AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ehBeth,

I think even Genoves would agree that he has received substantial criticism from me for his manner of posting and in fact has criticzed me, ad hominem, for such criticism. Because you haven't seen it does not mean it is not so. I haven't seen you say anything of the 'noble' acts that you claim for yourself, and that doesn't mean you haven't done those either. I did see what CJ posted and it was not an attack, ad hominem or anything else, on any A2K member but an opinion regarding elected government leaders. Do you assume that he meant what it would have meant had you or somebody like you said what he did? I think that is a dangerous assumption to make of others.

Finally, I think you need to bone up on what ad hominem is.

1 Reply

I attempted to delete the post under EhBeth's name, but failed, perhaps because MJ responded.

At all events, i had posted that entry, forgetting that i had not logged EhBeth out before posting. So i will post it here again, under my own screen name, which is what i had originally intended.

******************************************************

Foxfyre wrote:

And you object to this how? I don't recall you ever correcting a member on your side when they made similar inflammatory statements, no matter how stupid or cruel, such as George Bush wrecked the country to George Bush is a war criminal or George Bush is a liar, or George Bush should be impeached etc.

I have, for one, consistently said that there would never be a war crimes trial of Bush, nor an impeachment. I have consistently said that it wouldn't happen because of the constitutional requirements for it, and because no one would be able to allege high crimes and misdemeanors against him which anyone could make stick.

I have also consistently attacked, immediately, any thread of Zippo or S & C which has been anti-semitic in character, and i have constantly, strenuously argued against the September 11th conspiracy idiocy presented by the likes of Zippy. I used to see Joe do the same. I haven't seen him in such threads in a long time, but i attribute that to a salutary resolve on his part to take no further notice of those idiots.

Quote:

Did CJ atttack another member on A2K? No he did not.

Yes, he did, he has and he continues to do so. One need only read the things he has written today. His remarks are far more scurrilous than anything the people participating in this thread have ever said about other members, with the one notable exception of the Possum.

Quote:

Did he say anything that he can't support with an argument? No he did not.

Yes, he has. One need only read the tings he has written today. In both this case, and the case of the previous remark, one doesn't even need to search back through his posts--all of your denials here are given the lie just on the basis of what he has posted today.

Quote:

I once jumped on a member for calling Walter a Nazi.

How laudable of you--and yet you remain mute as the Possum launches scurrilous, personal attacks on other members every day.

Quote:

I have requested that members arguing my side but doing so ad hominem would refrain from doing so.

It is apparent, as is the case with so many people online, that you don't know the meaning of argumentum ad hominem. If you say something and someone else denies it, citing their reasons for denying, at the least offering a logical argument, then they have not indulged argument ad hominem, no matter what sort of unpleasant things they may say about you, or someone you admire. If you say something and someone else asserts that it cannot be true because you are an idiot, and does n0t otherwise support their denail, that is argumentum ad hominem. As is the case with about 95% of the people one encounters online, it appears that you consider any which entails an unpleasant reflection upon you or what you so interpret, to be an instance of argumentum ad hominem, and that it can therefore be dismissed. This is false. Saying "ad homs" repeatedly does not falsify valid criticism of you; and what is merely an insult, especially when obscurely derived, when only alleged, does not constitute an argumentum ad hominem and a basis for rejecting, so long as the member involved has provided a reason for rejecting your argument.

Quote:

When you can show me how you have jumped on your beloveds here who have attacked Ican or Okie or me or any Republican etc. etc. etc., then you might have the moral authority to criticize me for not doing so. Until then you might possibly be guilty of hypocrisy.

The irony here is a killer. I have never seen you criticize the Possum for his daily assaults upon the personal qualities of and the character of everyone with whom he disagrees (which is the great majority of members). I don't say that you might be guilty of hypocrisy--i say that you are guilty of hypocrisy, on a daily basis.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Oh, fox, don't be silly. It's one of those "wedge" issues you guys have been trying to use for years to wedge yourselves back into power. It's starting to blow up in your faces.

I'm not being silly. You are making a silly accusation that you simply won't be able to back up with anything other than what appears to be your own prejudice.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

No, you are the one who needs to "bone up" on what argumentum ad hominem means. It does not simply mean an insult, or what someone feels to have been an insult. It means, specifically, attacking someone's thesis on the basis of the character alleged for that person, as opposed the substance of their thesis.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It's blown so many times, I only wonder why they haven't noticed yet. LOL

0 Replies

Fox, I simply can't believe that you are that naive or live in that much of a vacuum. Maybe you are, maybe you do.

Try googling "wedge issue". See how often same-sex marriage comes up. See who's trying to use it against whom.

Just one example:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21957.html

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How did you become so confused as to what 'gangster' means?

I know what gangster means. Perhaps you do not know or are pretending to not know what gangster means.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=gangster&x=25&y=9
Main Entry: gang·ster
...
Function: noun
...
: a member of a gang of criminals : GUNMAN, THUG; also : a person who uses violence, intimidation, or other extralegal means of coercion for business ends
...

By his actions, Obama is exercising executive powers not granted to the President by the Constitution. He thereby is violating his oath of office:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II
Section 1.
...
The President shall ...
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
...
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Because Obama is a gangster and thereby violating his oath of office, Obama is guilty of treason and should be impeached and removed from office.

1 Reply

What crimes or misdemeanors to you allege against Mr. Obama?

What evidence to you have that Mr. Obama is a member of a criminal organization?

What criminal organization do you allege Mr. Obama is a member of?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

[1]What crimes or misdemeanors to you allege against Mr. Obama?

[2]What evidence to you have that Mr. Obama is a member of a criminal organization?

[3]What criminal organization do you allege Mr. Obama is a member of?

[1]Obama is taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those people who lawfully earned it, and giving to those people who have not lawfully earned it.

[2]Obama is a member of Obama's administration. Obama's administration is doing what Obama allows them to do. Obama's administration is taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those people who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those people who have not lawfully earned it. The Obama administration is thereby a gangster organization.

[3]Obama is a member and the boss of the Obama Administration. The Obama adminisration is a gangster organization. Therefore, Obama is a gangster member of his own gangster organization.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

You are 100% wrong in your use of the word 'gangster,' Ican. Obama is not violating the law in any way. You merely wish the law were different than it actually is, for it does not support your idea of right and wrong.

This is a little ridiculous, actually; according to you, every single president in the last 60 years was a fellow gangster. I never, however, heard you refer to Bush or any other Republican in this way once, thou hypocrite!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Didn't Bush give a lot of money to people who didn't earn it? ... I don't remember any conservative calling for the impeachment of Republicans or the Republican president when they were in power.

Yes! Bush did take money from those who lawfully earned it, and gave it to those who did not lawfully earn it. It's too late to impeach and remove Bush from office. He's already ended his term as President.

I too did not call for impeachment and removal of Bush while he was President. I was naive enough to presume Bush would voluntarily mend his ways. I finally have learned from Bush, and Clinton and Roosevelt and Wilson that gangster Presidents do not mend their ways. They continue to increase their stealing of wealth and redistribution of it until the ends of their Presidencies.

The only difference between Obama and his predecessors is the magnitude of his gangsterism. It is many times greater than that of any of his predecessors. It's now clear to me that unless Obama is stopped, America's Constitutional Republic is doomed to fail.

Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 " 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

Our Constitutional Republic was established March 4, 1789. It is now June 1, 2009. In 3 days our Constitutional Republic will be 220 years, 3 months old.

Are we smart enough to rescue it now?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Bush did take money from those who lawfully earned it, and gave it to those who did not lawfully earn it. It's too late to impeach and remove Bush from office. He's already ended his term as President.

If Bush committed crimes, robbed lawful citizens, headed a criminal organisation and violated the Constitution, there's still time to put him on trial. Would you be in favour of doing that?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

A person can believe that people of another race are inferior. I would seriously disagree with him/her but would not consider him/her unacceptable for his belief. It is how he treats people of the other race that matters, and if he treats them as equals, then his belief shouldn't matter to anybody.

Fine. You're welcome to all the closeted bigots you want. I'm glad they can all find a home under the big MAC tent.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

Quote:

[1]Obama is taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those people who lawfully earned it, and giving to those people who have not lawfully earned it.

Where in the Constitution does it say what Obama is doing is illegal?

ican wrote:

Quote:

[2]Obama is a member of Obama's administration. Obama's administration is doing what Obama allows them to do. Obama's administration is taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those people who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those people who have not lawfully earned it. The Obama administration is thereby a gangster organization.

You say "Obama is a member of Obama's administration." Isn't this obvious? Which president of the past or present wasn't a member of his own administration? Who exactly are those "people who lawfully earned it?" What evidence do you have that the "Obama administration is a gangster organization?" Please provide evidence for this.

ican wrote:

Quote:

[3]Obama is a member and the boss of the Obama Administration. The Obama adminisration is a gangster organization. Therefore, Obama is a gangster member of his own gangster organization.

You have not provided any evidence that the Obama administration is a gangster organization. Until such time, please cease using adjectives that has no meaning.

Your claims lacks logic, substance, evidence and common sense.

Go back to flying airplanes.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, where in the Constitution of the USA as lawfully Amended is the federal government granted the power to redistribute wealth? If that power has not been granted by the Constitution, then the exercise of that power by the federal government is a violation of the "supreme law of the land," our Constitution. If it be a violation of the "supreme law of the land," it is criminal--it is gangsterism.

Obama has taken the gangsterism of his predecessors to a far greater extreme. He must be stopped whatever lawful way we can!

2 Replies

@old europe,

First things first. Let's remove Obama. Our survival depends on it! Then we can put on trial all alive past presidents--including Obama--guilty of the same crime . I would be in favor of that!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, Where in the Constitution does it restrict the redistribute wealth?

Many children who's parents are too poor attend public schools, and have access to health care at our community hospitals. Many children and adults suffering from disability get SSI and other government benefits - and some have never worked a day in their life.

Most of us who have paid into social security and Medicare have received more benefits than we have paid into it.

You are hung on the words "redistribute wealth," but you have no concept of what the Constitution allows our government to do - including the taxation codes.

So quit your bitching, and look in the mirror.

You need to get a life, or learn about our country's Constitution, it's laws, and the right of congress to make those laws.

If you vote, you are part of your own problem for electing those into congress and local government; they all have powers to enact taxation laws.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, where in the Constitution of the USA as lawfully Amended is the federal government granted the power to redistribute wealth? If that power has not been granted by the Constitution, then the exercise of that power by the federal government is a violation of the "supreme law of the land," our Constitution. If it be a violation of the "supreme law of the land," it is criminal--it is gangsterism.

Obama has taken the gangsterism of his predecessors to a far greater extreme. He must be stopped whatever lawful way we can!

You hardly need me to point out that the Constitution provides both the power of taxation and that of 'providing for the general welfare.' You don't like what that last part means, so you pretend it means something other than what everyone else thinks it means.

You are not a legal or police authority; you don't get to make binding determinations that something is 'gangsterism.' There is no reason for anyone to take your argument seriously.

Honestly - what is it you plan on doing? What is it you think will happen? You know that Obama is not going to be impeached for his tax policies.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone imposter, if a power is not granted the federal government by the Constitution then the federal government cannot lawfullyl exercis that power. Review the 10th Amendment.

So, if you believe the federal government has the power to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not lawfully earn it, it is your obligation to show where in the Constitution, the federal government is granted the power to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not lawfully earn it.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Obama is taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those people who lawfully earned it, and giving to those people who have not lawfully earned it.

This is an unsubstantiated allegation. The flimsy evidence you would have for it is the Internal Revenue Service, and Congress enacts the tax code--it is not a product of presidential fiat. This is an unsubstantiated allegation which doesn't even have the poor rationale of logic.

Quote:

Obama is a member of Obama's administration. etc., etc.

This is poor even by your low, low standards. This is an unsubstantiated allegation.

Quote:

Obama is a member and the boss of the Obama Administration. The Obama adminisration is a gangster organization. Therefore, Obama is a gangster member of his own gangster organization.

Once again, this is an unsubstantiated allegation. You have not shown that Mr. Obama is doing what you allege he is doing, and you haven't shown that the current executive administration is a criminal organization.

Simply making allegations, based upon partisan hysteria, but without any sort of substantiation does not make a case against Mr. Obama.

Once again, that is pathetic even by your low standards.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know