• 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!

Who's talking about Sasha, Malia? It's dad, again

Redress said:
You are crying for a dad talking about his kids. How the **** are we supposed to take that seriously?
Click to expand...


I couldn't give two craps what you take seriously or not. Considering some of the vitriolic spew you have engaged in, in days past, you should be the least of those to object to anyone ranting about a President they don't like.....heh, heh....

But like I said, this isn't about what you think, what I think, or anything other than the tactic being used by Obama the liar....Care to discuss that, or carry on the attacks?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I couldn't give two craps what you take seriously or not. Considering some of the vitriolic spew you have engaged in, in days past, you should be the least of those to object to anyone ranting about a President they don't like.....heh, heh....

But like I said, this isn't about what you think, what I think, or anything other than the tactic being used by Obama the liar....Care to discuss that, or carry on the attacks?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Every single president has talked about his kids. Not a damn thing wrong with it. Making a big deal about it is proof that you can't argue substantive issues.
 
Redress said:
Every single president has talked about his kids. Not a damn thing wrong with it. Making a big deal about it is proof that you can't argue substantive issues.
Click to expand...

I will only direct you to Opportunity Cost's postings....You seem to be ignoring them like the rest of the liberal progressives in this thread.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I will only direct you to Opportunity Cost's postings....You seem to be ignoring them like the rest of the liberal progressives in this thread.

j-mac
Click to expand...

You are unable to speak for yourself? You have not presented any argument as to why this is any kind of big deal, and look to be just trying any classless attack you can come up with.
 
j-mac said:
I will only direct you to Opportunity Cost's postings....You seem to be ignoring them like the rest of the liberal progressives in this thread.

j-mac
Click to expand...

OC is discussing things in general, which is accurate. You are being willfully ignorant to the generalities and aiming your focus ONLY towards the left. This is why people are confronting you... and why people ALWAYS confront you. Like I always tell you. Don't like it? Don't do it.
 
Redress said:
You are unable to speak for yourself? You have not presented any argument as to why this is any kind of big deal, and look to be just trying any classless attack you can come up with.
Click to expand...


I see no reason to re word what OC has said quite correctly...Here, I will re post it for you, now read slowly....

Opportunity Costs said:
...every politician since politics began trots their family out on the stage. Very few of them bring them into a policy discussion or rationale for a policy....
Click to expand...

there I even highlighted the important part....Think you can address this?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I see no reason to re word what OC has said quite correctly...Here, I will re post it for you, now read slowly....



there I even highlighted the important part....Think you can address this?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Really? It is uncommon to use for example the argument that we have to do something so that the country is still great for our kids(or some variation thereof)?
 
Redress said:
Really? It is uncommon to use for example the argument that we have to do something so that the country is still great for our kids(or some variation thereof)?
Click to expand...

The only way to make that point is to use your children? Nah....not feelin' it....Sorry.

Oh, BTW, a little different context here but similar, when Bush would use 9/11 in speeches to evoke emotion in forwarding his policies like the patriot act, libs had a virtual cow! Oh the things said....I remember. Do you?


j-mac
 
Redress said:
Really? It is uncommon to use for example the argument that we have to do something so that the country is still great for our kids(or some variation thereof)?
Click to expand...


The other side of that coin is that if you have to drag your kids into a number of policy planks to shield your ideas with identity politics and it comes to the notice of Associated Press (arguably fairly friendly to the current President's policies), maybe its being over used. I dont think that any of the modern Presidents have particularly used their children as anecdotal evidence for policy decisions, although since you seem so strident about it being done, you could provide some evidence?

Going to repeat my points:
All candidates do it on the campaign trail. Its a given.
Its not evil, its just intellectually dishonest.
I dont think other Presidents have used this particular tactic overly much, I could be mistaken but I dont remember it.
Its identity politics instead of idea politics.

Liberal context twisters need not apply.
 
j-mac said:
The only way to make that point is to use your children? Nah....not feelin' it....Sorry.
Click to expand...

Of course you can't see it.

Oh, BTW, a little different context here but similar, when Bush would use 9/11 in speeches to evoke emotion in forwarding his policies like the patriot act, libs had a virtual cow! Oh the things said....I remember. Do you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

You can show what I said on the topic? Because I don't give a **** what others say, I am not responsible for their words.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The other side of that coin is that if you have to drag your kids into a number of policy planks to shield your ideas with identity politics and it comes to the notice of Associated Press (arguably fairly friendly to the current President's policies), maybe its being over used. I dont think that any of the modern Presidents have particularly used their children as anecdotal evidence for policy decisions, although since you seem so strident about it being done, you could provide some evidence?

Going to repeat my points:
All candidates do it on the campaign trail. Its a given.
Its not evil, its just intellectually dishonest.
I dont think other Presidents have used this particular tactic overly much, I could be mistaken but I dont remember it.
Its identity politics instead of idea politics.

Liberal context twisters need not apply.
Click to expand...

If we do not stop deficit spending, our kids will get stuck with the bill. That is just one example.
 
Redress said:
If we do not stop deficit spending, our kids will get stuck with the bill. That is just one example.
Click to expand...

"kids" as in generic....What specific child was any politician speaking of there....Sorry Fail!

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The only way to make that point is to use your children? Nah....not feelin' it....Sorry.

Oh, BTW, a little different context here but similar, when Bush would use 9/11 in speeches to evoke emotion in forwarding his policies like the patriot act, libs had a virtual cow! Oh the things said....I remember. Do you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

You really think the two are the same?


:2funny: :screwy
 
Boo Radley said:
You really think the two are the same?


:2funny: :screwy
Click to expand...


Why no, ofcourse not....liberals would never offer anything but the unbiased, unmitigated truth. In fact, all we need in this country is one infallible true democrat party. One that can never be questioned even when it fails. One that hold the principle of no corporations, no religion, no wealth inequality for anyone ever....And a unicorn in the back yard for the kiddies, if we don't abort them first.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Why no, ofcourse not....liberals would never offer anything but the unbiased, unmitigated truth. In fact, all we need in this country is one infallible true democrat party. One that can never be questioned even when it fails. One that hold the principle of no corporations, no religion, no wealth inequality for anyone ever....And a unicorn in the back yard for the kiddies, if we don't abort them first.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Going off wild won't help you J. The question was do you really believe they are the same?
 
j-mac said:
I think they are both appeals to emotion. So yes, they are similar.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, appeals to emotion, which in and of itself is not bad. But, think harder. Are they the same? Rate them.
 
j-mac said:
Good God, read the article from THE AP!!!! He is using his kids as political props, much like a coward does.
Click to expand...

CPH-reagan-family_e6_400.jpg


Well....... alright.
 
Redress said:
If we do not stop deficit spending, our kids will get stuck with the bill. That is just one example.
Click to expand...

Really. That seems more like an awareness. Because they are getting stuck with the bill. I guess you dont see it that way.
 
Hatuey said:
CPH-reagan-family_e6_400.jpg


Well....... alright.
Click to expand...

Once again for the people that didnt read the rest of the thread...EVERY politician does it on the campaign trail, doing it as part of policy rollout is a little more rare.
As I explained several times, read the damn thread next time.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Once again for the people that didnt read the rest of the thread...EVERY politician does it on the campaign trail, doing it as part of policy rollout is a little more rare.
As I explained several times, read the damn thread next time.
Click to expand...

This has to be the dumbest thread I've ever read.
 
I think the opposition ought to talk about Sasha and Malia and how repugnant it is that todays generation think nothing off continued reckless and irresponsible spending on their heads. Hey Sasha and Malia...Im very sorry, but your daddy presided over a government that doubled the entire national debt in his first four years and You have to pay for it. Vote out both parties...and do it for the children.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Something you would not need to do if your ideas were of good merit in and of themselves. Why can the ideas not just be discussed? Why bring his children into the mix of presenting a policy idea? Im saying we can discuss his idea on the face of it without anecdotal evidence from his children to shield the idea from some harsher criticisms. You have a 30 foot strawman running with your asinine statement that isnt close to what I said.

BTW...undisclosed? Not so much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't give a **** about what goes under my anonymous handle on an internet forum and won't waste my time filling them out. So you have a problem with that? Why don't you look to yourself if you want to see logical fallacies.

It's fine if you think Obama brings out his children because his arguements are weak, so do the politicians who use their sick children as emotional appeals by the same standard. But of course, it's too much to expect partisans like you to see above your own hypocrisy. Trying to make a distinction with no value like claiming that bringing children on stage is different from mentioning them in speeches about policies is just the same sort of partisan crap, as if people like Santorum or Palin don't mention their family all the time when talking about social policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom