55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Wrong. I made my case with evidence, links, direct quotations, and correlations to back it up. You couldn't make yours and provided nothing to support your opinion. I win.

Again I refer you to the National Black Republicans website for direct quotations from Obama that they (and I) consider racist. If you need a course in remedial reading in order to understand what they posted, I can refer you. Just let me know. I see no reason you otherwise shouldn't be able to read them there instead of me having to copy and paste and interpret them for you.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Wrong. I made my case with evidence, links, direct quotations, and correlations to back it up. You couldn't make yours and provided nothing to support your opinion. I win.


Not only are you wrong, statements like this make you sound like an ass. I'm sure coming back and re-visiting this after you've had some time to cool off will help you realize the foolishness of some statements.

Quote:

Again I refer you to the National Black Republicans website for direct quotations from Obama that they (and I) consider racist. If you need a course in remedial reading in order to understand what they posted, I can refer you. Just let me know. I see no reason you otherwise shouldn't be able to read them there instead of me having to copy and paste them for you.


Those who are unwilling to specifically detail their allegations are always losers, Fox. Always. You have cowardly avoided doing so - in exactly the fashion I alleged you would - because you cannot do so. Not the action of a winner.

Referring me to some other website is a way for you to avoid detailing your allegations. It puts the onus of defending the statements on others, and not yourself. It's childish, and transparently obvious to any student of debate that you can't support your end of the argument; it would have taken you less time to detail your allegations, than you have spent defending your refusal to do so.

This is ******* boring, if you can't support your allegations, I'll do something more interesting

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well you got one thing right today at least. This is boring. Those who attack their opponent instead of providing credible rebuttal for what he or she says are the ones who look foolish.

Until you rebut my 'evidence', I win.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well you got one thing right today at least. This is boring. Those who attack their opponent instead of providing credible rebuttal for what he or she says are the ones who look foolish.

Until you rebut my 'evidence', I win.


Good thing you put the word evidence in quotes, it's the first accurate thing you've done all day - at least on this topic.

I can't provide rebuttal for what you said, b/c you refuse to actually say anything, instead outsourcing your argument to others. You call Obama a racist but refuse to detail in your own words how he is so. Intellectual cowardice, weakness, or both? It's hard to tell.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
See? Over and over again you prove my point. I win.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:27 pm
Obamacrats are Collectivists. Modern American Conservatives are Individualists.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=collectivism&x=11&y=6
Main Entry: col•lec•tiv•ism

1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members
2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior …


Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=individualism&x=21&y=7
Main Entry: in•di•vid•u•al•ism

1 a (1) : the ethical doctrine or principle that the interests of the individual himself are or ought to be paramount in determination of conduct : ethical egoism; also : conduct guided by the principle (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals and that the community or social whole has no value or ethical significance not derived from its constituent individuals b (1) : the doctrine which holds that the chief end of society is the promotion of individual welfare and the chief end of moral law is the development of individual character; also : conduct or practice guided by such a doctrine (2) : a theory or policy having primary regard for individual rights and especially maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual or maintaining the independence of individual initiative, action, and interests (as in industrial organization or in government); also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory or policy -- compare COLLECTIVISM, PATERNALISM, SOCIALISM c : any vigorous and independent striving toward an individual goal or any markedly independent assertion of individual opinions especially without regard for others or in defiance of an institution or larger authority …


Collectivists stifle human development and personal responsibility. They do this by stealing what humans lawfully earn and redistributing it to humans who did not lawfully earn it.

Individualists promote human development and personal responsibility. They do this by securing human rights to their lawfully earned property.

Collectivist societies either eventually collapse or are eventually replaced by individualist societies.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Foxfyre has repeatedly explained why she thinks Obama is a racist. You, Cyclo, have repeatedly failed to explain why you think Obama is not a racisy.

Foxfyre wins!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:35 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre has repeatedly explained why she thinks Obama is a racist. You, Cyclo, have repeatedly failed to explain why you think Obama is not a racisy.

Foxfyre wins!


No, she hasn't; she has instead outsourced that to various 'black republicans,' as if their skin color provides any additional legitimacy to their arguments.

I don't happen to think Obama is a 'racisy,' personally, but I don't think you do, either. If you meant to say 'racist,' I haven't seen him make any statements or actions which I would characterize that way, so I have no reason to believe that he is one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:40 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre has repeatedly explained why she thinks Obama is a racist. You, Cyclo, have repeatedly failed to explain why you think Obama is not a racisy.

Foxfyre wins!


He thinks because I didn't cut and paste the quotations that are already quite competently laid out there that I lose. He doesn't think he has to even support his opinion to win.

Must be a Democrat thing you think?
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre has repeatedly explained why she thinks Obama is a racist. You, Cyclo, have repeatedly failed to explain why you think Obama is not a racisy.

Foxfyre wins!


He thinks because I didn't cut and paste the quotations that are already quite competently laid out there that I lose. He doesn't think he has to even support his opinion to win.

Must be a Democrat thing you think?


Foxfyre has exposed herself OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again as someone who hates Democrats. She has a problem. She's a gal, I believe, who engages in campaigns of lies and misinformation filled with fear-mongering, hate-mongering, and race-baiting because she hates our black Democrat president. The proof is evident from her posts on A2K. If she cannot refute the evidence on A2K, I win.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:21 pm
@Debra Law,
Foxfyre has NOT exposed herself OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again as someone who hates Democrats. She dislikes bunk and has said so after she debunks!

Foxfyre does not engage in campaigns of lies and misinformation filled with fear-mongering, hate-mongering, and race-baiting. Foxfyre doesn't hate anyone because of their skin color. She loves to persue truth!

The proof is evident from the content of her posts on A2K. If you cannot refute her evidence on A2K, Foxfyre wins.

One thing is for certain! If you do not try to refute Foxfyre's arguments and instead continue to try to refute her personally, Foxfyre will continue to win.

Come on! At least give her a modicum of competition.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yup. You can't rebut any of it, so you turn back to attacking me. Smile

I win. I win. I win.

I've noticed the same thing, Foxfyre, they attack the posters, not the evidence. I have yet to see any liberal argue the virtues of Black Liberation Theology, or Alinsky, or Jeremiah Wright, just a few examples. Mostly, they just pass them off as inconsequential or having no relationship to Obama, or something else.

Isn't it nice to be very comfortable and confident with our opinions, based on solid ground, on evidence? I think so.

P.S. I have yet to see a liberal here go into any detail about why Obama needs a national security force just as powerful, just as well funded, as the military. That one is definitely a hot potato, I can understand why they wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole. All cyclops said as I recall was to ask Obama what he meant by it.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:38 pm
Can You Trust Republicans With Medicare?

You want a simple message to counter dishonest fear mongering? How's this, Republicans want to do away with Medicare. They've always wanted to take it away, and if they get half a chance in the future they'll get rid of it then. It's not hard to find examples of them saying so in their own words since Medicare started.

Ronald Reagan in the 60s: "if you don’t [stop Medicare] ... you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free."

Republican Bob Dole openly bragged in 1996 that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare. "I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ..."

GOP guru Newt Gingrich said of Medicare, "We don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart, we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine." He then went on to propose cutting Medicare by 14% and forcing millions of senior citizens to seek out private HMOs or go without, all to help make sure Medicare would 'wither on the vine.' And it continues right into present day.

Roy Blunt: "You could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace."

Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey reaffirmed this week on MtP that he thinks Medicare is "tryanny" and if that's not worrisome enough, he wants to "phase out" social security too.

Republicans want to do away with Medicare because they're against government healthcare, always have been, always will be. That's a core plank in GOP ideology, they hold it as dear and precious as some hold theology. Just yesterday, when asked about government healthcare, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said the "government is a predator, not a competitor" and went on to note he wouldn't vote for any healthcare reform bill as a matter of conservative principle, even if it has everything he wants in it. So when a Republican talks about "reform," says we must "get the government out of healthcare," pitches convoluted tax schemes and private accounts for the affluent, or spits out terms like "socialized medicine," like a dog whistle they all mean the same thing: getting rid of Medicare.

Forget about grandma being unplugged, grandma won't be able to afford being seen, much less be able to pay for hospital admission. Grandma is on her own. All so that conservative zillionaires and their Republican congressional lackeys can save an extra 0.0145 of their gross, bloated paycheck, the same flat rate we all invest to keep millions of senior citizens alive and healthy today.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:47 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup. You can't rebut any of it, so you turn back to attacking me. Smile

I win. I win. I win.

I've noticed the same thing, Foxfyre, they attack the posters, not the evidence. I have yet to see any liberal argue the virtues of Black Liberation Theology, or Alinsky, or Jeremiah Wright, just a few examples. Mostly, they just pass them off as inconsequential or having no relationship to Obama, or something else.


But, that's exactly what they are: inconsequential.

I'm sure you would agree with me that, because we cannot know the thoughts inside someone's head, the only metric we can reliably judge people by is their actions. But you don't ever want to do that; you want to judge Obama by his associations. That's not compelling to anyone, and if you want proof of that, see the last election, in which your side attempted to Demonize Obama continually over his relationships - and it failed, spectacularly.

Quote:
Isn't it nice to be very comfortable and confident with our opinions, based on solid ground, on evidence? I think so.


Your opinions are mostly based on assertions, not evidence. You say stuff like, 'Bush was an honorable man, that's the truth, no more discussion.' That's not based on 'solid ground,' it's your projection of Bush - and of yourself.

Cycloptichorn
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 05:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
healthcare discussion didn't work out the way you'd hoped?
time to look for something you can get better traction with?

excellent effort
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 05:39 pm
Gotta admit it is fascinating to watch how easily you can make "opposing" posters turn on your dime.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
A 'radical leftist' would be pushing a single-payer system right off the bat; Obama isn't doing that.


But he is on record and video, when he was a state senator, as favoring a single payer system.
Do you thinnk he has changed?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:22 pm
@mysteryman,
The currently proposed system is not even remotely similar to a single payer system, is it?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:26 pm
@old europe,
I didnt say it was, but since we dont know what the actual system will look like, it seems kind of silly to guess.

All I did was point out that Obama IS on record as saying he favored a single payer system.
Has he changed?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:38 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I didnt say it was, but since we dont know what the actual system will look like, it seems kind of silly to guess.


There are worlds between a universal, mandatory system with private health care insurers and providers on the one hand, and a state run single payer system on the other hand. Nothing that has been seriously proposed so far looks even remotely like a single payer system.

I would say that even without knowing what the actual system eventually will look like, it's extremely unlikely to suggest that it will be a single payer system. It's certainly not what Obama is "pushing".

If you're making claims that the current proposals will transform the current system into a single payer system, you should be prepared to back that up. For instance by citing the relevant parts of the current proposal that will create a single payer system.


mysteryman wrote:
All I did was point out that Obama IS on record as saying he favored a single payer system.
Has he changed?


And Bush is on the record as saying that he favoured a "partial privatization" of Social Security, and yet the political reality didn't allow him to follow through with that.

If you have more evidence than Obama saying that he would be in favour of replacing the current system with a single payer system - something like actual plans and proposals to transform the current system into a single payer system, for example - then you'd have a point.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 10:22:10