Let the Aftermath Begin

[Wild Zero]

If Obama was doing a poor job of leading/forwarding his agenda Hyde Park traffic would have dried up in February of 2009.

The teeth gnashing and hyperbole from the usual suspects speaks to a different reality.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Wild Zero

If Obama was doing a poor job of leading/forwarding his agenda Hyde Park traffic would have dried up in February of 2009.

The teeth gnashing and hyperbole from the usual suspects speaks to a different reality.

Then why were there all those threads attacking George Bush when he was president? Why do the strong feeling still persist?

Surly, you are not saying Bush did a good job?

[Bearsy]

[frankman]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

We always seem to have great presidents in movies. Air Force One comes to mind. But, they are not real. We can hope our real life presidents are like the movie ones but movie presidents can redo scenes again and again; until they get it right. Real presidents only get one shot. Live action new conferences are just that “live”.

Movie presidents always seem to have perfect leadership skills. They speak and even their political opponents pause. Real life is never that easy. A new president must establish his leadership from the start. Remember he is the boss.

Unfortunately, that is something Barack Obama has failed to do. Yes, in my opinion.

So if you ask for leadership and some movie character asks for leadership, you're NOT both asking the same question just because the outcome may differ? That's the most retarded thing I've heard so far.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by frankman

So if you ask for leadership and some movie character asks for leadership, you're NOT both asking the same question just because the outcome may differ? That's the most retarded thing I've heard so far.

Obama's "greatness" is relative to perception, depending on what you think of his administration's policies. So obviously opinions differ.

[frankman]

Originally Posted by mountaindew

Obama's "greatness" is relative to perception, depending on what you think of his administration's policies. So obviously opinions differ.

Opinions differ, but the fundamentals remain the same. The same question does not somehow magically change because one has a different answer. Obama is still the president, no matter what you think of him. The word leadership means the same, no matter if you think he has it or not. His lack of it does not change its definition.

That's why it was retarded. I don't mind people not liking Obama, I mind people denying something easily verifyable. They said the same exact thing, and he's saying he didn't just because he didn't like how I spinned it, and that's childish.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by frankman

Opinions differ, but the fundamentals remain the same. The same question does not somehow magically change because one has a different answer. Obama is still the president, no matter what you think of him. The word leadership means the same, no matter if you think he has it or not. His lack of it does not change its definition.

That's why it was retarded. I don't mind people not liking Obama, I mind people denying something easily verifyable. They said the same exact thing, and he's saying he didn't just because he didn't like how I spinned it, and that's childish.

As usual, the discussion gets bogged down in semantics.

[Blackjack]

Originally Posted by mountaindew

As usual, the discussion gets bogged down in semantics.

How come you never complain when Deliman does it?

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Blackjack

How come you never complain when Deliman does it?

Because they're usually not my conversations. Notice how Deliman and I don't have much to "discuss" in Hyde Park: it's all understood.

[Christov]

No dude, it's because the both of you are hypocrites.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Christov

No dude, it's because the both of you are hypocrites.

I can appreciate a generous helping of defamation from time to time. Are you through?

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Christov

No dude, it's because the both of you are hypocrites.

Is your ego really that small? Step up to the plate. Join the debate. Make your points and justify them.

[Christov]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Is your ego really that small? Step up to the plate. Join the debate. Make your points and justify them.

Have done, multiple times, but I'm failing to see the point in actually bothering with either of you when all I get in return are faulty hypotheticals and obtuse remarks.

But if it pleases you.

You're both in favour of the Patriot Act but claim the Healthcare Bill will infringe on your civil liberties.

You're both against big Government and pro-tax loopholes yet Ronald Reagan expanded Government to counter and close these loopholes, and you worship the ground he walked on.

You're both stalwart defenders of the Constitution but woefully uncomfortable with the fact that it denies the notion of America being a Religious theocracy, renders marriage a union available to all, allows embryonic stem cell research and Federal funding thereof, and does not prohibit drugs like marijuana and the like.

You're both claiming not to be racist and yet you insinuate Obama got every job he's ever had (along with the Presidency) simply on the back of affirmative action.

I could go on.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Christov

Have done, multiple times, but I'm failing to see the point in actually bothering with either of you when all I get in return are faulty hypotheticals and obtuse remarks.

That is what a debate is all about. Don't be afraid to express you opinion.

Originally Posted by Christov

But if it pleases you.

You're both in favour of the Patriot Act but claim the Healthcare Bill will infringe on your civil liberties.

The Patriot Act was passed with a bipartisan majority. It is designed to protect the public from people and groups created to kill and maim the public.

The Healthcare Law was passed by one party and then with only narrow public support. In fact, the public is opposed to the law. (it was an issue in the recent mid-term elections)

Further, there are serious constitutional questions concerning the law. Is the individual mandate constitutional? The bill was first passed in the Senate, but it contains taxes. That means it is a money bill. Under Article One, Section 7 which states: All Bills raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. The Healthcare Law was passed in the Senate first.

Originally Posted by Christov

You're both against big Government and pro-tax loopholes yet Ronald Reagan expanded Government to counter and close these loopholes, and you worship the ground he walked on.

He also gave the nation one of the largest tax cuts in history. He created a pro-growth and pro-employment business environment.

He change the nations foreign policy by first being strong, but latter signing important weapons limitation treaties like the IMF and START treaties.

Originally Posted by Christov

You're both stalwart defenders of the Constitution but woefully uncomfortable with the fact that it denies the notion of America being a Religious theocracy, renders marriage a union available to all, allows embryonic stem cell research and Federal funding thereof, and does not prohibit drugs like marijuana and the like.

I challenged you to provide a quote where I called for an establishment of a state religion. Two, the constitution is silent concerning the subject of marriage. Three, the constitution also says nothing about stem cell research. Anyone can do such research. The debate is over the Federal government paying for it. Marijuana and other drugs are covered under the commerce clause. The availability can change the price across state lines.

Originally Posted by Christov

You're both claiming not to be racist and yet you insinuate Obama got every job he's ever had (along with the Presidency) simply on the back of affirmative action.

There are liberals that hate Clarence Thomas. They claim he is an affirmative action appointment. Are they racist?

Originally Posted by Christov

I could go on.

Do go on ...

[Christov]

Thank you for proving my point about you being one of the most obtuse people on Earth. I point out your hypocrisies and you want to argue about the details of a bill or a Politician as a way of sidestepping the fact that you have been called out.

The Patriot Act is still a civil liberties nightmare, yet you defend it to the death.

Reagan still expanded Government and closed tax loopholes, yet you call him a small Government crusader and are more than happy to let people step through the loopholes.

Your denial of legalising certain drugs and Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are based in religious dogma. By wanting laws to remain in effect regarding them, you are advocating a religious theocracy, which the Constitution you hold dear (and feel happy to trot out when it suits your interest) does not permit.

You sir are a hypocrite.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Christov

Thank you for proving my point about you being one of the most obtuse people on Earth. I point out your hypocrisies and you want to argue about the details of a bill or a Politician as a way of sidestepping the fact that you have been called out.

Pesky details! Why dig through the pudding to find the proof?

[DELIMAN092262]

Care to try again??? You have not proven "Jack Shit!!!"

[Christov]

Okay, so defending the Patriot Act (which essentially makes all kinds of undue spying on citizens and other such nastiness legal) but wailing about civil liberties being infringed by a Healthcare Bill that essentially acts as a preservation of Insurance companies (again, despite crying about it being Socialist and out to destroy the free market) isn't hypocritical?

You're ridiculous, and this whole fucking board is a charade.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Christov

denial of legalizing drugs and Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are based in religious dogma. By wanting laws to remain...you are advocating a religious theocracy, which the Constitution...does not permit.

Prove this assertion adequately, or you're simply being obtuse yourself. Takes one to know one, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Christov

You're ridiculous, and this whole fucking board is a charade.

Stop whining, or pick up your toys and go home. There's no crying in baseball.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Christov

Thank you for proving my point about you being one of the most obtuse people on Earth. I point out your hypocrisies and you want to argue about the details of a bill or a Politician as a way of sidestepping the fact that you have been called out.

Your opinions are just that. I called you out too. Does that really change anything? Pathetic!!!

Originally Posted by Christov

The Patriot Act is still a civil liberties nightmare, yet you defend it to the death.

And you continue to fight it. It still is the law.

Originally Posted by Christov

Reagan still expanded Government and closed tax loopholes, yet you call him a small Government crusader and are more than happy to let people step through the loopholes.

On balance he was one of the greatest Presidents of the last century. For all of his negatives, his positives far exceed them.

Originally Posted by Christov

Your denial of legalising certain drugs and Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are based in religious dogma. By wanting laws to remain in effect regarding them, you are advocating a religious theocracy, which the Constitution you hold dear (and feel happy to trot out when it suits your interest) does not permit.

Care to prove that statement. Can you cite one post where I justified drug laws or denying Federal stem cell research based on a religious statement? Of course, you can not! Again, can you cite one post where I call for an official religion? Wrong again!

Originally Posted by Christov

You sir are a hypocrite.

Several colorful descriptions come to mind, but you are just not worth it!

[Christov]

Originally Posted by mountaindew

Prove this assertion adequately, or you're simply being obtuse yourself. Takes one to know one, I suppose.

Are you twelve? Fucking hell.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Right from the First Amendment. The Government should not make laws that have their base in religious context. Taboos regarding drugs, embryonic stem cell research, and same sex marriage are all based in religion, ergo such decisions outlawing drugs, Federal funding of stem cell research, and restricting marriage to same sex couples are at their heart Unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by mountaindew

Stop whining, or pick up your toys and go home. There's no crying in baseball.

Oh please. There is no point to debate on this board, because when confronted with the most well reasoned argument with facts and sources to back it up, you just go crosseyed and repeat the same recycled talking points ad nauseam like a particularly annoying talking alarm clock.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Christov

Are you twelve? Fucking hell.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Right from the First Amendment. The Government should not make laws that have their base in religious context. Taboos regarding drugs, embryonic stem cell research, and same sex marriage are all based in religion, ergo such decisions outlawing drugs, Federal funding of stem cell research, and restricting marriage to same sex couples are at their heart Unconstitutional.

I can read perfectly well, it's your atrocious extrapolations that make a load of non-sense. The 1st Amendment is there for one obvious reason from British history: no established state religions like the Catholic Church (figurehead: Pope) or the Church of England (figurehead: Monarch). The other pesky portion of that amendment "or prohibit the free exercise thereof", is part of what hangs up your arguement. But most of all, you take the wording of the Bill of Rights completely out of historical context to suit your secular progressive agenda. And that's not mentioning all the court cases lately, claiming we must consider the Quran as law if it plays into a wife's rape by a Muslim man (which is total nonsense).

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Christov

Oh please. There is no point to debate on this board, because when confronted with the most well reasoned argument with facts and sources to back it up, you just go crosseyed and repeat the same recycled talking points ad nauseam like a particularly annoying talking alarm clock.

< DEEP BELLY LAUGH >

And, I thought it was you. “Well reasoned arguments”??? Sure, keep those happy thoughts.

[Christov]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Your opinions are just that. I called you out too. Does that really change anything? Pathetic!!!

Pardon? You called me out? Trying to change the subject isn't calling somebody out, it is a pathetic little trick to steer away a debate from the core issue.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

And you continue to fight it. It still is the law.

And?

It violates your rights, and those of others. The reason none of the cowards in Congress have repealed it is based on people like you blindly defending it as you're unaware of your own spiralling descent into a surveillance society.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

On balance he was one of the greatest Presidents of the last century. For all of his negatives, his positives far exceed them.

Firstly, Reagan being on of the greatest Presidents is based in opinion. Secondly, (and I've said this before), he expanded Government and closed tax loopholes, two things you're supposedly against, and you still hold him as a Political messiah. This is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Care to prove that statement. Can you cite one post where I justified drug laws or denying Federal stem cell research based on a religious statement? Of course, you can not! Again, can you cite one post where I call for an official religion? Wrong again!

Nyergh, wrong answer.

Asking for me to find a post where you call for an official religion is pointless, because the both of us know it doesn't exist, so if I go looking for it or not you can shout "YOU HAVE NO PROOF, LA LA LA".

However, you have in the past justified drug laws (and shown at the same time you actually have no idea of the effects of marijuana ). Taboo regarding drugs is based in religion, and by supporting laws that prohibit the use of drugs, you are supporting laws that are at heart Unconstitutional because of their background in religious moral doctrine. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, in doing this you a supporting a subtle religious theocracy.

[Christov]

Originally Posted by mountaindew

IThe other pesky portion of that amendment "or prohibit the free exercise thereof", is part of what hangs up your arguement.

Nope. Why? Because what I'm suggesting isn't infringing on the right to practice religion. In fact, it gives far more rights to the general public because it eliminates rigid moral dogma which nobody asked for that only serves to restrict people.

Originally Posted by mountaindew

But most of all, you take the wording of the Bill of Rights completely out of historical context to suit your secular progressive agenda.

So, when you quote the Bill of Rights you're being entirely correct and not entirely taking it out of historical context?

Pff, and you denied being a hypocrite.