Students Question Obama's Plan

Zyphlin said:

Thanks for understanding.

Click to expand...

now who is getting all silly with assumptions :lol:

Zyphlin said:

Actually, his original assertion isn't off base.

Click to expand...

Well, actually his assertions could not be MORE off base in that it ignored the statements made by these students and suggested that their opinions were meaningless and not worthy of debate because they don’t have jobs or earn income.

We aren’t talking about physics, or Shakespeare or genetics, we’re talking about economics. What part of this debate do you willfully ignore?

So you agree with the premise that we should not debate the substance of their arguments and accept that politicians like Obama automatically know more about the topic because they are there? How profound.

Zyphlin said:

Does that mean they're stupid? No. Does that mean the education is bad? No. Does it mean that there are not some special ones that may be very gifted in a subject? Not at all. Does it mean everything they say is wrong? No.

Click to expand...

Once more you are wandering off topic; Hatuey was specifically attacking these students not for their content, but for the mere fact of their status in life.

It is absurd to suggest that someone like Obama, simply because he has more political experience knows anything about economics or the possible devastating effects of spending this nation into a HUGE hole which is the substance of these High School students comments.

But your desperate attempt to infer what Hatuey meant from his inane comments is surely appreciated by Hatuey as is evidenced by his thanks to you. ::shocked::

Zyphlin said:

But its not an absurd notion to think that someone with decades of experience and education in a particular expertise is likely far more informed and learned about that area of expertise than a high school kid.

Click to expand...

Once more it begs the question; what was it these students said that didn’t make perfect sense? Oh yeah, Hatuey wasn’t even concerned with that was he; we just discount ANYTHING they say for the mere fact that they are students. ::wink wink::

Zyphlin said:

But naturally what it comes down to is that those in power now have an economic plan and view differing from yours so they = idiots. Well, GREAT logic there. The type of wonderful logic that I'd expect out of most illogical hyperpartisans.

Click to expand...

Once more you ASSume without “comprehending” the arguments. But thank you for being Hatuey’s water boy, again.
If you were paying any attention or had any reading comprehension, the argument is, and has been, that it is economic suicide to BORROW and SPEND the nation into TWO trillion deficit without any DEBATE about how to PAY for it. I believe that was also the argument of the student which you and Hatuey do desperately want to suggest don’t know what they are talking about for the mere fact that they are students.

So is there a point to your inane assertions? Or are you attempting to defend Obama’s policy of spending money the Government doesn’t have on pork barrel projects and that this will pull us out of a recession; if so, I would sure like to see some credible evidence of how Governments have borrowed and printed money in the past and have actually been successful in creating economic prosperity.

I’ll end with this summary of Hatuey’s argument for you; we should not care what these High School students say because they are…..high school students and the people (lunatics) currently running the Government no so much better than these High School students because they have more experience. Forget the facts and substance right?

Carry on, your clown like attempts to defend the indefensible have been noted.

Trust me, these shtudents vill pay for der treachery!! :rofl:

Zyphlin said:

Hautey's comment is okay; I may disagree with it to some extent but its not a hypocritical statement.

You however complaining about Hautey based on an assumption that he's acting hypocritical, when if you apply the SAME KIND of assumption to you in this situation would also reveal hypocrisy, is just kind of humorous.

Click to expand...

You almost got it right here, all the way up to the point where you suggested I apply the same kind of hypocritical assumptions.

You’re more then welcome to point out where I have been a hypocrite; it would be a rare occasion. And, of course, you could never be accused of the same by making the above statements could you?

Zyphlin said:

The only proof i have is anecdotal based off your long term posting here and your general statements. Which is EXACTLY the same amount of evidence you have for your claim against Hautey.

Click to expand...

I guess this is why it is called a “Debate Forum” eh?

Give me a huge DER there. If you are now going to play the hypocrite police you may want to start with your own postings here.

But alas, it also requires the willful denial that Hatuey was merely blindly protecting HIS guy by impugning these students, whom neither you nor Hatuey can point out the errors made by their statements. But again, this is all about me isn’t it Zyph?

Zyphlin said:

That's exactly the point I was making. You avoided the premise of his statement, made up your own assumptions to defend to give a basis for your stupid attack against someone you disliked. And you did this, ignoring the fact that if the same standard was applied to you it would show you to be as hypocritical as you were presenting him to be in your example.

Click to expand...

My “stupid attack of someone I dislike? As opposed to your “stupid” attack on someone you dislike? What irony eh? I guess stupid is what stupid does right Zyph buddy?

Yes I did, and they were quite accurate based on his history are ludicrous partisan nonsensical comments.

But appreciate your desperate defense of HIS ASSumptions and hypocrisy over MINE.

Zyphlin said:

(oh, and just a bit of help incase you're having trouble reading the thing next to my name. I'm not a moderate, and don't claim to be one.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, one has to keep reminding oneself of your claim in order to get passed all of your non-partisan “hypocrite” BS.

DeeJayH said:

now who is getting all silly with assumptions :lol:

Click to expand...

Trite, yet funny.

I didn't attack you. I know this may confuse you, but just bolding certain parts of my post doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't actually exist.

My statement was clear. I asked for you to either show PROOF that its only NOW that they criticize Obama that Hautey finds them ignorant but he DIDN'T find them ignorant when they did it to Bush....OR....admit that you're basing it off of nothing but an ASSUMPTION, which, if that is the case, then you shouldn't have an issue with someone also making the ASSUMPTION that you would complain about and insult these kids if the situation was reversed as well.

If you have proof that Hautey has in the past said that kids weren't ignorant when they questioned Bush's economic policy, then all is fine. Please present it. A link? A quote? Something?

If not, you admit to just doing it off nothing but an assumption...which is fine, you're free to make assumptions. Everyone is. I just find it rather hypocritical of you to make such an assumption when the exact opposite of said assumption could apply to you. EVERYTHING you could point at to make the assumption that Hautey would've agreed with these kids if it was Bush would have some kind of equal by yourself that could point at you criticizing them for doing it.

This has nothing to do with me "covering" for Hautey or "Carrying his water". I actually agree with your assumption, I don't think Hautey would've came out criticizing the kids if it was Bush but more likely would've said how even inexperienced high school kids can see through Bush's BS. I'm not arguing about your assumption.

I'm saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Criticizing another poster based on nothing but an assumption of how they WOULD'VE acted, when its a very good assumption YOU would've acted akin to how they are now if the situation was reversed, is a ****ty argument.

Can I be hypocritical at times? Yes, definitely. Everyone is. No human is not hypocritical. That doesn't mean its okay, it doesn't mean it can't be pointed out in debate, it doesn't mean it can't be highlighted when others do it. And I, unlike you, actually attempt to be intellectually honest on my comments and points about people and topics when I debate to try and AVOID being hypocritical.

I know this may be realllllllly difficult for you to understand, so please track with me. People who disagree with part of your premise, doesn't mean they support the other person. People who think you're making a ****ty debate point doesn't mean they agree with the other persons debate point. People pointing out that your complaining about something based on assumption when the same could be applied to you is hypocritical and worthless does not necessarily mean they disagree with that assumption. And people who are not hyperpartisan, talking point spewing, rabid conservatives that (god forbid it) the almighty Truth Detector doesn't consider to be a "real conservative" doesn't make them "Moderate".

Now, do you see my point? Instead of addressing Hautey's point, you decided to verge into a a baseless hypocritical assumption that doesn't in any way negate or deflect his point and you have no basis, at all, to get on a soap box against him for it.

But surprise surprise, this one's partially my fault. I Fell for your ****ty ass bait when you decided to verge away from the conversation to instead just make a sarcastic little jape against Hautey to try to distract things from the actual topic. My fault, please, go back to your mindless prattling on, please.

Zyphlin said:

I didn't attack you. I know this may confuse you, but just bolding certain parts of my post doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't actually exist.

My statement was clear. I asked for you to either show PROOF that its only NOW that they criticize Obama that Hautey finds them ignorant but he DIDN'T find them ignorant when they did it to Bush....OR....admit that you're basing it off of nothing but an ASSUMPTION, which, if that is the case, then you shouldn't have an issue with someone also making the ASSUMPTION that you would complain about and insult these kids if the situation was reversed as well.

If you have proof that Hautey has in the past said that kids weren't ignorant when they questioned Bush's economic policy, then all is fine. Please present it. A link? A quote? Something?

If not, you admit to just doing it off nothing but an assumption...which is fine, you're free to make assumptions. Everyone is. I just find it rather hypocritical of you to make such an assumption when the exact opposite of said assumption could apply to you. EVERYTHING you could point at to make the assumption that Hautey would've agreed with these kids if it was Bush would have some kind of equal by yourself that could point at you criticizing them for doing it.

This has nothing to do with me "covering" for Hautey or "Carrying his water". I actually agree with your assumption, I don't think Hautey would've came out criticizing the kids if it was Bush but more likely would've said how even inexperienced high school kids can see through Bush's BS. I'm not arguing about your assumption.

I'm saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Criticizing another poster based on nothing but an assumption of how they WOULD'VE acted, when its a very good assumption YOU would've acted akin to how they are now if the situation was reversed, is a ****ty argument.

Can I be hypocritical at times? Yes, definitely. Everyone is. No human is not hypocritical. That doesn't mean its okay, it doesn't mean it can't be pointed out in debate, it doesn't mean it can't be highlighted when others do it. And I, unlike you, actually attempt to be intellectually honest on my comments and points about people and topics when I debate to try and AVOID being hypocritical.

I know this may be realllllllly difficult for you to understand, so please track with me. People who disagree with part of your premise, doesn't mean they support the other person. People who think you're making a ****ty debate point doesn't mean they agree with the other persons debate point. People pointing out that your complaining about something based on assumption when the same could be applied to you is hypocritical and worthless does not necessarily mean they disagree with that assumption. And people who are not hyperpartisan, talking point spewing, rabid conservatives that (god forbid it) the almighty Truth Detector doesn't consider to be a "real conservative" doesn't make them "Moderate".

Now, do you see my point? Instead of addressing Hautey's point, you decided to verge into a a baseless hypocritical assumption that doesn't in any way negate or deflect his point and you have no basis, at all, to get on a soap box against him for it.

But surprise surprise, this one's partially my fault. I Fell for your ****ty ass bait when you decided to verge away from the conversation to instead just make a sarcastic little jape against Hautey to try to distract things from the actual topic. My fault, please, go back to your mindless prattling on, please.

Click to expand...

Bull****.

Is this the "Who's the real conservative?" thread?

I'm sorry...American's post literally made me laugh out loud. Well done

Democrat4life:

Remember this?
Remember who?


That's the spirit.
I'm participating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
Dobson students question Obama's plan | Mesa Arizona News - Mesa News - Mesa AZ news | eastvalleytribune.com
DRUDGE REPORT: STUDENTS QUESTION OBAMA'S PLAN 2009®


Whoops!
I think he expected a bunch of soft targets.

Too bad they didn't get to ask questions.
They surely would have been harder hitting than The Lapdog Patrol that slobberingly follows Obama from town to town.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Democrat4life said:

Can you ever not agree with Obama without insulting him, i mean really. grow up people.

Click to expand...

Hey... where do I insult Obama here?

I insult the press... but Obama?
Did I write something in invisible ink that only you can read?

As for insulting and bashing Obama:

We're only in the first month. We've barely made contact with the pinata named Obama.
It's only going to get more intense from here on.
Where we get to pile on and really attack the stupidity of his and his party of Tax Cheats, Perjurers, Swindlers... in other words... Marxists. Or... good Modern Democrats.

D4life: You and your cult are gonna have to "Harden the F*** up mate." See below.
It's the big leagues, and here you'll find a mix of fast balls, sliders and bean balls.
Your Cult leader now has the reigns of America.
As that great 'ol Chicago song goes...

... "It's only the beginning, only the beginning."

Play Ball!

YouTube - Ronnie Johns - Chopper - Harden the **** Up

Zyphlin said:

I didn't attack you. I know this may confuse you, but just bolding certain parts of my post doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't actually exist.

Click to expand...

Your admirable essay and desperate contortions aside, here is the reality you continue to avoid:

My comments were directed at Hatuey, not you.

Yes, I assumed that based on Hatuey’s past rabid hyper partisan posts, he was complaining about these High School students because they impugned his President. He didn’t feel compelled to argue the FACTS these students made; he chose to impugn their views by suggesting, much like you, that they are too young, too inexperienced aka too dumb to have political opinions that mattered.

As bizarre and absurd as that argument is, you jumped in and selectively chose to attack me for my comments to Hatuey and proceeded with your usual nonsensical banal and idiotic tirade about partisan comments and ASSUMPTIONS about how I MIGHT have reacted had the shoe been on the other foot.

You can write all the essays you want attempting to rationalize your idiotic attempt to attack me, but the FACT remains that your SELECTIVE outrage at my comments to Hatuey were indeed an attack.

What is more fascinating about your absurd remarks are the following admissions:

Zyphlin said:

This has nothing to do with me "covering" for Hautey or "Carrying his water". I actually agree with your assumption, I don't think Hautey would've came out criticizing the kids if it was Bush but more likely would've said how even inexperienced high school kids can see through Bush's BS. I'm not arguing about your assumption.

Click to expand...

Fascinating, so you agree with my assumptions, but felt compelled to ASSUME that because you THINK I MIGHT have POSSIBLY done the same thing, I am being hypocritical.

Good lord, how old are you, four?

The following is your piece de resistance:

Zyphlin said:

If you have proof that Hautey has in the past said that kids weren't ignorant when they questioned Bush's economic policy, then all is fine. Please present it. A link? A quote? Something?

If not, you admit to just doing it off nothing but an assumption...which is fine, you're free to make assumptions. Everyone is. I just find it rather hypocritical of you to make such an assumption when the exact opposite of said assumption could apply to you.

Click to expand...

Why would I need proof? It was an “assertion” based on Hatueys past rabid hyper partisan behavior.

So please, step down off that high horse of yours and your selective outrage at your ASSUMPTION that I MIGHT have done the same thing IF the shoe were on the OTHER foot.

You won’t find any inconsistencies in my postings. Unlike Hatuey, had there been a bunch of Liberal students criticizing Bush, instead of saying they were just a bunch of DUMB, INEXPERIENCED students as you and he seem to be doing, I would have taken their arguments apart, not attacked the messengers.

Carry on; I look forward to more of your desperate rationalizations and contortions trying to explain why your selective attacks on me even remotely make sense.

Good lord, you have to stand on your head with a finger up your butt to make sense out of this essay.

I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies.
We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration.

Click to expand...

Hillary

Truth Detector said:

Good lord, you have to stand on your head with a finger up your butt to make sense out of this essay.

Click to expand...

That's pretty specific, man. Is that what you did while reading his post? If so, you may want to keep that to yourself in the future in the interest of privacy and not wanting to make everyone sick with your weird sex fetishes.