Routine beheadings for a particular racial class could be the law, but a leader who enforced that law would be a tyrant.


Yes there is more to it and yes beheadings could be part of the law. That being said you have not even come close to showing anything tyranical.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Riiiight, and you don't see the slightest problem with the military conducting these trials or determining appropriate lengths of imprisonment. I'm sure justice will be served.

And still doesn't counter my original point, which was that Obama did not close Gitmo.


I do see problems with it, they should be tried in civilian courts. However the new rules for such Tribunnal established them as fullfilling right under habeas corpus.

Obama does not have the power to unilaterly close it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hahaha, haha no. We don't have the backing of the Pakistan government there. We're pretty much doing whatever the hell we want at this point.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us
-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down?lite

And you still seem to be arguing that just because something is legal or just because there is consent (which there ISN'T in this case), it is legitimate and justifiable and exempted from being called tyranny. No.


Pakistan has been saying things like this for awhile. Do you forget that it was reveiled they had a secret agreement with the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-le
aders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

I would like to know what definition of tyranny you are using.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, U.S. bills and legislature are designated classified all the time. 9_9 Seriously, everything that Snowden leaked was standards and procedures made clear in the Patriot Act. If anyone in the public didn't know about what was going on, they simply weren't paying attention.

If the powers that be are embarrassed that someone merely says, "hey, there's a law that allows them to do this," and there's public outrage, then maybe there's a damn problem with the law.


I agree people should have known what was going on but what you claim here is false. That Patriot Act legislation outlines the athority for the programs but not how the programs were run.


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pure propaganda.


Citation Needed!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And I'll even give you that - because I'm also prepared to argue that passing laws that remove the restraints of prior laws and protections is functionally the same damn thing.


Okay than do it and stop talking about doing it. Make that argument.


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Nice little strawman rant you put together at the end to tie it all together. Shame none of it is true and contradicted by all available evidence.


Please look up strawman argument is.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:58 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:

Yes there is more to it and yes beheadings could be part of the law. That being said you have not even come close to showing anything tyranical.


Always the case with that word, it seems.

Folks - doing shit you don't approve of is not tyranny. They fact that you can complain so much with complete impunity proves this isn't a goddamned tyranny (nor was it under Bush).

Quote:
Please look up strawman argument is.


Another oft-misused term that people seem to think stands in for any argument they disagree with.


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:01 PM

BYTEMITE


In fact, let's break this last one down a little in regards to why it is frustratingly and insultingly wrong.

Quote:
...and here is the rant at the end to tie it all together.


Ad hominem

Quote:
President Obama is not a tyrant or part of some authoritarian tyrannical machine.


Lack of citations or supporting evidence, nor reciprocity in same-such.

Quote:
He is the President of a democratic republic


This requires further detail. Ignoring that we're mixing two terms from a dead language and an antiquated version of a modern language (if only because science does that all the time), you insist that our country is a democratic republic.

Democratic comes from democracy, or "rule by the demos," the ancient greek term for members of the Athens middle class. It introduced the concept of the popular vote.

Republic comes from "res publica" or "from the public", but I think we both would agree that it describes government by representatives even back in the days of Ancient Rome.

So if our system is a republic, and is from the public, and has representatives, who do those representatives represent?

Is it the middle class? The American "demos"? Is it? Of course! They vote for the representatives, don't they? So the representatives represent them!

Only not. Because the representatives represent corporations, lobbyists, and themselves instead.

Yep, totally a democratic republic.

Quote:
who's government you disagree with.


This is why it is a strawman. As if Obama is the ruler, and the government is his own, and my issue with the government is that it is HIS.

As if I wouldn't have a problem with any of the other LOSERS who have tried to be elected if they were in Obama's shoes. So who's government exactly would I agree with? John McCain's? Romney's? Hermann Cain? Hillary?

I'm not some uneducated cow standing around chewing on my own partisan potentially racist indoctrinization cud. Please remember that when you're arguing with me. Give me some credit please.

When I call Obama a tyrant it is not because I believe he is some lone actor. It is because I believe he is complicit in tyranny. Or, to be the most linguistically precise, an oligarchy. But there is precedence in referring to all participants in an oppressive oligarchy as tyrants, and the oligarchy itself as a form of tyranny.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:19 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
However the new rules for such Tribunnal established them as fullfilling right under habeas corpus.

Obama does not have the power to unilaterly close it.


Commander in Chief: "A commander-in-chief is the person or body exercising supreme operational command and control of a nation's military forces"

Military Tribunal: "system of justice overseen by the military of a country."

"supreme operational command and control"

Yeah. He does.

Quote:
Pakistan has been saying things like this for awhile. Do you forget that it was reveiled they had a secret agreement with the US.


A puppet government we installed that doesn't have the support of it's population waffles back and forth on whether they're mad at us or whether they have a secret agreement with us, because if they lean too pro-America they'll get killed by their own citizens, and if they lean too anti-America we'll knock them down.

That certainly means that predator drone operations in Pakistan are conducted with the consent of their government and as such are a legal and morally correct course of action.

Quote:
I agree people should have known what was going on but what you claim here is false. That Patriot Act legislation outlines the athority for the programs but not how the programs were run.


Fine then. Throw in FISA for the particular nuances and procedures. It's still all public record.

Quote:
-Pure propaganda.

Citation Needed!


If you want to go there, then okay, explain to me how a system constrained to two viable parties via economic pressures that constantly portray each other as pure evil and themselves as good is not a system based on propaganda.

Then explain to me how having member only caucuses choose candidates well before a popular vote that will be steeped in said propaganda such that voters will feel they can ONLY vote for the candidate of the party they don't hate constitutes ANY KIND OF CHOICE WHATSOEVER.

On some street corners in the country, you might see a person with an object, a ball maybe, that they put under a series of cups. You pay money, and the object is to try to guess which cup the object was placed under. The person running the game pulls all kinds of elaborate switching, and removing, and adding cups, to try to throw your guess off.

It is actually a trick. Because either the object was removed before you even had a chance to guess, or they are trying to deliberately manipulate you into making a particular choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Game

Quote:
Please look up strawman argument is.


It's what you did, because you decided your best chance for the argument was to portray me as a tea partier and/or a hick/dumbass/douchebag pick four. That or you just wanted to sneak in an insult and hope I wouldn't notice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Folks - doing shit you don't approve of is not tyranny.


Haha, oh if ONLY that were my only objection. Also strawman.

Quote:
They fact that you can complain so much with complete impunity proves this isn't a goddamned tyranny (nor was it under Bush).


No, that only proves that we are too insignificant, or that there is not enough dirt, for anyone to go after.

Snowden proves that we CAN'T complain so much with complete impunity, and proves it IS a tyranny. Other instances indicate the government was so under Bush, and has been probably since the 1950s.

Quote:
Another oft-misused term that people seem to think stands in for any argument they disagree with.


Wasn't misused. Nickerson was insinuating something about my objection to the government (that my only objection is Obama) that was not accurate. As it was a misrepresentation of my position intended as a stand-in for the convenience of Nickerson's argument rather my actual position, it was a strawman.

Rather like your insinuating that the only reason I would call Obama a tyrant is because I simply don't like his policies or him. Which if THAT'S what you got from this argument or from my comments in other threads, you haven't really been reading what I've been saying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:53 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What exactly won't happen?

It's not personal. It's just war.


Some how you think O-Care will " work itself out " and there won't be a colossal cluster fuck for the nation.

You really think that won't happen, or that it's not happening now ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall


You think it will unravel via not enough young people signing up?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:53 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What exactly won't happen?

It's not personal. It's just war.


Some how you think O-Care will " work itself out " and there won't be a colossal cluster fuck for the nation.

You really think that won't happen, or that it's not happening now ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall


You think it will unravel via not enough young people signing up?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:54 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Politics takes the form of tribal fights that feel to the participants like high-minded policy debates, but it is mostly just rationalization, just a search for supporting evidence. “The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington” www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/10/the-depressing-psy
chological-theory-that-explains-washington/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
“The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington”


Huh. I'm almost positive I read that somewhere before you posted.

EDIT: Yet reading it, it seems mostly unfamiliar. Perhaps I saw it referenced somewhere. It seems like I saw a Discover magazine blog post about something like this recently.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:10 PM

BYTEMITE




This particularly is fascinating, because it suggests that most people who identify as independent actually do have partisan bias.

I am sure there are people who don't change their minds from administration to administration, and so there is some overlap that the numbers don't show, but those numbers are still striking.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Seems the whole using the power of the federal govt to unduly target US citizens because of their political views is textbook definition of tyrannical.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seems the whole using the power of the federal govt to unduly target US citizens because of their political views is textbook definition of tyrannical.



Including, perhaps, "free speech zones" and the assertion that "if they are not with us, they are against us."

Not every tyranny has to be on The Hunger Games or the Taliban level of tyrannical in order to qualify. Sometimes tyranny is subtle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:32 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
In fact, let's break this last one down a little in regards to why it is frustratingly and insultingly wrong.

Quote:
...and here is the rant at the end to tie it all together.


Ad hominem

Quote:
President Obama is not a tyrant or part of some authoritarian tyrannical machine.


Lack of citations or supporting evidence, nor reciprocity in same-such.

Quote:
He is the President of a democratic republic


This requires further detail. Ignoring that we're mixing two terms from a dead language and an antiquated version of a modern language (if only because science does that all the time), you insist that our country is a democratic republic.

Democratic comes from democracy, or "rule by the demos," the ancient greek term for members of the Athens middle class. It introduced the concept of the popular vote.

Republic comes from "res publica" or "from the public", but I think we both would agree that it describes government by representatives even back in the days of Ancient Rome.

So if our system is a republic, and is from the public, and has representatives, who do those representatives represent?

Is it the middle class? The American "demos"? Is it? Of course! They vote for the representatives, don't they? So the representatives represent them!

Only not. Because the representatives represent corporations, lobbyists, and themselves instead.

Yep, totally a democratic republic.

Quote:
who's government you disagree with.


This is why it is a strawman. As if Obama is the ruler, and the government is his own, and my issue with the government is that it is HIS.

As if I wouldn't have a problem with any of the other LOSERS who have tried to be elected if they were in Obama's shoes. So who's government exactly would I agree with? John McCain's? Romney's? Hermann Cain? Hillary?

I'm not some uneducated cow standing around chewing on my own partisan potentially racist indoctrinization cud. Please remember that when you're arguing with me. Give me some credit please.

When I call Obama a tyrant it is not because I believe he is some lone actor. It is because I believe he is complicit in tyranny. Or, to be the most linguistically precise, an oligarchy. But there is precedence in referring to all participants in an oppressive oligarchy as tyrants, and the oligarchy itself as a form of tyranny.



Seems you also don't understand what Ad hominem means. That would be if I said you were wrong because you ranted, which I did not. I said your rant was wrong.

Second, you are claiming Obama is a tyrant so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Third, fine you want to mince difintions. The US is a republic still does not change my point.

...and forth, when I said who's government I was referring not to Obama but to the United States.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
However the new rules for such Tribunnal established them as fullfilling right under habeas corpus.

Obama does not have the power to unilaterly close it.


Commander in Chief: "A commander-in-chief is the person or body exercising supreme operational command and control of a nation's military forces"

Military Tribunal: "system of justice overseen by the military of a country."

"supreme operational command and control"

Yeah. He does.


Well except for the part were he does not have the athority to just set people down in other countries, nor leave them at a now empty military center, nor bring them to this country.

Plus your definition of Commander in Chief does not fit with the powers Obama has over the military. No matter what congress still has the power of the purse and can defund or prevent the military from spending money on certain things.

You fail at civics.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
A puppet government we installed that doesn't have the support of it's population waffles back and forth on whether they're mad at us or whether they have a secret agreement with us, because if they lean too pro-America they'll get killed by their own citizens, and if they lean too anti-America we'll knock them down.

That certainly means that predator drone operations in Pakistan are conducted with the consent of their government and as such are a legal and morally correct course of action.


Citation Needed!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Fine then. Throw in FISA for the particular nuances and procedures. It's still all public record.


Try again, FISA court documents are not public record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Survei
llance_Court

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If you want to go there, then okay, explain to me how a system constrained to two viable parties via economic pressures that constantly portray each other as pure evil and themselves as good is not a system based on propaganda.

Then explain to me how having member only caucuses choose candidates well before a popular vote that will be steeped in said propaganda such that voters will feel they can ONLY vote for the candidate of the party they don't hate constitutes ANY KIND OF CHOICE WHATSOEVER.

On some street corners in the country, you might see a person with an object, a ball maybe, that they put under a series of cups. You pay money, and the object is to try to guess which cup the object was placed under. The person running the game pulls all kinds of elaborate switching, and removing, and adding cups, to try to throw your guess off.

It is actually a trick. Because either the object was removed before you even had a chance to guess, or they are trying to deliberately manipulate you into making a particular choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Game


So no citation...thought not.

Political parties have been portraying other political parties as evil for longer than the US has existed. Of course that is propaganda, but there are also a lot of facts out there as well. So you can't say it is pure propaganda. More so when there are many times the side that spends the most money does not win.

Here you fail again forgetting that we have primaries. So the voters get to choose who is nominated by each party. Also voters are free to choose and vote for a third party canidate if they wish, they can even run themselves. Can people be swayed by proaganda, sure. Do they have to be, no. If they allow themsleves to be that is on them.


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It's what you did, because you decided your best chance for the argument was to portray me as a tea partier and/or a hick/dumbass/douchebag pick four. That or you just wanted to sneak in an insult and hope I wouldn't notice.


No I portrayed you as someone who wrote a rant, which you did. Than I picked apart your argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Seems you also don't understand what Ad hominem means. That would be if I said you were wrong because you ranted, which I did not. I said your rant was wrong.


It was an ad hominem because it attacked the credibility of the argument by labeling it a rant, which in the context and coupled with the tone of your post implied that it was a crazy rant.

I don't deny it's a rant, or claim that I'm NOT crazy, but I object to this particular argument being construed as crazy simply because of the manner in which I presented it.

Quote:
Second, you are claiming Obama is a tyrant so the burden of proof is on you, not me.


Seeing as how you actually did post a link previously in this argument, you must agree that for this argument sometimes you might need to provide evidence and citations.

Now if I said "you are wrong because you don't want to disprove my claim" THAT would be a logical fallacy, or if I said "I find this evidence you have presented insufficient, give me evidence that meets these new conditions" that would be moving the goalposts, but merely asking you to back up your arguments is neither.

Instead, it's asking you to respect the time I put into crafting my responses to you by demonstrating that you are willing to put equal time into your responses and research.

Quote:

Third, fine you want to mince difintions. The US is a republic still does not change my point.


If the representatives do not represent the public, it is not a republic. By definition. No mincing.

There are numerous other terms that more accurately describe such an arrangement.

Quote:
...and forth, when I said who's government I was referring not to Obama but to the United States.


...Hmm. It is possible I misunderstood then. I take back the strawman fallacy for you. My other points still stand.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:42 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Well except for the part were he does not have the athority to just set people down in other countries


Extradition and/or Repatriation.

This also gets into international standards and practices dealing with prisoners of war. None of the modern conventions I'm aware of allow for indefinite detention of prisoners of war with or without trial.

Quote:
nor leave them at a now empty military center, nor bring them to this country.


Granted.

Quote:
Plus your definition of Commander in Chief does not fit with the powers Obama has over the military.


It does. That's the definition of a commander in chief.

Quote:
No matter what congress still has the power of the purse and can defund or prevent the military from spending money on certain things.


Also granted. Let's see, now what did I say? "Obama is complicit in tyranny?" Doesn't that imply I think there's more than one person involved in perpetuating the tyranny?

Quote:

You fail at civics.


You are presumptuous, that simply because I have not exhaustively described every possible angle, that I lack understanding of the issue at hand.

Quote:
Citation Needed!


Fair enough, although this is pretty off-topic. Also, you have to read through the lines a little in order to get the entire picture.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/20/pakistan-musharraf
-bhutto-murder-case/2675459/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16542640

Quote:
At the heart of the rift is an anonymous memo which sought US help to avert a possible military coup in Pakistan following the killing by US forces of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden last May.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/husain-haqqani-pakistan_n_158
9235.html

Quote:
A judicial investigation has concluded Pakistan's former ambassador to the U.S. did write a secret letter to American officials requesting their help in reining in the powerful army last year, a lawmaker and state media said Tuesday.


Quote:
The United States was amongst the first nations to have established relations with Pakistan in late 1940s, but since then, relations have been centred around the United States' extensive economic, scientific, and military assistance to Pakistan.


Quote:
In 2001, US President George W. Bush pressured the government into joining the US war on terror.


Quote:
In 2003, the US officially forgave US$1 billion in Pakistani debt in a ceremony in Pakistan in turn for Pakistan joining the US 'war on terror'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations

We've been trying to prop up the Pakistani government against further military coup attempts (started by Musharaff himself, who was our guy from until about 2006) and Al-Qaeda friendly anti-India ISI forces for probably about a decade. This became particularly obvious in the initial staging for the War in Afghanistan. The Benazir Bhutto and Musharaff thing was a result of that hidden conflict reaching a head.

Our relationship with that government is souring, because it's a very frustrating situation with a lot of different factions involved. Hence why they're walking that tightrope line between kissing up to us and speaking out against us, trying to get the public support back, but not cast off the US entirely in case they still need help. We're being pretty passive aggressive right back, while meanwhile demanding that we get to continue hunting Al-Qaeda on the border, which is really unpopular with the public over there.

Quote:
Try again, FISA court documents are not public record.


That wasn't what I said. I said that the Patriot Act and FISA are public record, and that Snowden only really revealed what was already known through the bills themselves. I made no mention of FISA court documents, only FISA itself.

Quote:
So no citation...thought not.


It doesn't need one, especially since you apparently agree that the political system is based on propaganda (see below). It just needs critical thinking skills. Which you then began to apply, thankfully.

If you want a citation, the article that Two posted works wonders.

Here's a couple others, which I'm sure you'll find some objection to and demand more citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Econ
omy_of_the_Mass_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

http://folders.nottingham.edu.cn/staff/zlizrb/2008_IC_ICT/Resources/He
rman_2000.pdf

But frankly, I have made pretty clear how tired I am of you acting like everything I say is so full of it there's no possible way I could back it up. And when I decline to play that game with you because you don't reciprocate, it is somehow a measure of my insincerity or a flaw in my logic.

"Citation Needed." This isn't wikipedia. I snarked at you once already about this in this thread. While accuracy and fact-checking are important, if I have a question, I know how to perform a basic internet search function. If based on the information I get from that search I can make a counterpoint, then I make it.

Quote:
Of course that is propaganda


Thank you. That is all that is needed.

Quote:
So you can't say it is pure propaganda.


Of course you can. Even the "facts" are put through the spin machines. They are as much a part of the propaganda as the blatant lies.

Quote:
Here you fail again forgetting that we have primaries. So the voters get to choose who is nominated by each party.


After they have already been heavily screened out and pre-selected. With money as the primary determining factor of political capital and campaign success. And in many cases for the primaries, only voters registered to a particular party can vote.

Hence, the shell game analogy. If you start with five possible cups, and take away two, then narrow down to one, that is less choice, whether or not it is based on a vote by those who were present at the time of the voting. More than that, it's a forced choice, imposed, to continue the analogy, by the party shills. Divide and conquer. The end result is that everyone is less likely overall to get the candidate they would have originally chosen.

Quote:
Do they have to be, no.


They don't know any better. Of course they have to.

Quote:
No I portrayed you as someone who wrote a rant, which you did. Than I picked apart your argument.


You implied it was a crazy rant, and then proceeded to repeat your own position without any elaboration, neither of which construe picking apart my argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It was an ad hominem because it attacked the credibility of the argument by labeling it a rant, which in the context and coupled with the tone of your post implied that it was a crazy rant.

I don't deny it's a rant, or claim that I'm NOT crazy, but I object to this particular argument being construed as crazy simply because of the manner in which I presented it.


Rants can be credible arguments...nice try.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Seeing as how you actually did post a link previously in this argument, you must agree that for this argument sometimes you might need to provide evidence and citations.

Now if I said "you are wrong because you don't want to disprove my claim" THAT would be a logical fallacy, or if I said "I find this evidence you have presented insufficient, give me evidence that meets these new conditions" that would be moving the goalposts, but merely asking you to back up your arguments is neither.

Instead, it's asking you to respect the time I put into crafting my responses to you by demonstrating that you are willing to put equal time into your responses and research.


Sometimes I will, but you are claiming that Obama is an evil tyrant and part of a tyranical goverment. So for that you need to provide evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If the representatives do not represent the public, it is not a republic. By definition. No mincing.

There are numerous other terms that more accurately describe such an arrangement.


Each representative does represent the people that voted them in. So it is a republic.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:15 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Rants can be credible arguments...nice try.


You just said that your objection to my rant was because it was wrong, not because it was a rant.

However, I knew exactly what you were implying... Which you just confirmed. And that happens to be a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Sometimes I will, but you are claiming that Obama is an evil tyrant and part of a tyranical goverment. So for that you need to provide evidence.


A statement needs only to be sound and valid in order to be logical and plausible. In most internet arguments over matters of OPINION, it tends to be difficult to supply enough evidence to be 100% convincing to either party, and from personal experience with you, I know that to be particularly true. You have not really been addressing whether my statements are sound or valid or logical, but instead have been demanding evidence for EVERY SINGLE point, no matter how on topic or how much it contributes to the argument at hand.

That is a stall tactic, and also indicates that you will not engage on an equal level with me in terms of debate, so yeah, I'm going to call that out as frustrating, insulting, and not at all constructive.

Quote:
Each representative does represent the people that voted them in. So it is a republic.


I disagree. And I'm leaving it there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:41 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Extradition and/or Repatriation.

This also gets into international standards and practices dealing with prisoners of war. None of the modern conventions I'm aware of allow for indefinite detention of prisoners of war with or without trial.


That only works if their countries want them or they are not going to be killed when arriving home.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It does. That's the definition of a commander in chief.


Not according to the US Constitution.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Also granted. Let's see, now what did I say? "Obama is complicit in tyranny?" Doesn't that imply I think there's more than one person involved in perpetuating the tyranny?


Problem is Obama is trying to close Gitmo.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You are presumptuous, that simply because I have not exhaustively described every possible angle, that I lack understanding of the issue at hand.


It seems you do lack understanding.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Fair enough, although this is pretty off-topic. Also, you have to read through the lines a little in order to get the entire picture...

...We've been trying to prop up the Pakistani government against further military coup attempts (started by Musharaff himself, who was our guy from until about 2006) and Al-Qaeda friendly anti-India ISI forces for probably about a decade. This became particularly obvious in the initial staging for the War in Afghanistan. The Benazir Bhutto and Musharaff thing was a result of that hidden conflict reaching a head.

Our relationship with that government is souring, because it's a very frustrating situation with a lot of different factions involved. Hence why they're walking that tightrope line between kissing up to us and speaking out against us, trying to get the public support back, but not cast off the US entirely in case they still need help. We're being pretty passive aggressive right back, while meanwhile demanding that we get to continue hunting Al-Qaeda on the border, which is really unpopular with the public over there.


Pretty far from a puppet government we installed.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That wasn't what I said. I said that the Patriot Act and FISA are public record, and that Snowden only really revealed what was already known through the bills themselves. I made no mention of FISA court documents, only FISA itself.


If Snowden had simply leaked that the FISA court existed or that there were programs running as outlined in the Patriot Act we would not even be having this discussion. He leaked details regarding how the programs operated and documents from the FISA court. Information that was classified.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It doesn't need one, especially since you apparently agree that the political system is based on propaganda (see below). It just needs critical thinking skills. Which you then began to apply, thankfully.

If you want a citation, the article that Two posted works wonders.

Here's a couple others, which I'm sure you'll find some objection to and demand more citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Econ
omy_of_the_Mass_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

http://folders.nottingham.edu.cn/staff/zlizrb/2008_IC_ICT/Resources/He
rman_2000.pdf

But frankly, I have made pretty clear how tired I am of you acting like everything I say is so full of it there's no possible way I could back it up. And when I decline to play that game with you because you don't reciprocate, it is somehow a measure of my insincerity or a flaw in my logic.

"Citation Needed." This isn't wikipedia. I snarked at you once already about this in this thread. While accuracy and fact-checking are important, if I have a question, I know how to perform a basic internet search function. If based on the information I get from that search I can make a counterpoint, then I make it.


You said, pure propaganda and now based on propaganda. I disagree with both. The system is based on people voting for whom they wish to represent them. Yes people trying to get elected and the parties they are affiliated with use speech to try ans sway people to their side, which fits the difinition of propaganda. However taking such a broad difinition means that anything that comes after "Vote for me because..." is propaganda. Not to mention propaganda can also be facts.

Byte, I act as if the things you say can't be backed up because you make very broad statements and then try to back them up with flimsy "read between the lines" bullshit.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
After they have already been heavily screened out and pre-selected. With money as the primary determining factor of political capital and campaign success. And in many cases for the primaries, only voters registered to a particular party can vote.

Hence, the shell game analogy. If you start with five possible cups, and take away two, then narrow down to one, that is less choice, whether or not it is based on a vote by those who were present at the time of the voting. More than that, it's a forced choice, imposed, to continue the analogy, by the party shills. Divide and conquer. The end result is that everyone is less likely overall to get the candidate they would have originally chosen.


When we see primary fields of four or more canidates its hard to say heavily screened out and pre-selected. Even more so when often primary canidates that win are less likely to win in general elections. Hell, it's this primary system that causes problems within the two major parties. Often the party can't even present a unified front.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They don't know any better. Of course they have to.


Of course they don't. Unless you want to argue that only a few, like folks who post here, are immune.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You implied it was a crazy rant, and then proceeded to repeat your own position without any elaboration, neither of which construe picking apart my argument.


I never said or implied crazy. You seem to be adding those in yourself. You're right I did nto pick apart anything in that last paragraph, that was the rest of the post.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:08 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
That only works if their countries want them or they are not going to be killed when arriving home.


Yep, and that's what treaties are for.

If they are going to be accused of terrorism, if we intend to not hold them indefinitely, don't you think that the place for them to be tried is in the country where they supposedly committed their crimes by the standard of law that they culturally accept and where the evidence and witnesses are?

If some admit they were involved in terrorism, and they probably will because these guys believe being killed for that makes them martyrs, then everyone knows they're guilty. If it turns out some were just fighting because the Taliban or a warlord forced them, or they were falsely implicated by a neighbor with a grudge, they'll probably make that defense and that can be investigated. But one thing is for sure, they're probably not going to say one way or another to us.

Quote:
Not according to the US Constitution.


9_9

Quote:

U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 2.
Clause 1

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitu
tion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief

-_-

Quote:
It seems you do lack understanding.


Not even dignifying that with a response anymore. You're just baiting me.

Quote:
Pretty far from a puppet government we installed.


What a surprise, whatever evidence and logical progression I post is immediately dismissed by Nick. Surely I didn't foresee that in any way whatsoever. Which is precisely why I didn't try very hard.

Quote:
If Snowden had simply leaked that the FISA court existed or that there were programs running as outlined in the Patriot Act we would not even be having this discussion. He leaked details regarding how the programs operated and documents from the FISA court. Information that was classified.


Quote:
He leaked details regarding how the programs operated


Quote:
Snowden had simply leaked that the FISA court existed or that there were programs running


Pretty much what I was saying. What Snowden released was information about programs known as PRISM and MUSCULAR, which the operations, methods, and intentions of which were detailed in various legislation (including the Patriot Act and FISA) that gave the NSA and other intelligence agencies those powers.

He also released information that suggested that the United States, UK, and Germany were collaborating in internet datamining and intelligence gathering efforts. Also he released information that suggested we were spying on public officials and ambassadors of allies, also known as "diplomacy." Both of which can be summarily described as "well duh."

He did mention the existence of the court and the court orders. As far as I can tell there was only one single (very redacted) court order leaked, in regards to the the judge approving screening all the metadata that NSA had gathered. Which is also kinda painfully obvious, 'cause I mean what exactly are they going to do with all that data, sit on it? Print it out, make paper forts, play tabletop football?

It is possible however that he "stole" more orders than that, as he supposedly copied about 1.7 million files.

Hilariously, because of public backlash, the NSA and the FISA court are actually going to start declassifying some of their documents now.

Anyway. I have logical objections to the idea that something can be "confidential" if a hamster with brain damage could figure it out based on the public record.

Cites: Wikipedia or something, who cares anymore.

Quote:
However taking such a broad difinition means that anything that comes after "Vote for me because..." is propaganda.


Yep.

Quote:
Byte, I act as if the things you say can't be backed up because you make very broad statements and then try to back them up with flimsy "read between the lines" bullshit.


The read between the lines thing was for your benefit, because I knew exactly how you were going to dismiss the pakistan thing. It's actually flat out on the lines as opposed to in between them, but I wasn't going to bother getting into another argument about it because it's not even relevant.

Quote:
When we see primary fields of four or more canidates its hard to say heavily screened out and pre-selected. Even more so when often primary canidates that win are less likely to win in general elections.


Yeah, that's pretty much another example of what I'm saying in action. The more iterations of voting you have, the less chance each candidate has overall. Whether we're talking primaries or the general elections. Apparently we don't disagree there.

It's precisely why the party system is idiotic and mishandled. They band together for support and money making, but then dilute their chances for the actual elections. If there weren't parties and people just voted for individual campaigns, there'd still be corruption, but you wouldn't have this ridiculous dilution of choice. And you wouldn't have a system that could be manipulated by the leaders of the party for whatever they think is their best platform and strategy and candidate.

Quote:
I never said or implied crazy.


You did the moment you said "Rants can be credible arguments, nice try." But I didn't need you to say that for me to know what you were implying.

That IS reading between the lines, and I'm very good at it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:37 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Rants can be credible arguments...nice try.


You just said that your objection to my rant was because it was wrong, not because it was a rant.


Saying a rant *can* be a credible argument doesn't mean yours necessarily was.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL