I am a Indy but like obama

[ender1138]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

First, and you know this: Government isn't run by pols. They think they make the rules, but the people who run things, like the FBI, the State Dept, Homeland security etc,.. they are run by bureaucrats. Civil servants who see the pols come and see them go.

Not quite. Bureaucracy administers things and makes decisions at a certain level, but the major decisions are handled directly or indirectly by political appointees. Politics is inherently injected into the process at the top and that has implications for the entire bureaucratic process.

But that is an aside.

You are dodging the question though misdirection. That is all your diatribe serves to do.

If my question was truly a "loaded" question as you claim, you could show that. But in fact you have misrepresented my question (in turn making a fallacious straw man argument). My question does not automatically place you "in the role of either being or defending a crackpot who doesn't believe in making a buck" and even if it did that wouldn't qualify it as a "loaded question". It would need to contain a controversial assertion or "presuppose something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved" to meet the definition of a loaded question. However, the only assumption in the question is the one implied in the statement of yours I was responding to.

Here is the statement of yours that I was responding to:

As to government oversight vs operated...choose your poison. I mean both aren't perfect, but to me better gov't than somebody who just wants to pick your pocket for personal gain.

That statement implies that government oversight is somehow morally superior to someone trying to make a buck. You need to justify that assumption. Instead, you are dodging.

I will ask again, What is so bad about someone wanting to make a profit, in your view?

I will elaborate. What is it about someone trying to make a buck that necessitates some mechanism to keep them in check and why is the government the best vehicle for that mechanism? You have to prove the problem and then show that the solution you support is the best (or only) solution to employ. Why is government oversite preferable to someone "trying to pick your pocket"?

In fact, that statement of yours that I was responding to might qualify as a loaded one because it makes a contentious (and snarky) assertion of a false dichotomy between thieves and marginally more benevolent government overseers.

If you are going to make contentious statements, you better be able clarify and defend them; to back them up. To simply make those statements and refuse to back them up comes across as a childish attempt to bait and inflame those holding opposing points of view...

You made a contentious statement. Defend it.

[Guest052813-01]

I will say it before, and I will say it again. If you are for the Bamster, you are against America. Contrary to your statement, Bartman, I think you will find more Americans that agree with that statement than disagree. The Bamster is attempting to turn this country into a third-world dictatorship, no different than Venezuela and Cuba. He may have been duly elected into office but the Bamster is using his power, along with his enablers in the leadership of the Congress, to take over major parts of the economy and the infrastructure of the country. The automakers, financial institutions and health coverage system were the same instituions that were taken over by another duly elected executive with the assistance of the leadership of his country's legislature in 1933 (Deutchland, Deutchland, uber alles), and look how well that turned out. You may not like what I say, and the truth that is revealed when the facts are displayed is usually unpleasant to the people who disagree, but the Progressive utopia this regime is attempting to force onto a population that overwhelmingly does not want it is against America. And if you don't like what I say or the way I'm saying it, too bad.

[Bartman1963]

Ender: I am not going to be put in the position by you of defending myself from a point of weakness as defined by you because of your maliciously false interpretation of what I have to say only because you say I have to. Your specious arguments and BS aside if you try to box me in, I will not allow it, in spite of your demands otherwise.

Fritz. Your arguments are pathetic. I refuse to dignify your political arguments with anything more than a thumbing of my nose at you. Because your political views deserve nothing more.

[Omahan]

Guys up until the last few posts you've done a pretty good job of keeping on the topic. The topic is Obama and his policies not the other posters. Please stick to the topic. If you can't do that I will take that to mean everything worthwhile has been said.

[ender1138]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

Ender: I am not going to be put in the position by you of defending myself from a point of weakness as defined by you

I am not putting you in any such position. The only assumptions/ implications in my question are those from your original statement, and those are the only things that could possibly "paint you into a corner". If you are being "boxed in", you have only yourself to blame. I am simply expecting you to be able to explain and defend the basic presuppositions that your viewpoint is based on.

You accused me of "attempting to re-frame the debate", but in fact only you have done so; specifically in your original statement (which I quoted) that misrepresented the issue in a way favorable to your perspective. I was simply challenging your framing of the debate by asking for a justification of it. Instead, you starting dodging.

Re-framing the debate can be an effective rhetorical tool. It serves both as a means of deceptively getting certain presuppositions accepted into the discussion without other parties realizing it, and as a way of avoiding discussion of those presuppositions. If someone dodges any questioning of their framing of a discussion, then they probably are not discussing things honestly or in good faith.

It seems you don't like being challenged on the precepts your position is rooted in and refuse to discuss things unless you are allowed to frame the debate in a way that misrepresents in a way favorable for your position.

Both of those facts suggest that you are unwilling and/or unable to defend your view when it's basic suppositions are called into question.

There is a difference between simply accepting emotionally appealing rhetoric and then trying to justify it (usually though cheap, fallacious rationalizations) and actually understanding the basic premises the various viewpoints are rooted in, following the logic and drawing reasonable conclusions.

[ender1138]

I understand and appreciated the need to stay civil in a political discussion. But unless people are held to an expectation of defending their position, any political discussion is ultimately yelling past each other and uncivil.

A civil and (more important) honest discussion in politics starts where the basic differences are (usually at the point of the basic premises the positions are based on.) If those basic premises are allowed to be taken off the table by any party, the result will simply be posturing, baiting, verbal bomb throwing, trolling, etc. No informed, honest and productive discussion can take place; all you are left with is competing sets of rhetoric and progressively more vehement attempt to defend and de-legitimize that rhetoric; ultimately resulting in people yelling past each other.

Politics is often called "war without bullets" for a reason; any honest and productive discussion of it by opposing views necessitates a think skin...

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

Fritz. Your arguments are pathetic. I refuse to dignify your political arguments with anything more than a thumbing of my nose at you. Because your political views deserve nothing more.

That's only because my arguments are correct and based on facts, history, statements made in the public record, actions of this administration and in documents written by the individuals who make these assertions. You have nothing to defend it with other than lies, distortions and personal attacks. Amazing what happens when the facts get in the way of the rhetoric.

[ender1138]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

That's only because my arguments are correct and based on facts, history, statements made in the public record, actions of this administration and in documents written by the individuals who make these assertions.

Agreed.

You have nothing to defend it with other than lies, distortions and personal attacks. Amazing what happens when the facts get in the way of the rhetoric.

That is the problem with far too many on the left.

They are good at making brazen and authoritative assertions but when expected to be able to defend those assertions and the suppositions on which those assertions are logically based, they flake. Instead, they resort to misdirection, smears and lies; basically treating any fundamental objection to their view as illegitimate.

They treat the questioning of the foundations of their views as "out of bounds". That is why they so aggressively attack Beck, Limbaugh, etc. Those pundits points out the philosophical roots of progressivism and many progressives unrealistically deny that there are even any philosophical roots to progressivism. Instead of challenging the arguments on their merits, they besmirch non-liberal pundits and misrepresent them.

Just look at the reaction when it is claimed that Obama is a socialist; sanctimonious outrage. The best they can do muster in defense is to misrepresent the claim and the ideas in it. They cannot honestly address the claim. More often, the person making the claim is simply treated with derision and dismissed.

Condensation is no mask for ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Or, as Edmund Burke famously said:

it is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion

[Bartman1963]

"Yes. I trust that person, that career civil servant, more than I trust the equivalent middle management type in the corporate world. Because they are going to make a decision based on rules. A framework. A statute."

Ender, you have said nothing to counter this. Nothing. You have ignored it. That statement is far more contentious than what you chose to argue with. Perhaps you have no counter for it. Hmmmm

The reason you chose to argue over my supposedly having something against making a profit, is so you can take the tired path of accusing me of being socialist, or communist or the newest lie taken on by the right, a Nazi. I am not buying into YOUR strawman. You are only trying to change what I said to manipulate the reader and steer the debate your way. Something that conservatives have been doing for years. Misrepresent then ask a leading question. Well forget it. Not playing that game with you. You can either ask the more legitimate question, "Why do you say both are poisonous, but still favor government?" which should be obvious (because I answered it, twice now), or you can continue to wait for an answer until hell freezes.

In order to make yourself the aggressor and me the defender, you misrepresent and ask a leading question that simply has nothing to do with what I said. I did not imply that "profit" was wrong, or that it was not needed. You know that. What I was implying was that the private sector was more likely to "pick your pocket". Since you have by default stated in your question that "profit" as I phrased, must equal "picking your pocket" as you questioned; and picking of pockets is criminal behavior, then by your own standard one must ask you the following question. Why do you think profit is criminal, Ender?

This question is of course ridiculous. Yet you expect me to defend the same type of rubbish. I am not going to do it, and I don't have to. You have entered that shrubbery maze, but I am under no obligation to follow you.

"You have made a contentious statement, now defend it". Who the hell do you think you are? Pomposity is apparently something you deem civil.

You have stated above that you agree with Fritz. Good for you, that's a fine ideology you have. Consider yourself lumped in with him.

Edmund Burke quotes don't make your arguments any more intellectually honest than anyone else's. We all have a Bartlett's, or access to Google.

When I am attacked by an entertainer like Beck, or Limbaugh I laugh it off because they misrepresent the facts just enough to get good people such as you fired up. Then folks such as yourself break out the comics they have read that back up their politics and read them again. Well great! You can read! Thank the liberal agenda.

What you apparently cannot do is discern when statements are intellectually dishonest. You assume they are intellectually dishonest because a persons actions or words are not what you would do or say. Which, frankly considering the pedantic nature of your arguments makes the opposite of your opinion quite appealing.

Fritz: To quote someone who used to blog here "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".

I think I hear something. Oh yes. It's contentious, pretentious crap. Must be Fritz. Helloooo old boy! Say, write any more reviews lately? Those are quite good. You must write a jolly good letter to Penthouse. Why don't you stick to that instead of boring us all with your sad little views on politics? I mean really old chap, those are quite horrid...

Your remarks sir, continue to require no more than that kind of response.

Both of your arguments bore me.

[lacrew_2000]

"since Obama took over Al-Queadas recruitment has diminished- "...says who? Investor's Terrorist Daily?

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Obama philosophy. The maniacs who want to destroy us will always want to destroy us, no matter how nice we are, unless we all convert to islam.

Twice a day, every day, the population of Iran kneels down and chants 'death to Israel, death to America'...they've done this since Carter was in office.

We ignored this for a quarter century. We ignored numerous bombings and terrorist acts...and all it got us was September 11. Why on earth would we now consider ignoring these maniacs to be a good strategy?

[ender1138]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

"Yes. I trust that person, that career civil servant, more than I trust the equivalent middle management type in the corporate world. Because they are going to make a decision based on rules. A framework. A statute."

Ender, you have said nothing to counter this. Nothing. You have ignored it. That statement is far more contentious than what you chose to argue with. Perhaps you have no counter for it. Hmmmm

"Red Herring: a deliberate attempt to divert a process of inquiry by changing the subject"

In post #61 I only confronted it enough to point out that it was an aside because it is nothing more then an attempt to deflect and change the subject. It is a red herring because it in no way answers the question I asked and in fact serves to change the focus of my original question.

You are saying that a "career civil servant" is more trustworthy then a "middle management type" because the civil servant makes decisions based on rules, etc. However, that is just as true of "middle management types" in the private sector (contrary to the implications of your original statement).

The only difference between the two is in what end those institutions are directed towards. The rules, statutes, etc in both areas are built around the mission statements, directives, polices, etc. decided at the top; political appointees, and CEO's respectively. Those running the two have different ends in mind; one is to enact a political end, the other is enact a personal end (maximizing profits).

My original question focused on those ends; the ultimate difference between the two areas. Your "answer" misrepresented the middlemen in the two areas and then focused on that misrepresentation.

In short, you were misleading by setting up a false dichotomy and using that as a red herring to change the focus of the discussion. To directly confront that is to allow you to change the focus of the discussion and to dodge my question.

The reason you chose to argue over my supposedly having something against making a profit, is so you can take the tired path of accusing me of being socialist, or communist or the newest lie taken on by the right, a Nazi. I am not buying into YOUR strawman.

If I was setting up a straw man, you could show it. Instead, all you have are accusations that inherently distort what I am saying. You are the one setting up straw men here.

In truth, my reason for asking my question was nothing as grand as you claim; it was simply to get you to actually justify why you view governmental institutions as more trustworthy then private enterprises. The few reasons you gave were superficial and specious at best. They didn't answer my original question and only served to change the focus of the discussion.

As to the "communist/socialist/national socialist (Nazi)" narrative; if it is a "straw man" as you claim, it would be easy to demonstrate. All you have offered are mere assertions to the contrary.

Do you even understand the argument as to why modern liberalism/progressivism is socialist in nature? If not, there is no way you can reasonably reject that claim.

I will help you out though; these links give a bit of an indication as to why Obama (and by extention, modern liberalism) is viewed as socialist in nature, but they don't really get to the heart of the argument. For that, you need an understanding of what socialism and modern liberalism are (and are not) at the ideological/philosophical level.

Call it a straw man all you like but it is something that has been argued long before Beck, Limbaugh, etc. were even born; by the likes of academics, intellectuals and Nobel Laureates. That doesn't mean that the claim is right, but it does show that it is not simply some disingenuous deception meant to smear liberals, as you are intimating.

Norman Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

FYI; the "Obama is a Nazi" claim is not coming from the right but from the fringe left. Google the term "LaRouche" and "Nazi".

You are only trying to change what I said

No, I am only expecting you to fully understand, explain and defend the way you characterize the issue and the logical implications of that characterization.

In order to make yourself the aggressor and me the defender, you misrepresent and ask a leading question that simply has nothing to do with what I said.

If that was the case you could honestly show it (instead of misrepresentation and mere assertion).

I did not imply that "profit" was wrong, or that it was not needed. You know that.

What you said only makes any sense if certain presuppositions are accepted a priori. The logical conclusion of those presuppositions is consistent with what I said. It is a logical argument called reductio ad absurdum.

Just because you are ignorant of the presuppositions that the narrative you subscribe to stems from doesn't mean I am distorting what you said.

What I was implying was that the private sector was more likely to "pick your pocket".

Exactly. As you characterize it, they are "thieves" who are taking something as opposed exchanging a product, service, etc. for money.

You are misrepresenting the private sector and the dynamic between private enterprise and government regulators. That is what I was challenging.

"You have made a contentious statement, now defend it". Who the hell do you think you are? Pomposity is apparently something you deem civil.

I simply expect you to discuss things honestly and in good faith. It seems you cannot do that with anyone who doesn't accept the way you frame the debate and/or approach things from your point of view.

You have stated above that you agree with Fritz. Good for you, that's a fine ideology you have. Consider yourself lumped in with him.

What ideology is that?

You do realize that your entire little temper tantrum is nothing more then an attempt to rationalize dismissing me and my arguments, right? You have not offered any honest counterarguments or confronted anything I said on it's merits. You are simply proving what I implied in my last post; that liberals tend to substitute condescension and cheap rationalizations for reasonable discourse.

It is very easy to believe whatever you want to believe if you simply deem any opposing point of view as beyond contempt and not worthy of consideration.

Fritz: To quote someone who used to blog here "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".

I think I hear something. Oh yes. It's contentious, pretentious crap. Must be Fritz. Helloooo old boy! Say, write any more reviews lately? Those are quite good. You must write a jolly good letter to Penthouse. Why don't you stick to that instead of boring us all with your sad little views on politics? I mean really old chap, those are quite horrid...

Your remarks sir, continue to require no more than that kind of response.

Both of your arguments bore me.

Thanks for demonstrating my point by providing an example of derision as a substitute for honest, respectful and reasonable discourse/consideration.

[lacrew_2000]

Wellendowed, I seem to have struck a nerve. You made a false statement about the cost of the war in Iraq. Your own research proves that you were false. I really don't like it when mistatements are thrown around as facts, so I corrected it, to put the argument in context.

I will state it again: The war in Iraq does not cost a billion dollars a day.

No need to call me names over it, or turn your cap locks on.

Here is a link to an anti-war website which cites the Brookings Institution:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homel...raqNumbers.htm

Actual spending is around a quarter of what you claimed.

We aren't going to get far if we can't agree on basic, on record, facts without name calling....and I turn my speakers down whenever I see the cap locks.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

"since Obama took over Al-Queadas recruitment has diminished- "...says who? Investor's Terrorist Daily?

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Obama philosophy. The maniacs who want to destroy us will always want to destroy us, no matter how nice we are, unless we all convert to islam.

Twice a day, every day, the population of Iran kneels down and chants 'death to Israel, death to America'...they've done this since Carter was in office.

We ignored this for a quarter century. We ignored numerous bombings and terrorist acts...and all it got us was September 11. Why on earth would we now consider ignoring these maniacs to be a good strategy?

This is pure fact than even Faux news pundits would not dispute- Obama's rhetoric is polar opposite of Bush. The Islamic world hated Bush and his policies and it was easier for Al-Queada to recruit strictly based on Bush's polocies. Obama's first Interview was to address the islamic world on Al-jezeera- Obama has been stern on his stance against isreal- isreal got whatever they want from Obama. when Osama's 2nd in command gave a speech shortly after Obama's election the muslim world laughed it. CNN and CBS did a poll of Obamas' approval on a world wide basis and it came back with 90% and 88 respectively- Bush's was in the low 20's. Yes, Obama's election dealt a pyschological blow to Al-Queada's recruitment- Indonesia which is the largest muslim country in the world- had parades to celebrate his victory- check your sources a lot ofIslamic nations have updated their history books by adding in :"a son of a muslim" was elected as Presidnet of the U.S. Al Queada is getting so desperate that they took claim for the shoe bomber- are you freaking kidding me- it's proven that the shoe bomber never got training from Al-Queada- Al- queada just wants to take credit for any little thing to keep their name alive.
Here's another fact that you can search or google- Obama's 1 & 1/2 year in office his administration has already captured or killed more Al-Queada/Taliban operatives/Terrorist than bush in his 7 years after 9-11- so much for Obama being weak on security.
Just to add a note of how big hyprocrites the GOP has become- obama is getting blasted by some GOP critics for the new Nuclear reduction treated he just signed- but didn't the great Ronald Reagan do the same??? Was Reagan making us weaker too? According to the next great GOP presidential hopeful Sarah Palin who is just an expert in nuclear arms, Palin said Obama is making us weaker-lol. Even after this nuclear reduction we still have enough nukes to bomb major cities 5 x's over- whoever think that reducing nuclear weapons makes us look weak is a moron. there was a GOP politician that said we need to create more nukes- wow- we should spend billions on nukes even though we already have enough to bomb the world over 5 times ago but we should create more and then snarl at iran fr trying to build nukes and I guess having more nukes that are designed to kill millions is better than adopting a health care plan designed to SAVE millions- do you see the hyprocrisy???

[lacrew_2000]

Here we go again:

We do not have an arsenal big enough to blow up the planet 5 times.

[ender1138]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The Islamic world hated Bush and his policies and it was easier for Al-Queada to recruit strictly based on Bush's polocies.

Relevance?

The more aggressive you are in defending yourself the more easily your enemy will recruit people to their cause. The point you raise is a non-starter; it is utterly irrelevant to the issue. It is something that I pointed out in my previous post; a red herring.

"Red Herring: a deliberate attempt to divert a process of inquiry by changing the subject"