Page 136 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3686126134135136137138146 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,360 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1351
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Il. Politicians in jail....

    "Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich (D) was charged with conspiracy to commit mail, wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. He was impeached and removed from office by 59-0 votes of the Illinois Senate.(January 28, 2009)[74] On August 17, 2010, he was convicted on just one of 24 federal charges.[75] In a retrial in 2011, he was found guilty on 17 other counts and sentenced to 14 years in prison.[76][77][78][79]

    Illinois Governor George H. Ryan (R) illegal sale of government licenses and contracts as Secretary of State and as Governor. He was convicted of 18 counts of corruption. (2006) [80]

    State Representative James DeLeo (D) caught in the "Operation Greylord" investigation of corruption in Cook County. He was indicted by a federal grand jury for taking bribes and negotiated guilty plea on a misdemeanor tax offense, and was placed on probation (1992)

    State Representative Joe Kotlarz (D) convicted and sentenced to jail for theft and conspiracy for pocketing in about $200,000 for a sale of state land to a company he once served as legal counsel (1997)

    State Senator Bruce A. Farley (D) sentenced to 18 months in prison for mail fraud (1999)

    State Senator John A. D’Arco Jr. (D) served about 3 years in prison for bribery and extortion (1995)

    Illinois Governor Daniel Walker (D) was convicted of improprieties stemming from loans from a Savings and Loan. He served 18 months in prison. (1987) [188][188] The First American Savings & Loan Association of Oak Brook was declared insolvent with a deficit of $23 million[189]

    Illinois Attorney General William J. Scott served from 1968 until 1982 when he was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to a year in prison.[190]

    Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, Jr. (D) After serving two terms, Kerner was appointed to the Seventh District Court when he was convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and related charges. (1973) [197] He was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Faced with impeachment, he resigned his position on the federal bench on July 22, 1974.[197][198]

    Illinois State Auditor (comptroller) Orville Hodge (R) embezzled more than $6 million and was indicted for on 54 counts including conspiracy, forgery and embezzling. He was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison.[206][207]"

    List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yeah, real bunch of angles those Illinois politicians.....

    Beautiful example of inductive reasoning. Make a claim, and then list a bunch of cases to support your claim. And, That makes it true? Unfortunately, no.e Inductive reasoning NEVER proves a theory. For the simple reason that you can't possibly know all of the Illinois politicians. What you have is a general statement. But not a true statement. You're making a Sweeping Generalization.

    Example

    (1) Children should be seen and not heard.
    (2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
    Therefore:
    (3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard.



    A deductive syllogism would look like this

    Premiss 1. All Illinois politicians are corrupt
    Premiss 2. Obama is an Illinois politician
    Therefore:
    conclusion: Obama is corrupt.

    That would be infallibly true, IF, and only if the premises' are true. Premiss 1 is not a true statement. Premiss 2 is true. But the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You have to assume the truth of the 1st premiss, which can't be demonstrated as true. The samples that you offer are too small in comparison to all the politicians in Illinois. You're offering a Sweeping Generalization. Which is a logical fallacy.

    Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of starting out with one or more general statements and examining the possibilities to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using one or more premises that are accepted and true to reach a conclusion that is also true.

    Inductive reasoning is the polar opposite of deductive reasoning and is not generally accepted in science. While deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific, induction takes an idea from the specific to the general. This goes against the principles of the scientific method.

    Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: Seventy-five percent of humans have brown eyes. John is a human. Therefore, John has brown eyes. That logic doesn’t work in the scientific method because it would be false 25 percent of the time.

    Deductive reasoning involves a hierarchy of statements or truths. In the process of deductive reasoning, scientists start with a limited number of simple statements or assumptions and build to more complex ones as the scientific method progresses.

    Another form of deductive reasoning is the law of syllogism, (shown above) in which the conclusion is supported by two premises. This form of deductive reasoning typically takes on the format All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.

    So...in conclusion, the list of corrupt politicians in Illinois which you cited has nothing to do with Obama, unless perhaps you could prove otherwise? I don't think that case has been made. So your list isn't relevant regarding Obama.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #1352
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think everyone, including some of the MSM forecasters, couldn't quite believe that the people could be so down right stupid as to re elect such an empty suit, anti capitalist, anti traditional American president that had really done little to improve this country, and in fact divided it more, if that was even possible after the stink liberals made the entire Bush terms.....So congrats, we are in decline, and liberals cheer it.
    Nope. Not the case. All of the major polls showed that Obama was winning the battleground states, and your charactorization of the people an the president they elected is noted. Perhaps it was...they just don't like you and what you stand for. Yeah! That's probably it. He's hardly anti-Capitalist when Wall Street is enjoying record profits and the Dow is over 14,000. As for tradition; appeals to tradition are illogical. Nobody really gives a crap about what you consider "tradition". There is NO logical reason to accept tradition as a governing law. Just because things were done a certain way, doesn't mean that way was right.

    and in fact divided it more,
    He divided it?? No. You've always hated him. It was divided before he set foot in the White House. It's hard to bring the country together when there are a bunch of people that hate you for who you are. That's why you lost. Haven't you figured that out yet?? Why else would the guy get elected with unemployment near 8%? People could see the irrational hate. And the haters, would always point at him, and claim it was him that was divisive. Classic projection.

    if that was even possible after the stink liberals made the entire Bush terms.....
    Yeah, well...9/11, two unfunded wars, inaction on Katrina, and crashing the US economy will do that to people.

    So congrats, we are in decline, and liberals cheer it.
    No we aren't. Haven't you heard? We're in recovery from the recession that you started. That was decline. Domestically and internationally. We're cleaining up your mess. You created it. Dont tell us how to fix what you wrecked. You have no credibility now.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  3. #1353
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Besides being the point, I guess it doesnt.



    Its called I can post whatever I want. Get used to it. You and Fenton havent even been here long enough to qualify for "all the time". Your outrage seems rather selective at this point, but then you seem to engage in a lot of passive agressive behavior.



    So, yeah you pointed it out. So I have to as well? No, Im going to do what I want, quit crying about it.


    Anyone can be wrong, including me. Some of us accept it more gracefully and can own up to it more readily than you seem to be able to. Again, you seem to be projecting with this one, as you have a lot more invested in being right.



    Modern conservatism and the evolution and movements it has had as recently as Goldwater change the makeup, goals and drives of conservatism.





    Attachment 67143346





    None of which squares with Democrats or Progressives becoming the party of government. Government is an institution, liberalism is using that institution. Keep playing that race card, three plays in one post in three paragraphs! Woot. You miss a very essential point about establishment Democrats and Republicans---they are not wedded to either conservatism or progressivism, they are after power. Both parties are infested with power mongering fools that do not act in anyone's self interest. Which is an effective argument for smaller government, the less power they can wield, the harder it is for them to use it to accumulate more and hang onto what power they have. Thats the smaller government side of conservatism.



    Checking....yeah, Im gonna post whatever I want. You need to get over the control issues you have with how and why other people post. Its not your forum, you are not going to convince people to do it your anal retentive way, so quit weeping about it.

    Besides being the point, I guess it doesnt.
    It wasn't the point. The Kitchen Sink was the point. It was the entire subject of this nonsense. Your timeline is an absurd secondary consideration that's irrelevant. If I spill milk and you complain, and then another guy spills milk and you don't, and the only difference is that you and I disagree, and you and the other guy always agree...you are being biased, partisan, and hypocritical. The timing of the spilling makes no difference because the subject is not, nor ever has been the timing. The subject has been the spilt milk. We were never arguing over timing. We were arguing over the Kitchen Sink. That was the topic of discussion.

    Its called I can post whatever I want. Get used to it.
    Actually it's called hypocrisy and I think you're smart enough to know it. Right now, you're arguing for arguments sake.

    So, yeah you pointed it out. So I have to as well? No, Im going to do what I want, quit crying about it.
    I'm shedding no tears. I'm calling it what it is. Hypocrisy.

    Anyone can be wrong, including me. Some of us accept it more gracefully and can own up to it more readily than you seem to be able to. Again, you seem to be projecting with this one, as you have a lot more invested in being right.
    Well. That's good to know. If you can be wrong, then it's possible that you could be wrong about a host of things. You could be wrong about Liberals. You could even be wrong about your own conservatism. In fact, you'd have to admit, that a fallible man cannot create an infallible idea. If he could, we wouldn't have so many versions of Windows would we? They'd have gotten it right the first time. You'd also have to admit that our very own constitution was fallible and had holes in it that needed filling over time to address things that no fallible man could think of.

    Some of us accept it more gracefully and can own up to it more readily than you seem to be able to.
    I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?

    A liberal doesn't have that problem, because he's really not committed to any one thing. Except the truth. We aren't big on beliefs in case you haven't noticed. Things change. That's reality, and change is what defines a liberal. He accepts that, and works with reality as it is. Not as he thinks it should be to fit some traditional way of thinking.

    Modern conservatism and the evolution and movements it has had as recently as Goldwater change the makeup, goals and drives of conservatism.
    Not really. I don't know about you, but I was around when Goldwater was running. His conservatism comes from Kirk. So does Reagans and Buckleys. But Kirk's comes from Edmund Burke. I'm very well read on Burke, and I can go on for quite a while on his ideas and how they influenced Kirk and the others. Todays conservatives are nothing like those that began the movement. It hasn't evolved. Its devolved. It's turned so far right that it's extremisn is rejected by the people. Today's Tea Party Conservatives are set on destroying the US Government and they happen to control the Republican Party. We don't want that to happen. So...there's your divide. We elect people to govern. The Teaparty Republicans have no interest in governing. The hate the government and want to bring it down. We aren't going to let that happen.

    As for the picture of Sharpton, did you not notice that sig on the bottom? Ya know...claiming that somebody is playing the "race card" when the other person is employing racist motives is bogus. Are you suggesting that racism is all gone in America??

    [QUOTE]None of which squares with Democrats or Progressives becoming the party of government.[/QUOTE

    Funny thing about being the party of government. When blacks needed to be able to attend schools, it took the government to make that happen. When they wanted to vote, it took the government to make it happen. Without the government there to protect the rights of those that are treated less than equal in the eyes of the law, people would still be denied access to the basic American economy. The government is what stands in the way of all out segregation and civil rights violations. Left to their own devices...do you honestly think that the South would have desegregated? Conservatives fought against that. They're even going to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to try and overturn section 5 of the Voting Rights act, which was in place for most of the conservative southern states notorious for violating the rights of people to vote. Does that give you any idea of why most blacks want nothing to do with conservatism? It doesn't like them. And they know it.

    Government is an institution, liberalism is using that institution.
    Sure. You could say that. But it serves a useful purpose and it's subject to change according to who runs it. We use government to move us into the 21st Century. We use it to invest in America in order to compete with the rest of the world. And we use it to insure the rights of people right here.

    Keep playing that race card, three plays in one post in three paragraphs! Woot.
    Quit trying to portray the president is the "other", not from here, not American, and you won't have that thrown back at you. You know that racism is alive in America, and we know that the history of conservatism is embedded to racism. We have a president right now. What is it about him that is different from the other 43? And if there are racists out there, then who do you think would be the target of their hatred? The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

    African-Americans are fully aware of this attitude coming from conservatives, which is why so few align themselves to this ideology. Conservatives talk about trying to reach out to the African-American community, but fail to understand that nobody wants to hang with people that hate you. They're only doing it to get votes. Blacks understand the source of this hatred, and are not likely to embrace it. Until conservatism renounces racism and purges racists from the Republican Party, they’ll never reach the African-American in any significant numbers.

    In 1980, Ronald Reagan began his campaign, not with a speech on supply side economics. He began it with a speech supporting “states rights” just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair, the very community where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. This was a deliberate appeal to white racists that he was on their side and was part of a Republican strategy going back to the 1960’s to build a conservative majority on the basis of racism.

    This is not a way to attract blacks to the conservative movement. But that was never the intention. The conservative isn’t looking to appeal to Blacks. They’re looking to suppress them.

    I found this an outrageous move on the part of Ronald Reagan. Of all the locations in the United States to launch a campaign…he picks this one? What did he think that would say to the African American community? It’s pretty clear whose votes he was courting.

    you are not going to convince people to do it your anal retentive way, so quit weeping about it.
    Carefull. You don't want to be dinged for baiting do you? Or is that a personal attack? Maybe both, I'm sure the Mods could decide that.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1354
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,802

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=Adagio;1061508419]It wasn't the point. The Kitchen Sink was the point. It was the entire subject of this nonsense. Your timeline is an absurd secondary consideration that's irrelevant. If I spill milk and you complain, and then another guy spills milk and you don't, and the only difference is that you and I disagree, and you and the other guy always agree...you are being biased, partisan, and hypocritical. The timing of the spilling makes no difference because the subject is not, nor ever has been the timing. The subject has been the spilt milk. We were never arguing over timing. We were arguing over the Kitchen Sink. That was the topic of discussion.



    Actually it's called hypocrisy and I think you're smart enough to know it. Right now, you're arguing for arguments sake.



    I'm shedding no tears. I'm calling it what it is. Hypocrisy.



    Well. That's good to know. If you can be wrong, then it's possible that you could be wrong about a host of things. You could be wrong about Liberals. You could even be wrong about your own conservatism. In fact, you'd have to admit, that a fallible man cannot create an infallible idea. If he could, we wouldn't have so many versions of Windows would we? They'd have gotten it right the first time. You'd also have to admit that our very own constitution was fallible and had holes in it that needed filling over time to address things that no fallible man could think of.



    I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?

    A liberal doesn't have that problem, because he's really not committed to any one thing. Except the truth. We aren't big on beliefs in case you haven't noticed. Things change. That's reality, and change is what defines a liberal. He accepts that, and works with reality as it is. Not as he thinks it should be to fit some traditional way of thinking.



    Not really. I don't know about you, but I was around when Goldwater was running. His conservatism comes from Kirk. So does Reagans and Buckleys. But Kirk's comes from Edmund Burke. I'm very well read on Burke, and I can go on for quite a while on his ideas and how they influenced Kirk and the others. Todays conservatives are nothing like those that began the movement. It hasn't evolved. Its devolved. It's turned so far right that it's extremisn is rejected by the people. Today's Tea Party Conservatives are set on destroying the US Government and they happen to control the Republican Party. We don't want that to happen. So...there's your divide. We elect people to govern. The Teaparty Republicans have no interest in governing. The hate the government and want to bring it down. We aren't going to let that happen.

    As for the picture of Sharpton, did you not notice that sig on the bottom? Ya know...claiming that somebody is playing the "race card" when the other person is employing racist motives is bogus. Are you suggesting that racism is all gone in America??

    None of which squares with Democrats or Progressives becoming the party of government.[/QUOTE

    Funny thing about being the party of government. When blacks needed to be able to attend schools, it took the government to make that happen. When they wanted to vote, it took the government to make it happen. Without the government there to protect the rights of those that are treated less than equal in the eyes of the law, people would still be denied access to the basic American economy. The government is what stands in the way of all out segregation and civil rights violations. Left to their own devices...do you honestly think that the South would have desegregated? Conservatives fought against that. They're even going to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to try and overturn section 5 of the Voting Rights act, which was in place for most of the conservative southern states notorious for violating the rights of people to vote. Does that give you any idea of why most blacks want nothing to do with conservatism? It doesn't like them. And they know it.



    Sure. You could say that. But it serves a useful purpose and it's subject to change according to who runs it. We use government to move us into the 21st Century. We use it to invest in America in order to compete with the rest of the world. And we use it to insure the rights of people right here.



    Quit trying to portray the president is the "other", not from here, not American, and you won't have that thrown back at you. You know that racism is alive in America, and we know that the history of conservatism is embedded to racism. We have a president right now. What is it about him that is different from the other 43? And if there are racists out there, then who do you think would be the target of their hatred? The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

    African-Americans are fully aware of this attitude coming from conservatives, which is why so few align themselves to this ideology. Conservatives talk about trying to reach out to the African-American community, but fail to understand that nobody wants to hang with people that hate you. They're only doing it to get votes. Blacks understand the source of this hatred, and are not likely to embrace it. Until conservatism renounces racism and purges racists from the Republican Party, they’ll never reach the African-American in any significant numbers.

    In 1980, Ronald Reagan began his campaign, not with a speech on supply side economics. He began it with a speech supporting “states rights” just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair, the very community where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. This was a deliberate appeal to white racists that he was on their side and was part of a Republican strategy going back to the 1960’s to build a conservative majority on the basis of racism.

    This is not a way to attract blacks to the conservative movement. But that was never the intention. The conservative isn’t looking to appeal to Blacks. They’re looking to suppress them.

    I found this an outrageous move on the part of Ronald Reagan. Of all the locations in the United States to launch a campaign…he picks this one? What did he think that would say to the African American community? It’s pretty clear whose votes he was courting.



    Carefull. You don't want to be dinged for baiting do you? Or is that a personal attack? Maybe both, I'm sure the Mods could decide that.
    Yawn. Is there cliff notes for this diatribe?

    It looks like a subtle and not so subtle attempt at manipulation, both historical and on a more personal level. I'm conservative and I don't hate minorities. So either you're engaging in sweeping generalizations or you're wrong. I'm not portraying Obama as anything other than part of the corrupt Chicago political scene. You posit these sweeping theories but the problem would be, I didn't say or portray that. It's curious, most of your political discussion seems to focus on the issue of race. Mine doesn't. Funny.

    Liberal investment into the power structure of government is extensive and its goals continually press towards the accumulation of power. Power corrupts, so why would we keep giving more to government? Its already corrupt.

    Last line: Hit the triangle and go for it. Commenting that I will not be told what to post by you isn't baiting its asserting I do not care for you to make attempts to control the content of my posts.

  5. #1355
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,320

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    It's too long winded Fenton. Nobody is interested in sifting through all of
    that. You want to go back to Clinton. Somebody else will bring up Reagan, and on and on back to Washington. Nobody wins and everybody declares Victory, just as you've done.



    Yeah, we're a comedy team. Never argue with a comedian. You'll lose everytime. I can't speak for Whip, but I'm afraid you're deluding yourself if you think you've "forced" me into a "desperate" Google search for counter points to your talking points. We all know how proud you are of them, and I'm sure it took a long time to gather them. The problem is that nobody is interested in entertaining you and your bag of talking points. Nobody wants to wallow in the swamp of minutia that you are offering. As I said, data can and always is manipulated to serve a purpose. You have your talking points, I present mine, Whip presents his, the Owl presents his. It's what we used to call a Circle ....well, you can use your imagination. 200 pages later, nothing is settled. In other words...it's a fools errand, and nobody want's to play just for your own enjoyment. Got it?



    I realize you're attempting to make up for that pounding you just took in our last exchange. Be that as it may, I'm feeling fine. I'm sure Whip is doing well too.
    I'm just calling both of you out to put your money where your mouth is.

    Stop with your mindless blubbering and do whats supppsed to be done on a debate forum.

    Argue the merits of my post. You both failed. Failed multiple times.

    Its all you have, those long generic nonsensical rants.

  6. #1356
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,320

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Nope. Not the case. All of the major polls
    showed that Obama was winning the battleground states, and your charactorization of the people an the president they elected is noted. Perhaps it was...they just don't like you and what you stand for. Yeah! That's probably it. He's hardly anti-Capitalist when Wall Street is enjoying record profits and the Dow is over 14,000. As for tradition; appeals to tradition are illogical. Nobody really gives a crap about what you consider "tradition". There is NO logical reason to accept tradition as a governing law. Just because things were done a certain way, doesn't mean that way was right.



    He divided it?? No. You've always hated him. It was divided before he set foot in the White House. It's hard to bring the country together when there are a bunch of people that hate you for who you are. That's why you lost. Haven't you figured that out yet?? Why else would the guy get elected with unemployment near 8%? People could see the irrational hate. And the haters, would always point at him, and claim it was him that was divisive. Classic projection.



    Yeah, well...9/11, two unfunded wars, inaction on Katrina, and crashing the US economy will do that to people.



    No we aren't. Haven't you heard? We're in recovery from the recession that you started. That was decline. Domestically and internationally. We're cleaining up your mess. You created it. Dont tell us how to fix what you wrecked. You have no credibility now.
    Lol.....a recovery ?

    Post some objective data to prove it. No your saying so doesn't a recovery make.

    DOWs at 14,000 because the FEDs creating a bond bubble.

    You think thats a good thing, and THAT explains everything.

  7. #1357
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,291

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    What do you think "redistribution of wealth" means?



    “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

    "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

    Progressive Taxation
    "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    Smith also wrote:
    "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

    Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations
    Still waiting for you to explain how Obama economic policies pay for the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, put 22+ million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work, reduce the record numbers on food stamps, and create strong economic growth, not the meager growth now? You seem to support the entitlement society and social justice of Obama regardless of the fact that it works no where else in the world especially a country like this built on free enterprise and capitalism.

  8. #1358
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Beautiful example of inductive reasoning. Make a claim, and then list a bunch of cases to support your claim. And, That makes it true? Unfortunately, no.e Inductive reasoning NEVER proves a theory. For the simple reason that you can't possibly know all of the Illinois politicians. What you have is a general statement. But not a true statement. You're making a Sweeping Generalization.

    Example

    (1) Children should be seen and not heard.
    (2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
    Therefore:
    (3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard.



    A deductive syllogism would look like this

    Premiss 1. All Illinois politicians are corrupt
    Premiss 2. Obama is an Illinois politician
    Therefore:
    conclusion: Obama is corrupt.

    That would be infallibly true, IF, and only if the premises' are true. Premiss 1 is not a true statement. Premiss 2 is true. But the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You have to assume the truth of the 1st premiss, which can't be demonstrated as true. The samples that you offer are too small in comparison to all the politicians in Illinois. You're offering a Sweeping Generalization. Which is a logical fallacy.

    Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of starting out with one or more general statements and examining the possibilities to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using one or more premises that are accepted and true to reach a conclusion that is also true.

    Inductive reasoning is the polar opposite of deductive reasoning and is not generally accepted in science. While deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific, induction takes an idea from the specific to the general. This goes against the principles of the scientific method.

    Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: Seventy-five percent of humans have brown eyes. John is a human. Therefore, John has brown eyes. That logic doesn’t work in the scientific method because it would be false 25 percent of the time.

    Deductive reasoning involves a hierarchy of statements or truths. In the process of deductive reasoning, scientists start with a limited number of simple statements or assumptions and build to more complex ones as the scientific method progresses.

    Another form of deductive reasoning is the law of syllogism, (shown above) in which the conclusion is supported by two premises. This form of deductive reasoning typically takes on the format All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.

    So...in conclusion, the list of corrupt politicians in Illinois which you cited has nothing to do with Obama, unless perhaps you could prove otherwise? I don't think that case has been made. So your list isn't relevant regarding Obama.

    You seem to like to attempt a $10 answer to a $2 assertion...Listen if I feel I need you to drop some knowledge on me, I'll take a Community collage course, k?

    President Obama and key members of his Democrat cabinet like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were all among the top ten most corrupt politicians in Washington for 2012, according to an annual list compiled by the non-partisan Judicial Watch. Also on the roster were several lawmakers including two GOP congressmen from Florida and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

    The president himself made the infamous “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list due to a series of scandals and broken promises that have plagued virtually his entire time occupying the White House. Lawless behavior, regular violations of the U.S. Constitution, unprecedented secrecy, and abuse of so-called “executive privilege” to protect his senior officials all contributed to Obama’s designation as one of the most crooked politicians in the capital today.

    Citing the president’s 2009 vow that “transparency” and the “rule of law” would be the “touchstones” of his presidency, Judicial Watch said the statement would get in on the first ballot if there were a “Hall of Fame” for broken promises. “Instead of transparency and the rule of law over the past four years, we have witnessed the greatest expansion of government in modern political history and, consequently, an explosion of government secrecy, scandals, and abuses of power,” the non-profit public interest watchdog explained.

    Among the specifics that earned Obama the designation was a shroud of lawless secrecy that permeated the entire administration. Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes official corruption, was forced to file almost 1,000 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and close to 100 lawsuits against the administration to find out what was going on, it said. Despite stonewalling, the group investigated elements of ObamaCare, the showering of taxpayer money on mega Wall Street banks, continued funding of the “criminal ACORN network,” and much more.

    According to the Washington-based group and countless other analysts, while Obama touts transparency in public, he actually condones the routine violation of federal open records laws by his administration in an effort to conceal his activities. There are almost countless examples to prove the point.

    Top 10 ?Most Corrupt? List Dominated by Obama Administration
    There are three aspects to a person’s character. First is personal life. Is a person generous and considerate with loved ones, or selfish? Then there are beliefs. What does a person stand for? Do we stand up for our principles? Last, are we honest in our dealings with our fellow men? Do we believe that decent ends demand decent means, or do the ends justify the means?

    snip

    There are real scandals around Obama. That the media ignores them doesn’t make them nonexistent, just as the media’s obsession with something doesn’t make it a scandal. Solyndra, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the NLRB suing Boeing, and Lisa Jackson’s EPA emails are all serious scandals involving government corruption at the highest levels. At the minimum they show Obama to be ignorant or indifferent to what’s going on in his own administration. Republicans trying to get to the truth of these issues encounter Democrats allowing winning at all costs to supersede dead bodies.
    Obama has a habit of “bullying” people who disagree with him in a way his predecessor never did. Often petulant and narcissistic (and aloof), Obama refuses to treat political opponents with decency, respect, and dignity. He sees them as enemies. Critics disagree with him. He and his supporters hate them, a serious and unfortunate distinction.
    Democrats aren’t all corrupt, nor are all Republicans saints. However, Republican presidents are held to much higher standards today by the press, so unlike their Democratic couterparts, they have to be purer than Caesar’s wife.




    Read more: Scandals show the Obama administration is corrupt | Washington Times Communities
    Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #1359
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,154

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    You seem to like to attempt a $10 answer to a $2 assertion...Listen if I feel I need you to drop some knowledge on me, I'll take a Community collage course, k?
    great post
    remaining ignorant and being proud of it is much better than actually learning something [/s]
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #1360
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Nope. Not the case. All of the major polls showed that Obama was winning the battleground states...
    Well, Republicans bought into the 'skewed poll' theory more than they should have that's for sure. Doesn't mean that wasn't the case, but too much emphasis was placed on that.

    and your charactorization of the people an the president they elected is noted.
    Well look at that will ya? Aren't you the slick bomb thrower? Way to call me a racist without actually calling me a racist....

    Perhaps it was...they just don't like you and what you stand for. Yeah! That's probably it.
    Nah, unless of course you are saying that you personally know each and every Obama voter? Is that what you are saying dude? There are many reasons for the vote landing the way it did, and some of it may have been that they don't like anything conservative, but a lot more than that is needed to win the Presidency. Maybe that is you projecting why you voted for Obama? Are you one of those haters that would like to see one party in the US? eh? Is that your bag man? You a communist?

    He's hardly anti-Capitalist when Wall Street is enjoying record profits and the Dow is over 14,000.
    don't give me that pap....The market is artificially propped up with fiat currency, that many companies are sitting on because Obama's track record with business is to slap them with one hand, and he pat's their back with the other....They don't trust the Marxist.

    As for tradition; appeals to tradition are illogical.
    Tradition is important. But I wouldn't expect you to understand unless it is something you can point to as a tactic.

    Nobody really gives a crap about what you consider "tradition".
    Ah, strike a nerve? You obviously do, otherwise why mention it?

    There is NO logical reason to accept tradition as a governing law. Just because things were done a certain way, doesn't mean that way was right.
    Nope, doesn't work that way...You have a constitution to deal with...You don't like this country, may I suggest Venezuela? I hear it is nice this time of year.

    He divided it??
    Absolutely.

    No. You've always hated him.
    Hate him? Nah...That's a strong emotion. I don't even know him personally...What I dislike are his policies, and his method of governance. But hate him? You don't know what you're talking about.

    It was divided before he set foot in the White House.
    Yes, and he has taken to the next level, with his own twist of contempt.

    It's hard to bring the country together when there are a bunch of people that hate you for who you are.
    Again you are misreading it. Maybe because you are applying the level of hatred you held for GW Bush, and projecting it onto your political opponent.

    Why else would the guy get elected with unemployment near 8%?
    Because sheep are easily led, especially when you have almost the entire media machine lying for you.

    People could see the irrational hate.
    You know, just because you are redundant, doesn't make your false proclamation any more true.

    And the haters, would always point at him, and claim it was him that was divisive. Classic projection.
    You know, that is the 5th time you have used some form of 'hate' in this post alone? Sounds like a phobia to me.

    Yeah, well...9/11, two unfunded wars, inaction on Katrina, and crashing the US economy will do that to people.
    When in doubt, reach into the cliche grab bag eh?

    No we aren't. Haven't you heard? We're in recovery from the recession that you started.
    Recovery? You call this a recovery? That's a good one!

    That was decline. Domestically and internationally. We're cleaining up your mess. You created it. Dont tell us how to fix what you wrecked. You have no credibility now.
    Well, isn't that the typical tin pot authoritarian response....Despite your lengthy responses, you really don't bring much to the table, outside the usual blather do you?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •