Obama pro/con

[Nathan Poe]

Actually its more of a generalization, but you made the relativist fallacy basically, its okay for Obama to say the sotm says its okay to have gay marriage, but Republicans cannot make the same claim for anti-gay marriage.

Who says Repubs can't say so? Obviously, SoTM can't be both for and against gay marriage, so one's right and the other's wrong. Which is which -- that's what we debate about.

Ironic, your claiming logical fallacies even though you claimed a incorrect one, but then you do one.

Ironic that you just did what you called someone else out for... doubly ironic that you called them out for allegedly doing what they called someone else out for.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Killing live born babies, just to mention one

I keep forgetting that children are sacrosanct until they can put on a uniform.

Remember boys and girls, today's fetus is tomorrow's cannon fodder!

Let me refresh your history memory

Try doing it with a more reliable source -- perhaps one from this century?

Oh I don't know, China maybe

You really don't know. China makes billions of dollars in trade with us -- Richard Nixon's diplomatic steps with them was a high point of his presidency. It would be idiocy of Bushie proportions for them to go to war with us.

And please -- $59 billion? Chump Change.

His cutting of the defense systems of our country goes beyond nuclear weapons

Indeed -- let's look at his propsoed cuts -- in his own words:

"I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning and as president, I will end it."

No surprise there.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending"

I suppose you're among the pro-wasteful spending crowd, Mach?

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."

So he's not going to spend money we can't afford on gadgets that don't work against enemies we no longer have? Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe!

"I will not weaponize space."

Thus leaving us vulnerable against the newest member of the Axis of Evil -- the Klingons. You might have a point on this one, Mach.

"I will slow our development of future combat systems"

Ok, I'll admit that the way this one is worded confuses me, but I'll reserve judgement pending further information.

"And, I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending."

Limiting defense spending only to what is -- *gasp* necessary?!? Who does he think he is?

"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And, I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert; and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

And here's the "no more nukes" promise we were originally discussing. A noble enough goal, albeit unattainable.

So, what exactly was the problem again?

 

[Braunwyn]

I keep forgetting that children are sacrosanct until they can put on a uniform.

Remember boys and girls, today's fetus is tomorrow's cannon fodder!

I'm going to bookmark this post lol. Well said.

 

[MachZer0]

I keep forgetting that children are sacrosanct until they can put on a uniform.

Remember boys and girls, today's fetus is tomorrow's cannon fodder!

If that's the way you view children, I doubt if I can change your mind

Try doing it with a more reliable source -- perhaps one from this century?

Rome didn't fall in this century so providing a source from this century isn't necessary

You really don't know. China makes billions of dollars in trade with us -- Richard Nixon's diplomatic steps with them was a high point of his presidency. It would be idiocy of Bushie proportions for them to go to war with us.

And while trading with us, they've never talked about going to war with us, right?

And please -- $59 billion? Chump Change.

That's what we know about, and remember, we're talking about future threats

Indeed -- let's look at his propsoed cuts -- in his own words:

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."

Just so we're clear, until weapons systems are tested and refined, they are all unproven

So he's not going to spend money we can't afford on gadgets that don't work against enemies we no longer have? Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe!

"I will not weaponize space."

Thus leaving us vulnerable against the newest member of the Axis of Evil -- the Klingons.

Not to mention the Chinese

"I will slow our development of future combat systems"

Ok, I'll admit that the way this one is worded confuses me, but I'll reserve judgement pending further information.

There's noting confusing about it. He's willing to slow down weapons development. Gee, I wonder if other countries will do that as well

"And, I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending."

Bigger governemt. Yippee

Limiting defense spending only to what is -- *gasp* necessary?!? Who does he think he is?

Define necessary in regards to military spending

"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material.

So he wants to ban nuclear power plants. I wonder how he's going to power our nuclear aircraft carriers and subs

And, I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert; and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

Besides the fact that our ICBMs are not aon a hair trigger alert, Russian didn't seem to abide by those agreements the last time we tried them

 

[DieHappy]

Logical Fallacy - Strawman

Where does Senator Obama claim he is interpreting the Sermon on the Mount for all of Christianity.

Where does pepperoni say that he is?

His personal beliefs are that judgment is not the purview of government or social politics.

"I think that it is a legal right that they [homosexuals] should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount,"

He is saying that his decision is that the state should recognize homosexual unions because of the bible.
1) he is wrong
2) when did his supporters throw away their separation of church and state beliefs?
3) he is running for highest office in the land - he may not be trying to speak for Christianity, but he is hoping for the opportunity to speak for America.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If that's the way you view children, I doubt if I can change your mind

Good thing it isn't.

Rome didn't fall in this century so providing a source from this century isn't necessary

No, but I'd like to think the research on the Roman empire has improved in the last few centuries.

be satisfied that you've provided excellent sources for outdated information.

And while trading with us, they've never talked about going to war with us, right?

Rattling a Saber makes noise -- drawing it does not -- Russian proverb.

Anything to that talk besides bluster and hot air?

That's what we know about, and remember, we're talking about future threats

Gee, if only we had a reliable intelligence network to make sure what we "know" about is accurate -- something like, I don't know -- a Central Intelligence Agency?

Just so we're clear, until weapons systems are tested and refined, they are all unproven

So what needs testing? What, specifically, Is Obama planning to mothball, and how would this be detrimental to US security?

Not to mention the Chinese

not to mentiaon them at all -- we're talking about actual threats here.

There's noting confusing about it. He's willing to slow down weapons development. Gee, I wonder if other countries will do that as well

So we wait a few more years to get our Photon Torpeoes.

The Iraq quagmire has, if nothing else, shown that all our big bad killpower doesn't guarantee success. Trimming the fat off the military budge may mean a few less smart bombs, but if it results in a few more smart generals, I see that as a necessary trade-off.

Bigger governemt. Yippee

Accountability for my tax dollars. Yippee indeed.

Define necessary in regards to military spending

About one-third of what the Pentagon currently defines as necessary.

So he wants to ban nuclear power plants.

Or he wants to ban weapons-grade nukes.

I wonder how he's going to power our nuclear aircraft carriers and subs

By their nuclear reactors.

Besides the fact that our ICBMs are not aon a hair trigger alert, Russian didn't seem to abide by those agreements the last time we tried them

That Russia doesn't exist anymore. And can you establish that we abided by those agreements in Good faith last time?

 

[Nathan Poe]

He is saying that his decision is that the state should recognize homosexual unions because of the bible.

And on the 8th day, God said, "Let there be irony." And it was good.

1) he is wrong

How so?

2) when did his supporters throw away their separation of church and state beliefs?

About the same time his detractors did, it would seem. Wrapping oneself in sacred writings for political gain is as old as politics itself -- so is discarding those same sacred writings the instant they become inconvenient.

3) he is running for highest office in the land - he may not be trying to speak for Christianity, but he is hoping for the opportunity to speak for America.

Pretty much falls under the job description of POTUS. So what?

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

He apparently can't stand answering questions.

It looks like he lost his cool, too.

 

[Steezie]

Running late plus CONSTANT media attention for weeks on end no matter where you go...yeah he's got NO right to get upset.

How would YOU feel if you were chased ALL DAY EVERY DAY by the press? I dont fault people who get lots of media attention and loose their temper every now and then.

This is part of the reason I think it would be the worst punishment ever to make me famous. I'd be hittin' reporters all day long.

 

[Voegelin]

They didn't even get to ask him if the reports of Nation of Islam members on his staff are true.

This really isn't fair. A Republican candidate with similiar allegations out there would be asked everyday until he or she answered.

 

[Steezie]

They didn't even get to ask him if the reports of Nation of Islam members on his staff are true.

This really isn't fair. A Republican candidate with similiar allegations out there would be asked everyday until he or she answered.

Do you ever get tired of this conspiracy crap?

 

[Madcoil]

I concur. Barack Obama? More liek Barackenstein Jew-bama, amirite?

 

[JohnElias]

Do you ever get tired of this conspiracy crap?

Voeg is a soldier. It's like asking a Vietnam vet if they ever got tired of slogging through the mud. Actually, come to think of it, it's almost the opposite.

 

[Voegelin]

After Clinton's landslide in Ohio and win in Texas last night, the media will, piece by piece, deconstruct Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

All those "journalists" who were so infatuated with the Senator from Illinois fear what the Clinton machine will do to them should she win the Oval Office.

 

[Steezie]

After Clinton's landslide in Ohio and win in Texas last night, the media will, piece by piece, deconstruct Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

All those "journalists" who were so infatuated with the Senator from Illinois fear what the Clinton machine will do to them should she win the Oval Office.

Guess I got my answer there

 

[JohnElias]

After Clinton's landslide in Ohio and win in Texas last night, the media will, piece by piece, deconstruct Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

All those "journalists" who were so infatuated with the Senator from Illinois fear what the Clinton machine will do to them should she win the Oval Office.

Voeg... pardon my pitifully humble mind for thinking of calling you out in this one. But you first said that the media is going to deconstruct Barack Obama, which would be beneficial to Clinton. And then you said that the media is afraid of Clinton winning the Oval Office, which would imply that they'd try to give anybody else that victory. Those -seem- to be contradictory statements. I mean, usually your stuff is partisan rubbish... but this is contradictory partisan rubbish. This is an inexplicable new level for you.

 

[Voegelin]

But you first said that the media is going to deconstruct Barack Obama, which would be beneficial to Clinton. And then you said that the media is afraid of Clinton winning the Oval Office, which would imply that they'd try to give anybody else that victory. Those -seem- to be contradictory statements.

Might seem so to you but they are not. First of all the Clinton sycophants in the media will step up their attacks on Obama (some have been holding back). Secondly the press is craven. Reporters who have praised Obama will be falling all over themselves to ingrate themselves with the Clintons. Everyone will want to be the next Matthew Cooper, the next White House insider (should she win).

 

[marshlewis]

Voeg... pardon my pitifully humble mind for thinking of calling you out in this one. But you first said that the media is going to deconstruct Barack Obama, which would be beneficial to Clinton. And then you said that the media is afraid of Clinton winning the Oval Office, which would imply that they'd try to give anybody else that victory. Those -seem- to be contradictory statements. I mean, usually your stuff is partisan rubbish... but this is contradictory partisan rubbish. This is an inexplicable new level for you.

Voegelin partisan?. You know, now you point it out, he kind of is.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I still can't believe these primaries. It's such a tight race. I'm on the edge of my seat over here.

and some of us in Texas weren't offered the CHANCE to vote in the Dem primary.

 

[Voegelin]

The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=1
by Lauren Collins
March 10, 2008

Michelle Obama and the politics of candor.

. . . Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place . . . “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!” . . .

“The life that I’m talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl. . . . So if you want to pretend like there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy, I want to meet you!”

“You know,” she said, “in my household, over the last year we have just shifted to organic . . . Now we’re keeping, like, a bowl of fresh fruit in the house. But you have to go to the fruit stand a couple of times a week to keep that fruit fresh enough that a six-year-old—she’s not gonna eat the pruney grape, you know. At that point it’s, like, ‘Eww!’ She’s not gonna eat the brown banana or the shrivelledy-up things. It’s got to be fresh for them to want it. Who’s got time to go to the fruit stand? Who can afford it, first of all?” . . .

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_collins?currentPage=3