• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney electability advantage overstated?

obvious Child said:
The fact that the gov't forces businesses to do things they have no reason to get involved with. Okay, lets disect your claims here. 1) I have no problem with gov't regulating something like "arsenic dumping". When a business does something that harms others involuntarily, such as that, it should be regulated. 2) I have a problem with the FEDERAL gov't regulating workmans comp, yes. States should regulate it, and they do. Some states, (West VA comes to mind) have fully privatized their workers comp and it is a success.[/quote[

So you pick and choose what you think the Government should force business to do. Except when it comes to expanding rights and services, it's wrong to force them to do so?



Religion also teaches us that it's wrong for women to be teachers. I don't see you getting all fussy about that. Seriously, the whole "religion teaches" us argument is ENTIRELY CRAP as there are so many things we flagrantly ignore from all sorts of religions. Our economy is based on deliberately ignoring "thou shall not covet your neighbors' goods." The fundamental basis of our economy is based on pretending one of the 10 Commandments does not exist. The notion that because religion says so is a good argument highlights an almost immeasurable amount of hypocrisy by the person using the argument. You are basically creating your own religion by picking and choosing what you want to follow and what you want to ignore.



Obama

By your logic, it's wrong to force a coal company to buy sulfur scrubbers to prevent acid rain because they didn't want to. Hint: this is just an example to prove your argument is hypocritical.

What the hell is the IRT?



So you are saying that the Government should enforce a law that is questionably unconstitutional? A law that the Justice Department itself called unconstitutional?

U.S. Justice Department argues that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

You do realize that you are asking the President to essentially ignore the oath he gave no? By requiring him to require the Justice Department to enforce a law that goes against the very document he promised to uphold?



Well it's too late now.



Actually it prevents you from turning into an airborne projectile that can harm other people. People not wearing selt-belts have been thrown from cars before. By that reasoning given your previous pro-laws that prevent harm to others, you must agree with it as well. Or you are a hypocrite who picks and chooses what he wants without any form of consistency whatsoever. And to correct your asinine comment most people love laws that restrict people, as long as it goes along with their idea of right.



See above human projectile.



Only if you abandon logic entirely.
Click to expand...

I will post this and I'm done with you. People like you infuriate me on here because you hear what you want to hear.
1)The entire point of what I said In Regards To (thats IRT noob) businesses being forced to do things is the gov't should regulate things businesses do that harm others against their will. "Arsenic dumping" as you say fits that bill, no? This is the second time I've said this. Do you understand it now?
2) Religions cannot make people follow doctrine. That's the way it is. Where does it say women can't be teachers? Show me that. Coveting is looking upon what your neighbor has and wishing you could take his instead of earn yours. That's very different than what you say. Regardless, by your logic, the gov't can sit back and say "Well, that religion's followers don't really pay attention to the X part of their doctrine. They won't mind if we infringe upon it."
3) You're missing the entire point of why the POTUS should enforce a law. THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT PICK WHAT LAWS IT WANTS TO ENFORCE. Do you understand the road that leads down when the gov't is allowed to do that? Do you really? Or are you so blinded by your ideology that you don't care? Which is it?
4) Your projectile argument falls flat. I would like to see how many people have been killed or injured by flying bodies as a result of said flying body not wearing a seatbelt. Go ahead, find me some stats lol.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
obvious Child said:
I will post this and I'm done with you. People like you infuriate me on here because you hear what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious coming from a guy who I just demonstrated picks and chooses to follow what he wants to accept in religion and modifies his own policy acceptance when it so chooses him.

Class, can we spell HYPOCRITE?

1)The entire point of what I said In Regards To (thats IRT noob) businesses being forced to do things is the gov't should regulate things businesses do that harm others against their will. "Arsenic dumping" as you say fits that bill, no? This is the second time I've said this. Do you understand it now?
Click to expand...


I've been on online forums since 2003. And never have I ever seen anyone use IRT. I never contested that point. I just pointed out where you don't apply that because it doesn't fit your ideology rendering you a hypocrite. You call me a hypocrite yet you cannot prove it and you yourself change your own policies when it fits your argument. Therefore, you are a hypocrite. Not I.

2) Religions cannot make people follow doctrine. That's the way it is. Where does it say women can't be teachers? Show me that. Coveting is looking upon what your neighbor has and wishing you could take his instead of earn yours. That's very different than what you say. Regardless, by your logic, the gov't can sit back and say "Well, that religion's followers don't really pay attention to the X part of their doctrine. They won't mind if we infringe upon it."
Click to expand...

Wow, You don't even know your own religion!

"1 Tim. 2: 11. Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: 12. for I do not allow a woman to teach or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness.:"

And you are once again wrong on the coveting. It's called eBay. People put their goods up for sale, you covet them, you buy them. Furthermore, the existence of the good itself creates a desire within you to have one. If the neighbor did not have one, you would not want one because you would not know what it is. Get off the fail train and learn your own religion. Seriously. What is with religious fundies in failing to even understand their own religion? And no, that's not my logic. You seem to have a severely large problem understanding basic logic. My argument is that your religion says so is bull**** because you pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don't. We're suppose to stone adulterers. Do we? One man wrote a book about living Bilibcally for a year and it's ridiclous what he cannot do based on the bible.

A.J. Jacobs - The Year of Living Biblically

*sigh* the more religious you are, the less you seem to even know what your own religion says. You appear to be a perfect example.

3) You're missing the entire point of why the POTUS should enforce a law. THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT PICK WHAT LAWS IT WANTS TO ENFORCE. Do you understand the road that leads down when the gov't is allowed to do that? Do you really? Or are you so blinded by your ideology that you don't care? Which is it?
Click to expand...

*sigh* you are explicitly asking the POTUS to betray his oath when his own government is actively trying to get rid of a law deemed unconstitutional. You want him to enforce a unconstitutional law. Tell me how that fits with his oath to uphold the Constitution. You won't because you can't.

4) Your projectile argument falls flat. I would like to see how many people have been killed or injured by flying bodies as a result of said flying body not wearing a seatbelt. Go ahead, find me some stats lol.
Click to expand...

And now the fallacy of raising the bar comes out. Rather then actually admitting you are for laws that prevent the injury of others, now it's how many people were injured. Typical dishonest argument. I met your standard only for you to raise the standard. We see this in people who don't actually believe what they say. And considering your stupid religious argument, it's no wonder that you will resort to such dishonest tactics when your criteria are met. You pick and choose what you want to follow in your religion, why wouldn't you pick and choose when your standards magically rise to new levels of evidence?

And I guess people who rely on fallacies and don't understand logic get annoyed when people start pointing them out.

And you cowardly ran away from showing how expanding optional services and rights equates to a social authoritarian moral code that criminalizes what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
This is hilarious coming............ the privacy of their own homes.
Click to expand...

Hey look, another thread I post in that obvious Child has found me in! How many more are you looking for that you can "grind me into hamburger" in? There's gotta be a forum rule against creepers finding every thread you post in and trolling it. Of course, I guess you avoid that by copy and pasting wikipedia quotes to make it look as though you are debating.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Hey look, another thread I post in that obvious Child has found me in! How many more are you looking for that you can "grind me into hamburger" in? There's gotta be a forum rule against creepers finding every thread you post in and trolling it. Of course, I guess you avoid that by copy and pasting wikipedia quotes to make it look as though you are debating.
Click to expand...

Oh look. Marine once again can't address rebuttals.

It's hilarious you think you can discuss religion without understanding your own.
 
obvious Child said:
I suspect this guy is used to intimidating people into backing down. He's in for a real wake up call here. Internet thuggery doesn't get you far when it's brains not brawn that decides who wins.
Click to expand...

At least he handled in a mature way...........

MarineTpartier said:
I will post this and I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

................
 
Catawba said:
I noticed............
I don't doubt that! ;)
Click to expand...

You know, I expected crap like this out of obvious Child. He's exactly what his user name says he is. But you and I have had many honest debates that have been civil and polite. Very disappointing to say the least.
 
obvious Child said:
I suspect this guy is used to intimidating people into backing down. He's in for a real wake up call here. Internet thuggery doesn't get you far when it's brains not brawn that decides who wins.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you lose fights here too?
 
MarineTpartier said:
You know, I expected crap like this out of obvious Child. He's exactly what his user name says he is. But you and I have had many honest debates that have been civil and polite. Very disappointing to say the least.
Click to expand...

OC was correct. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
 
Catawba said:
OC was correct. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Click to expand...

Correct about what? And no, it doesn't hurt my feelings lol. You two are aware I went through Marine Recruit Training right? Pretty sure there's nothing you guys could call me, say about me, or do to me that would trump one second of that. This is an internet forum, after all, and I don't take myself or it so seriously that I let a guy of his caliber get under my skin. Like I said though, a troll like him doesn't bug me. Someone who has, in the past, debated me honestly and then turns on a dime because they fall for the hyperbole? Thats pretty sad. I've actually directed others to debate you instead of idiots like Thunder. Seems I made a mistake. No worries though. If thats the level of debate you seek, thats your perogative.
 
obvious Child said:
This is hilarious coming from a guy who I just demonstrated picks and chooses to follow what he wants to accept in religion and modifies his own policy acceptance when it so chooses him.
Click to expand...
Actually you just demostrated that I believe in exactly what my choice of political party believes in. The right of states to govern more than they do now. States rights have gone to the wayside. I argued the Fed should be less involved. I argued that states should run, as they do, workmans comp. I also showed that some states would do what is best, and privatize it. So what exactly do you think you proved? That I believe states should govern more than they should? Okay, guilty as charged.

obvious Child said:
Wow, You don't even know your own religion!
"1 Tim. 2: 11. Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: 12. for I do not allow a woman to teach or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness.:"
Click to expand...
For fear of making this post even more unwieldly, I will just post a link you can read to better explain what you said. Notice though, I didn't just cut and paste the words of the link. I actually posted it and gave the credit to the person who wrote it.
The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 « christian feminism

obvious Child said:
And you are once again wrong on the coveting. It's called eBay. People put their goods up for sale, you covet them, you buy them. Furthermore, the existence of the good itself creates a desire within you to have one. If the neighbor did not have one, you would not want one because you would not know what it is. Get off the fail train and learn your own religion. Seriously. What is with religious fundies in failing to even understand their own religion? And no, that's not my logic. You seem to have a severely large problem understanding basic logic. My argument is that your religion says so is bull**** because you pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don't. We're suppose to stone adulterers. Do we? One man wrote a book about living Bilibcally for a year and it's ridiclous what he cannot do based on the bible.
Click to expand...
First, your mistaken in the definition of covet, according to the Bible. The definition you chose to use, I imagine so that you could make this point, is this. Covet: to wish for earnestly. Yes, according to that definition you would be right. Unfortunately for you, this is not the definition the Bible is utilizing. It is using this, Covet: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably. Those are two very different meanings to the same word. A larger flaw in your argument is this. If I covet my neighbors wife, how would I purchase that on ebay? If I covet my neighbors dog, how would I go about getting it on ebay?
As far as stoning adultresses, you are again mistaken. First, we do not live by OT laws anymore. If we did, Christians would still be sacrificing animals. We live by NT laws. And in John 7:53-8:11 Jesus clearly denounces the practice of stoning adulterous women. That it occurred in the NT shows the "law", as you call it, we are to follow.

obvious Child said:
*sigh* you are explicitly asking the POTUS to betray his oath when his own government is actively trying to get rid of a law deemed unconstitutional. You want him to enforce a unconstitutional law. Tell me how that fits with his oath to uphold the Constitution. You won't because you can't.
Click to expand...
So, by your assessment, our gov't mearly needs to attempt to get rid of a law and they can stop following it, enforcing it, or defending it? Thats dangerous territory brother. Doesn't matter if you or Obama or anyone else THINKS its unconstitutional. It was passed, by proper channels, into law and should be enforced. Someone, at some point, thought it was constitutional. That a POTUS can pick and choose what is or is not constitutional is ridiculous and merely rhetoric to support your bloviating on this thread.



obvious Child said:
And now the fallacy of raising the bar comes out. Rather then actually admitting you are for laws that prevent the injury of others, now it's how many people were injured. Typical dishonest argument. I met your standard only for you to raise the standard. We see this in people who don't actually believe what they say. And considering your stupid religious argument, it's no wonder that you will resort to such dishonest tactics when your criteria are met. You pick and choose what you want to follow in your religion, why wouldn't you pick and choose when your standards magically rise to new levels of evidence? And I guess people who rely on fallacies and don't understand logic get annoyed when people start pointing them out. And you cowardly ran away from showing how expanding optional services and rights equates to a social authoritarian moral code that criminalizes what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.
Click to expand...
I won't even entertain a statement that attempts to call me stupid, my religion and beliefs stupid, or me a coward. That a tax agent thinks he can call a Marine a coward is beyond comedic.:lamo I'd say it verges on hilarious and ridiculous. Man, there's that arrogance again that you hate so much. You know, its just kind of ingrained in us.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So what you're saying is you lose fights here too?
Click to expand...

On occasion. I generally stick to subjects I have researched enough to ensure that I will win on a factual basis.

It really pisses off people like Marine and Mr. V that I'm smarter then they are and I know it.

I'm having way to much fun tweaking Marine. He creates his own fail. I can't even setup traps that good. He makes them himself and walks right into them! It's HILARIOUS.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Actually you just demostrated that I believe in exactly what my choice of political party believes in. The right of states to govern more than they do now. States rights have gone to the wayside. I argued the Fed should be less involved. I argued that states should run, as they do, workmans comp. I also showed that some states would do what is best, and privatize it. So what exactly do you think you proved? That I believe states should govern more than they should? Okay, guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

One must question if you can read properly after you what you replied to.

By the way, didn't you say you were done here? Can we spell "liar" class?

For fear of making this post even more unwieldly, I will just post a link you can read to better explain what you said. Notice though, I didn't just cut and paste the words of the link. I actually posted it and gave the credit to the person who wrote it.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really do have absolutely no shame do you? Anyone can go find some interpretation of any part of the bible they want to fit their agenda. Furthermore, the quote I cited has been in existence for a very long time and in numerous accepted versions of the Bible. But it makes sense that someone like you who has no moral internal consistency whatsoever will pick and choose what he wants to believe when he wants to believe based on when it is suitable for him to believe it.

First, your mistaken in the definition of covet, according to the Bible. The definition you chose to use, I imagine so that you could make this point, is this. Covet: to wish for earnestly. Yes, according to that definition you would be right. Unfortunately for you, this is not the definition the Bible is utilizing. It is using this, Covet: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably. Those are two very different meanings to the same word. A larger flaw in your argument is this. If I covet my neighbors wife, how would I purchase that on ebay? If I covet my neighbors dog, how would I go about getting it on ebay?
As far as stoning adultresses, you are again mistaken. First, we do not live by OT laws anymore. If we did, Christians would still be sacrificing animals. We live by NT laws. And in John 7:53-8:11 Jesus clearly denounces the practice of stoning adulterous women. That it occurred in the NT shows the "law", as you call it, we are to follow.
Click to expand...

Now THIS IS SOME GOOD ****. Now only YOU get to define what specific words in the Bible mean to suit your argument when you want. How utterly convenient. When the regular, accepted definition doesn't happen to suit your beliefs, you get to unilaterally change the definition to suit your belief. Seriously, that's a sign of absolutely no moral internal consistency whatsoever. I take it you're a Romney fan? Furthermore, women are not goods. Well, considering your others posts you do consider women to be property, but to the rest of the world, that isn't the case. So using an example of non-goods as a reason why my argument on goods is stupid is in itself incredibly idiotic. As for bet, people buying each other's pets or similar pets, litter mates, or resorting to cloning all exist in today's market. A few companies exist when you could buy a cell from the pet you want, get it inserted in a donor egg and have the pet cloned for you. Costs about $15,000 to $20,000. And there goes your another asinine attempt at a rebuttal. Seriously, it's time for you to just give up.

And apparently you think Jews don't exist anymore. I honestly couldn't set you up for greater fail then you already set yourself up for. Jews are not bound by the NT. Really, how did you utterly fail to recognize that? Nor are Muslims, both of which exist in sizable numbers in America. Do we let those not bound by the NT stone adulterous? No. You Are Wrong As Usual. Get use to being wrong. And get used to people pointing it out.

So, by your assessment, our gov't mearly needs to attempt to get rid of a law and they can stop following it, enforcing it, or defending it?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by attempt. Getting rid of other clearly discriminatory laws against gays such as DADT and federal rules aganist giving gays many of the same benefits as straights suggests this isn't a mere attempt but a systematical removal of a discriminatory set of laws that serves nothing more then social authoritarian moral purposes. The government is not merely saying it's Unconstitutional. It's stripping away other anti-gay laws.

Thats dangerous territory brother. Doesn't matter if you or Obama or anyone else THINKS its unconstitutional. It was passed, by proper channels, into law and should be enforced. Someone, at some point, thought it was constitutional. That a POTUS can pick and choose what is or is not constitutional is ridiculous and merely rhetoric to support your bloviating on this thread.
Click to expand...

See above Fail Train.

I won't even entertain a statement that attempts to call me stupid, my religion and beliefs stupid, or me a coward. That a tax agent thinks he can call a Marine a coward is beyond comedic.:lamo I'd say it verges on hilarious and ridiculous. Man, there's that arrogance again that you hate so much. You know, its just kind of ingrained in us.
Click to expand...

Considering you got annihilated once again and you are cowardly running away from your original arguments, you got nothing left.

And I didn't argue that Jews don't exist in America. You did. I'll let others consider if you are stupid or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom