• 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!

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

Adagio said:
Ahhh let the stereotyping begin. Well, at least he's not some dufus that thinks Rape can't make you pregnant. It takes a special talent to come up with that. Or maybe, it's that God want's a pregnancy result from a rape. Yeah,,,lets put that guy on the science committee. Brilliant. :roll: That's called an insult dude. A Chicago pol?? Dicto Simpliciter. Stereotyping is really a big part of conservatism isn't it? I mean you do it with Chicago pols, race, liberals. just about everyone.
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois, you cant trust either party if they are Cook County politicians. It would be a stereotype if there werent so many crooked Chicago politicians. That system is so dirty its impossible to come through it untainted in some way.

The rest of your post is off topic political smearing and coincidence of coincidences, liberal talking points.

Does this phony independent thinker act of yours fool any other board?
 
Adagio said:
The only tool I see here is you.
Click to expand...
Apology. Now.

Adagio said:
You think people always act in their own self-interest? My son is part of an A-Team with Special Forces ( Green Beret ) They don't act on their own self-interest. They work as a team. So making a blanket statement like that is simply false. Unless you think that our SF guys and SEALS are all self serving assholes?
Click to expand...

Context is discussing politicians who most certainly act in their own self interest most of the time. At no point did I argue anyone is a self serving asshole. There is such a thing as enlightened self interest, you know.


Adagio said:
Wrong. And McCain knows it because he knows Hagels position on the war as do the rest of the Republicans. Hey John..the war was a really stupid idea, but that surge thing, piece of art. McCain even said they didn't like Hagel for opposing Bush. So...do stop posting your bile on this.
Click to expand...
Except that Hagel made that particular quote about the Surge. Not the war, but the surge itself.


Adagio said:
No, there weren't. You don't go to war because you don't like the guy or he threatened you Dad. That's self interest. You look for the reasons NOT to go to war. It's a last resort, not the first. As for Afghanistan I was for it when it started. That's where bin Laden was with al Qaeda and the Talliban. If we hadn't shifted to Iraq, we'd be out of there by now. But no...Rummy wanted something sexier. He wanted Shock and Awe. We've got to show the people back home some **** blowing up other than a bunch of rocks.
Click to expand...

Look at all the shiny liberal talking points, like youre reading them out of the NYT or DU. Of course, the only way you can infer these things is by reading the minds of the people making the decisions and I think Im going to have to go with ideology typing up opinions as though they were facts.


Adagio said:
Let me know when you've engaged your brain.
Click to expand...
Trying to go for 2 infractions in one post? Stop with the damned insults already.
 
Whipsnade said:
I'm glad you call him a Kenyan pol.I guess that's progress in conservative circles.:peace
Click to expand...

I dont trust politicians from EITHER party from Chicago. Too much corruption, too much quid pro quo up there.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I dont trust politicians from EITHER party from Chicago. Too much corruption, too much quid pro quo up there.
Click to expand...

I believe they have a separate wing at Club Med reserved for Illinois Gov's regardless of political affiliation.In other words its not only the windy that's corrupt.:peace
 
Adagio said:
A personal attack would be directed at you. That's what makes it, you know..personal. You aren't McCain are you? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

So you failed to find an incidence where I attacked anyone as requested...ok, interesting take on personal attack...would this qualify?

Adagio said:
The only tool I see here is you.
Click to expand...

I presume not as per your previous defininition it cannot be a personal attack unless it is directed specifically at the person you are responding to...
 
Dickieboy said:
So you failed to find an incidence where I attacked anyone as requested...ok, interesting take on personal attack...would this qualify?



I presume not as per your previous defininition it cannot be a personal attack unless it is directed specifically at the person you are responding to...do you
Click to expand...

Will you two assholes quit talking about who is personal attacking whom?Jessss...:2wave:
 
OpportunityCost said:
Check out post 1252. Anyhow, we do agree on Chicago pols. They are terrible, no matter which side.
Click to expand...

The windy is one of my fav cities.If you cant finda party going on somewhere at anytime of the day or night your blind.
 
Adagio said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. When did I do that? Don't just re-post the comment, include the comment number. If I did, it was surely by mistake. I haven't knowingly agreed with anything he's said.

Your post is exactly what your friend was talking about. The "Kitchen Sink" Approach to debate. Fill your comment with so many things from your talking points, that it's ridiculous. You haven't an original thought in your head, have you?
Click to expand...


I tell you what Adagio, everything I mentioned to show child he was very uneducated on the subject is true, and I have much more if he foolishly decides to rebut those statements.

It's not the kitchen sink, it's facts, objective evidence, empirical data, well reasoned and true thought processes that transcend your mediocrity and your ridiculous generic talking points and I dare you to rebut any of it.

C'mon, you been the bastion of liberal information the last few days, objecting to every Conservative's post and rattling off useless generalities in response to true data.

So line by line, point by point in my sub-prime post counter each one with your "TRUTH". If you don't your scared and defeated and make no bones about it, I'l slap down anything nonsense you continue to vomit out on to this forums.

This is a challenge so put your money where your mouth is. WE ARE WAITING
 
Adagio said:
Is that a fact?? What do you base that fact on?
Click to expand...

History, personal experience, and economic data. This country wasn't built on the liberal vision of a massive central govt, but rather individual wealth creation and personal responsibility.
 
Adagio said:
:lamo you don't want to go there junior.



Really? What do you think gives them that impression? Like maybe it's the way you express yourself?



That depends. How many people are out of work and willing to take anything? As for who they are, I don't have their names and phone numbers, but you can look at the labor statistics to get an idea. How's that sound? And they'll make that wage until they can find something better. In the meantime they have bills to pay.
Click to expand...

Don't want their names, want the number and a general definition of who they are.

For someone who seems to be an expert on everything you sure whine alot about others, people that you don't know.
 
Adagio said:
And they're still millionairs???:shock: Wow! The way you hear them cry all the time, you'd think wouldn't be able to afford food on their table or a roof over their head.
Click to expand...

No need for tears. Just pointing out that they pay their fair share.:yes:
 
Jack Hays said:
No need for tears. Just pointing out that they pay their fair share.:yes:
Click to expand...

Becareful when you talk about fair share because liberals believe that people who have more than they have or approach what they have aren't paying their fair share. There idea of fair share is doing what they want, spending on what they want, and giving in to everything they want. Liberals talk about compassion when their only compassion is allowing them the power to mold people the way they want.
 
Conservative said:
Becareful when you talk about fair share because liberals believe that people who have more than they have or approach what they have aren't paying their fair share. There idea of fair share is doing what they want, spending on what they want, and giving in to everything they want. Liberals talk about compassion when their only compassion is allowing them the power to mold people the way they want.
Click to expand...

You may enjoy this The Little Government that Could - YouTube

and this The Forbidden History of Terrible Taxes - YouTube
 
OpportunityCost said:
Apology. Now.



Context is discussing politicians who most certainly act in their own self interest most of the time. At no point did I argue anyone is a self serving asshole. There is such a thing as enlightened self interest, you know.



Except that Hagel made that particular quote about the Surge. Not the war, but the surge itself.




Look at all the shiny liberal talking points, like youre reading them out of the NYT or DU. Of course, the only way you can infer these things is by reading the minds of the people making the decisions and I think Im going to have to go with ideology typing up opinions as though they were facts.



Trying to go for 2 infractions in one post? Stop with the damned insults already.
Click to expand...

Context is discussing politicians who most certainly act in their own self interest most of the time. At no point did I argue anyone is a self serving asshole. There is such a thing as enlightened self interest, you know.
Click to expand...

Yes context is important. You might consider that and qualify your claims before making an absolute statement that people always act in their own self interest. You may even want to consider that regarding politicians. Unless you know the inner workings of what they are all thinking, it's just a subjective generalization based on cynicism.

Except that Hagel made that particular quote about the Surge. Not the war, but the surge itself.
Click to expand...

Right. And if he said the surge was such a sweet thing despite the fact that the war was a complete blunder and Bush was wrong in doing it...I'm sure that McCain and the Republicans would have no issue with him at all. If you even bothered to look at the video interview he did on Fox, you know that isn't true. The so-called "Surge" was but one thing that he mentioned. So why are you perpetuating this absurdity? Hagel went against Bush and the Republicans and this is political payback in McCains own words. It's blatent political crap on his part and those of the Republithugs.

Look at all the shiny liberal talking points, like youre reading them out of the NYT or DU.
Click to expand...

Oh brother :roll:... "You don't go to war because you don't like the guy or he threatened you Dad. That's self interest." That's not a talking point. That's common sense. "You look for the reasons NOT to go to war. It's a last resort, not the first." That's not a talking point. That's LOGIC! "But no...Rummy wanted something sexier. He wanted Shock and Awe. We've got to show the people back home some **** blowing up other than a bunch of rocks." That's not a talking point. That's Rumsfeld words. Afghanistan was appealing back home. He wanted something more like the Gulf War to maintain public support for their idiocy.

So...no. sorry but these aren't talking points put out by the DNC. These are observations that any normal thinking person can make.

the only way you can infer these things is by reading the minds of the people making the decisions and I think Im going to have to go with ideology typing up opinions as though they were facts.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a person like yourself needs to be told what to think via some talking points, and as a result you think that everybody does the same thing, and can't think for themselves. But you're projecting your own problems on everyone else. You don't need a talking point to inform you that you dont' cut taxes and take your country to war. You don't need them to know that war is a last resort and not the first. You don't need them to know that when the Sec. of Defense wants a better visual to justify a war of aggression against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that the justification is bogus and without any merit. All of those comments from me on those very subjects are not "talking points" that I needed to have fed to me. I could figure that much out on my own. It's called thinking. Try it sometime. It works really well.

As for being a "tool" that's exactly what a person that relies on "talking points" is. A useful tool for those that are promoting their own agenda. What you object to is my calling it what it is. So fine. You and Fenton are not "tools". You simply do the bidding of those that supply you with your argument. Feel better now?
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Interesting side note on income taxes.

I tried to find some information about corporate income taxes for myself and uncovered a aspect of the methodology that surprised me.

Did you know that the federal government credit corporate income taxes to the personal income tax statistics based on share of income. The idea is that if these people make these much of the income, they must own this much of the corporations, so we'll just add those dollars to the taxes paid by that income group.

Of course the top 1% have a huge portion of the income, so they get a big chunk of the corporate income taxes credited to them.

On that top 1% thing, I think it is a mistake to talk about the top 1%, the top 1% starts at $350k, barely enough to live well, and certainly not enough to considered in the group that makes Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions. Most of the actual people in the top 1% make under a million, almost 90% of them. the top 1/10 of the top 1% is where the money is. This group is about 135,000 people and they make 17% of all income, they pay 37% of federal income taxes, but federal income taxes is only about 58% of total federal taxes. So that 17% of all income taxes is less than 10% of total federal taxes, and their share of the taxes is tiny since they are mostly regressive taxes like payroll taxes. So the top 1/10 of 1% takes in 17% of the income, pays 10% of the taxes, and they are bitching, and a third of Americans who are flat out paupers relative to these guys, are bitching about "soaking the rich".

It is flippin' brilliant how these folks have gotten people to argue their case for them, against their own interests.

If it were not so tragic, it would be funny.
Click to expand...

Did you know that the federal government credit corporate income taxes to the personal income tax statistics based on share of income.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but corporate income has nothing to do with the income of the executives and they aren't taxed on the corporations profits. Their income is completely separate from that. They dont' pay their employees out of their own personal bank accounts. It's a corporate account. If they did, they'd probably be able to deduct that from their personal income. I'm not sure where you got your information from. You might want to source that.

Of course the top 1% have a huge portion of the income, so they get a big chunk of the corporate income taxes credited to them
Click to expand...

That's completely false. I don't know where you're getting that. Their income isn't tied at all on the corporations profitability. It's totally separtate. The very reason that you form a corporation is to avoid being taxed on the corporations income. If you are a sole proprietorship, then you'll get taxed on the companies income, but nobody that big is doing that.

On that top 1% thing, I think it is a mistake to talk about the top 1%, the top 1% starts at $350k, barely enough to live well, and certainly not enough to considered in the group that makes Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions
Click to expand...
:shock: $350K is barely enough to live well?? Really? How many people in this country make $350K? Apparently we have a lot of people not living very well. I could live pretty damn well on that amount. I suppose it means that "well" is pretty subjective. You know, I don't think these people are too concerned over how "well" I'm living, so I have to ask...why should I concern myself over how "well" they're doing. If they can't make it on $350K...they have a serious problem.

It is flippin' brilliant how these folks have gotten people to argue their case for them, against their own interests.
Click to expand...

I don't understand it myself. Why they want to protect people that would throw them to the street if it meant they could squeeze one more dime in profit, is beyond me. I think it stems from the idea that someday in their life, they'll be part of the club and they dont' want to offend the rich because they think it'll hurt their chances. Then again, it might be that they don't want to upset them for fear of losing their jobs. There were a few company owners that told their employees that if they voted for Obama, they might have to lay them off. So..fear plays into it. And the desire to be a rich guy plays into it I suppose. I can't see any other logical reason to support people that look at you like a piece of meat.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I live in Illinois, you cant trust either party if they are Cook County politicians. It would be a stereotype if there werent so many crooked Chicago politicians. That system is so dirty its impossible to come through it untainted in some way.

The rest of your post is off topic political smearing and coincidence of coincidences, liberal talking points.

Does this phony independent thinker act of yours fool any other board?
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois, you cant trust either party if they are Cook County politicians.
Click to expand...

I was born and raised there. Every Governor ends up in prison. But I still don't attribute subscribe to sweeping generalities. They're simply logical fallacies. What you're doing is accepting that all Chicago Politicians are corrupt, and then looking for examples to support the theory. That's inductive reasoning and never proves the theory. Obama for example worked as we all know, as a community organizer. There's no money in that. With his college pedigree he could have opted for big money, but he didn't. He opted to make a difference. So forgive me if I don't share your cynicims.

The rest of your post is off topic political smearing and coincidence of coincidences, liberal talking points.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. And they aren't. But I do notice that you make no mention of Fentons own admission to his "talking points" let alone the enormous comment he made using those very things. In fact, he's very proud of them. So apparently you look for "talking points" from me, while ignoring the obvious talking points from your friend. Is that not hypocritical? Well...yes. But then hypocrisy is also consistant in conservatism.

Does this phony independent thinker act of yours fool any other board?
Click to expand...

There's nothing phony about thinking your own thoughts. That kind of thinking usually attracts publishers. Certainly you've read a book or two during your life. They aren't written with talking points. Apparently you don't encounter that very often. My own influences stem from philosophy and logic. Logic has no political bias. I don't need a set of talking points to discuss anything with you. First of all, they're really useless in a debate since we both know that facts and data are always manipulated to conform to the ideology that's being argued. Who's talking points win that kind of debate? They amount to contradicting the other side with a set of counter-factuals. For example, theres nothing here in this comment that amounts to a talking point. I don't use them, and I don't engage with people that do. That tells me nothing about how a person thinks. I'm more interested in why they think the way they do, and what they base their thinking on. If you have to justify your thinking you're in trouble. There is no justification that will make your thinking rational. What makes it rational is if it is open to criticism. I'm interested in politicians and people in general, that think in rational terms. Not those tied to a bunch of ideological precepts dictated to them from some authority that can't justify itself.
 
Dickieboy said:
So you failed to find an incidence where I attacked anyone as requested...ok, interesting take on personal attack...would this qualify?



I presume not as per your previous defininition it cannot be a personal attack unless it is directed specifically at the person you are responding to...
Click to expand...

So you failed to find an incidence where I attacked anyone as requested...ok, interesting take on personal attack...would this qualify?
Click to expand...

You accused me of a personal attack, when I went after McCain. That wasn't addressed to you. It's no personal attack on you. If McCain has a problem with me, let him make that argument. That's the example you posted.

I presume not as per your previous defininition it cannot be a personal attack unless it is directed specifically at the person you are responding to...
Click to expand...

You presume NOT as my previous definition? No you presume correctly. I made no personal attack on you. Did I? As for being a tool, what would you call something that is doing the job for someone else? If a person wants to make a tool of themselves for the use of other people, they shouldn't be upset with being called what they are being used for.
 
Fenton said:
I tell you what Adagio, everything I mentioned to show child he was very uneducated on the subject is true, and I have much more if he foolishly decides to rebut those statements.

It's not the kitchen sink, it's facts, objective evidence, empirical data, well reasoned and true thought processes that transcend your mediocrity and your ridiculous generic talking points and I dare you to rebut any of it.

C'mon, you been the bastion of liberal information the last few days, objecting to every Conservative's post and rattling off useless generalities in response to true data.

So line by line, point by point in my sub-prime post counter each one with your "TRUTH". If you don't your scared and defeated and make no bones about it, I'l slap down anything nonsense you continue to vomit out on to this forums.

This is a challenge so put your money where your mouth is. WE ARE WAITING
Click to expand...

It's not the kitchen sink, it's facts, objective evidence, empirical data, well reasoned and true thought processes that transcend your mediocrity and your ridiculous generic talking points and I dare you to rebut any of it.
Click to expand...

It is the "kitchen sink" Fenton, and if Child is honest, he/she would have to agree. And I already did rebut several of them. Go back and read. You would serve yourself better by avoiding posting a litany of talking points that nobody is going to take seriously since...that's all they are. In case you haven't been reading, I don't care about those. Nobody is ever going to agree on the other guys talking points. And they're always skewed and manipulated to affirm the ideological view. I don't give a crap about them. I already told you, I'm interested in why you're a conservative. Not because somebody told you to be one and be a puppet for them.

C'mon, you been the bastion of liberal information the last few days, objecting to every Conservative's post and rattling off useless generalities in response to true data.
Click to expand...

I object to Conservative posts because there is no logic or basis for their arguments. All of your posts are "Based" on your talking points and you believe that they're true. So you are basing your post on the views of others with an axe to grind. What are their views based on? You say empircal data (?) and well reasoned and "true"(??) thought process?? According to who? What do you base that on since everything you're posting MUST have a basis to it. Fine. So what's the basis for the basis. They can't be their own basis. That's nothing but circular reasoning and an appeal to an authority that you have no reason to accept, other than your own bias toward their particular view. If I post a huge page full of talking points to square off in a mock duel of opposing talking poinst...what is gained by that. You won't accept any that I put up, and you know it. So do I. It's an exercise in self gratification and that's a bore. That doesn't tell me anything about how you think or why you think that way. You engage in micro analysis of an issue that gets completely ridiculous and I have no interest in that kind of thing. Maybe someone else will entertain you on that. It has no appeal to me. That's a kind way of saying that your posts bore me. The bottom line here in case you haven't figured it out yet, is that your posts don't justify your arguments. They're appeals to authority and appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. Argumentum Ad Verecundium. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. Appeals to authority are always invalid. The reason is simpel: Even an expert can be wrong.

I have offered YOU in particular a challenge. It's very simple. No talking points required. Why are you a conservative? You have yet to answer that. So if you can't tell me that much...why would I waste my time rebutting talking points given to you by somebody else, when you can't even tell me why you accept them?
 
Adagio said:
I was born and raised there. Every Governor ends up in prison. But I still don't attribute subscribe to sweeping generalities. They're simply logical fallacies. What you're doing is accepting that all Chicago Politicians are corrupt, and then looking for examples to support the theory. That's inductive reasoning and never proves the theory. Obama for example worked as we all know, as a community organizer. There's no money in that. With his college pedigree he could have opted for big money, but he didn't. He opted to make a difference. So forgive me if I don't share your cynicims.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, Obama made quite a bit of money community organizing and representing cases involving CRA for community organizations. The community organizer thing was a resume enhancer for political office. Once he was in office he was as corrupt as anyone else in Chicago. I could be looking for examples to support the theory if it werent true so often. Btw playing cover for saint Obama is pretty lame. Ask Tony Rezko if Obama was on the take, if you can get him to talk about it---which you cant.



Adagio said:
No, it isn't. And they aren't. But I do notice that you make no mention of Fentons own admission to his "talking points" let alone the enormous comment he made using those very things. In fact, he's very proud of them. So apparently you look for "talking points" from me, while ignoring the obvious talking points from your friend. Is that not hypocritical? Well...yes. But then hypocrisy is also consistant in conservatism.
Click to expand...

You and I are engaging in point counterpoint, well I am, you are mostly slinging personal attacks. I notice Fenton cites a bit more than you do and supports his arguments, I keep getting rhetoric from you, unsupported talking points I have heard and seen several times over. You may consider them your personal views but you are parroting liberal thoughts and ideas throughout. So Im going to keep calling them talking points.


Adagio said:
There's nothing phony about thinking your own thoughts. That kind of thinking usually attracts publishers. Certainly you've read a book or two during your life. They aren't written with talking points. Apparently you don't encounter that very often. My own influences stem from philosophy and logic. Logic has no political bias. I don't need a set of talking points to discuss anything with you. First of all, they're really useless in a debate since we both know that facts and data are always manipulated to conform to the ideology that's being argued. Who's talking points win that kind of debate? They amount to contradicting the other side with a set of counter-factuals. For example, theres nothing here in this comment that amounts to a talking point. I don't use them, and I don't engage with people that do. That tells me nothing about how a person thinks. I'm more interested in why they think the way they do, and what they base their thinking on. If you have to justify your thinking you're in trouble. There is no justification that will make your thinking rational. What makes it rational is if it is open to criticism. I'm interested in politicians and people in general, that think in rational terms. Not those tied to a bunch of ideological precepts dictated to them from some authority that can't justify itself.
Click to expand...

Bolded is a nice left handed compliment, bless your heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom