American Politics (2 Viewers)

[HumanDichotomy]

Re: America and their Problems

That's sad. Last of the Kennedy brothers...they really did have a tragic time, that family. Although, considering TK's health, not wholly unexpected. Doesn't make it any less sad though.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Re: America and their Problems

What a man - Obama hails Ted Kennedy's legacy

 

[Iheartgays]

I'm sure HumanDichlamydia will agree with me on this, but while Obama (what kind of a name is that anyway?) was hailed as the bringer of change upon his rise into the presidents seat, very little has happened. All he did was give a bunch of crminals better rights - obviously a priority during an economical crisis, especially considering the war on terror. Indeed, what a man (though if he really was, he would have less of a fugly wife).

 

[murphyad]

I'm sure HumanDichlamydia will agree with me on this, but while Obama (what kind of a name is that anyway?) was hailed as the bringer of change upon his rise into the presidents seat, very little has happened. All he did was give a bunch of crminals better rights - obviously a priority during an economical crisis, especially considering the war on terror. Indeed, what a man (though if he really was, he would have less of a fugly wife).

Goddamn - that someone would actually say this is pretty phenomenal. Google the man's achievements at the very least.

Perhaps you would know about what Obama's doing if you actually read a newspaper, or any sort of current affairs publication.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I'm sure HumanDichlamydia will agree with me on this, but while Obama (what kind of a name is that anyway?) was hailed as the bringer of change upon his rise into the presidents seat, very little has happened. All he did was give a bunch of crminals better rights - obviously a priority during an economical crisis, especially considering the war on terror. Indeed, what a man (though if he really was, he would have less of a fugly wife).

The most fundamental thing wrong with your post is that I was actually referring to Ted Kennedy...but I'm willing to accept that I wasn't clear enough.

But the rest of it? Honestly, do some research...

 

[kokodamonkey]

Cheney + Rove 2012.

 

[Iheartgays]

Goddamn - that someone would actually say this is pretty phenomenal. Google the man's achievements at the very least.

Perhaps you would know about what Obama's doing if you actually read a newspaper, or any sort of current affairs publication.

The most fundamental thing wrong with your post is that I was actually referring to Ted Kennedy...but I'm willing to accept that I wasn't clear enough.

But the rest of it? Honestly, do some research...

Obama has just sat around and watched while congress has fucked everything up. Eight months into the presidency and the only significant thing that has even been passed was the disaster of a stimulus bill.

At least he managed to pull some troops out of Iraq. Too bad he redeployed them to a war in Afghanistan that is basically the same as Vietnam except it's in the mountains instead of the rain forest.

I was cautiously optimistic about him becoming president but I never would have guessed that he would have been such a let down. It takes a special kind of politician to get so little done when his party has such a large majority in both houses of congress.

 

[murphyad]

Obama has just sat around and watched while congress has fucked everything up. Eight months into the presidency and the only significant thing that has even been passed was the disaster of a stimulus bill.......

I was cautiously optimistic about him becoming president but I never would have guessed that he would have been such a let down........

Restating your original argument with minor elaboration is generally not good practise tbh.

I would say that when Obama was inaugurated there was a bit of a personality cult around him but the fact that this would come down eventually was inevitable; there are too many interest groups in the US for such a uniform public opinion to last very long. But If you were only cautiously optimistic about him then why did you expect the world from him? Either your expectations were too high or you have misled yourself regarding your true attitude towards the man.

It takes a special kind of politician to get so little done when his party has such a large majority in both houses of congress

This implies that you support a fundamentally unilateral executive power. Unfortunately for you, the days of such things have passed into history now that Bush II is out of office. The Prez should not be taking responsibility for every decision made in the US; it is a representative democracy, after all. The President has to rely on Congress to pass legislation and cannot (and should not) ram laws down their throats if they quote unquote "fuck up". In fact, your blatant dismissal of this integral component of the American Congressional system suggests to me that you don't have a clue about how the whole thing works. The Democrats no longer have their filibuster-proof majority now that Ted Kennedy is dead and so they cannot simply rubber-stamp legislation through Congress as your language would suggest.

Furthermore, this belief in the sanctity of the unilateral executive is inherently contradictory since you are then very quick to admonish said executive for perceived failures that are actually not their fault. Its not as though Obama can magically pass laws. The stimulus bill was passed with very little Republican support. Obamacare is struggling against significant Republican resistance. The Renewable Energy bill (which you have glossed over, btw) is going through as we speak and is also running into Republican opposition. If you want more change to come out of Obama's administration, then maybe you should be directing your fire at your partisan GOP friends who are intent on holding up Obama's proposals.

In short (and I have said this before), your comments denote someone who is full of opinion but no information. I doubt that you actually monitor the American political situation very much (if at all), or instead you receive all your information from Fox News or some other poisonous source; even if this is not the case, it would make your posts all the more inexcusable. It is very easy to make blanket statements such as the ones you are making and then 'support' them with fatuous examples that totally miss the point but acquiring the conceptual understanding needed to evaluate the American political machinery and Obama's role in it is obviously something that you have yet to achieve.

 

[epic man]

In short (and I have said this before), your comments denote someone who is full of opinion but no information.

Murphyad, I do not think you understand anything Iheartgays has said. Maybe it has gone completely over your head young man. Anyway, to point out a logical flaw in your argument, Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information as you imply. Infact, information does not truly exist under certain definitions, it is rather our own perception and hence rather an opinion. For example, you might say "the sky is blue" and regard this as information. It is not, however, for someone who cannot perceive blue, or even for someone who does not speak your language, true, and therefore not information but rather an opinion. You can see how this idea becomes increasingly complicated the more complex the so called 'information'.

To finish off, Obama is a tool. I expected much more from him. Really he's just a puppet figurehead leading America in the direction it's been going since the cold war, becoming an epically fail of a country. well thats my 'opinion' anyway .

 

[murphyad]

Murphyad, I do not think you understand anything Iheartgays has said. Maybe it has gone completely over your head young man. Anyway, to point out a logical flaw in your argument, Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information as you imply.

I implied no such thing because I was referring to the opinion of iheartgays only. The fact that others may share the views of iheartgays is neither here nor there, has no bearing on the argument and is certainly not a logical fallacy.

Infact, information does not truly exist under certain definitions, it is rather our own perception and hence rather an opinion. For example, you might say "the sky is blue" and regard this as information. It is not, however, for someone who cannot perceive blue, or even for someone who does not speak your language, true, and therefore not information but rather an opinion. You can see how this idea becomes increasingly complicated the more complex the so called 'information'.

Opinion = premise without stated proof in an agrumentative sense. Iheartgays gave a premise i.e. that Obama is a poor president. He/she gave no legitimate justification for his/her consequent reasoning and I further undermined this by highlighting that most of what iheartgays said was patently false. Ergo it was an opinion, not an argument.

Your definition is ludicrous and a weak analogy because it totally ignores the fact that there is certain important 'information' on this issue that iheartgays has totally ignored eg role of the GOP etc.

To finish off, Obama is a tool. I expected much more from him. Really he's just a puppet figurehead leading America in the direction it's been going since the cold war, becoming an epically fail of a country. well thats my 'opinion' anyway .

Well done. Clearly you ignored the fundamentals of my post. As such it is you that I have gone over the head of. In a way, some of what you said is right because Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information. You are as well.

 

[Iheartgays]

I implied no such thing because I was referring to the opinion of iheartgays only. The fact that others may share the views of iheartgays is neither here nor there, has no bearing on the argument and is certainly not a logical fallacy.

Opinion = premise without stated proof in an agrumentative sense. Iheartgays gave a premise i.e. that Obama is a poor president. He/she gave no legitimate justification for his/her consequent reasoning and I further undermined this by highlighting that most of what iheartgays said was patently false. Ergo it was an opinion, not an argument.

Your definition is ludicrous and a weak analogy because it totally ignores the fact that there is certain important 'information' on this issue that iheartgays has totally ignored eg role of the GOP etc.

Well done. Clearly you ignored the fundamentals of my post. As such it is you that I have gone over the head of. In a way, some of what you said is right because Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information. You are as well.

Why attack a fellow poster who is just presenting his viewpoints? I strongly agree with Epic Mans POV here, and the only difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence which backs it up. And who needs evidence in a case like this? If I locked a black man and a white woman in a room together and came back after a week and the white woman had been eaten, does it take evidence to prove it was the black man? Surely the white woman didn't eat herself?

 

[murphyad]

Why attack a fellow poster who is just presenting his viewpoints?

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh. Apologies to anyone taking great offence.

ALso: "HumanDichalmydia"? You can hardly claim the moral high ground.

I strongly agree with Epic Mans POV here, and the only difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence which backs it up.

Evidence which is necessary and which you utterly lack.

And who needs evidence in a case like this? If I locked a black man and a white woman in a room together and came back after a week and the white woman had been eaten, does it take evidence to prove it was the black man? Surely the white woman didn't eat herself?

Uhhhh........is it just me or does this bear absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether or not Obama is a good president? This is probably the weakest analogy that has every been presented to me, ever. It is right up there with the Chewbacca defense.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

To finish off, Obama is a tool. I expected much more from him. Really he's just a puppet figurehead leading America in the direction it's been going since the cold war, becoming an epically fail of a country. well thats my 'opinion' anyway .

And this proves that Murphyad is wrong how?

 

[epic man]

And this proves that Murphyad is wrong how?

It doesn't. I am not just a mindless idiot out here to 'troll' and 'prove people wrong', unlike some people here who gain personal satisfaction from shutting down others opinions. *cough* murphyad *cough*.

 

[Iheartgays]

And this proves that Murphyad is wrong how?

Read the metaphor discussing how evidence is not necessary to every case.

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh. Apologies to anyone taking great offence.

ALso: "HumanDichalmydia"? You can hardly claim the moral high ground.

Evidence which is necessary and which you utterly lack.

Uhhhh........is it just me or does this bear absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether or not Obama is a good president? This is probably the weakest analogy that has every been presented to me, ever. It is right up there with the Chewbacca defense.

So because you don't personally bear any affection to a given metaphor, you feel it is alright to attack it? Does that give someone who doesn't particularly like gays the right to beat them? And you completely missed the point: evidence isn't necessary in every case, sometimes its called common sense.

 

[murphyad]

Read the metaphor discussing how evidence is not necessary to every case.

It's necessary in this one (see below).

So because you don't personally bear any affection to a given metaphor, you feel it is alright to attack it? Does that give someone who doesn't particularly like gays the right to beat them? And you completely missed the point: evidence isn't necessary in every case, sometimes its called common sense.

You insist on continuing with equally weak analogies, which are not metaphors btw. The fact is that an analogy about a black person and a white person locked in a room simply does not pertain to empirical debate about the validity of evidence in this case because this is a totally different circumstance to the one you described. It wasn't that I didn't have any 'affection' for this analogy, it just simply wasn't relevant. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to suggest otherwise if you feel so strongly about it (and if you can do so then I will be more than happy to believe you) and therefore I am perfectly right to attack it if I believe it to be irrelevant.

I did not miss your point at all; in fact I directly refuted it by pointing out the weak nature of your analogy. Furthermore, 'common sense' in an empirical argument simply doesn't cut it. If you want to suggest that Obama is a good/bad president, you have to rely on evidence to support your case as opposed to making widely generalised sweeping statements which appear to be quite baseless.

 

[murphyad]

It doesn't. I am not just a mindless idiot out here to 'troll' and 'prove people wrong', unlike some people here who gain personal satisfaction from shutting down others opinions. *cough* murphyad *cough*.

And I, epic man, am not here to perpetrate unreasonable ad hominem [personal] attacks by calling others "mindless idiots", which is a tag that I find rather offensive. This is not a forum for spouting personal opinions without credence. It is a forum of debate, and that is what I am doing: debating. If you are so indignant about (justifiably) being proved wrong that you wish to call me a 'troll' (and you clearly don't know what a troll is) then you are quite frankly in the wrong place. So I suggest you swallow your pride and stop acting like a 5-year-old who's just dropped their icecream.

 

[Iheartgays]

And I, epic man, am not here to perpetrate unreasonable ad hominem [personal] attacks by calling others "mindless idiots", which is a tag that I find rather offensive. This is not a forum for spouting personal opinions without credence. It is a forum of debate, and that is what I am doing: debating. If you are so indignant about (justifiably) being proved wrong that you wish to call me a 'troll' (and you clearly don't know what a troll is) then you are quite frankly in the wrong place. So I suggest you swallow your pride and stop acting like a 5-year-old who's just dropped their icecream.

Nice analogy. I prefer to think of epic man as a 30 year old accomplished scholar, and you as a wannabe debater who's almost reached your 12th b'day. But that's irrelevant, because as you said, 'it is a forum of debate' rather than 'spouting personal opinions.' Though I don't see how debate can be sparked without personal opinions.

 

[murphyad]

Nice analogy. I prefer to think of epic man as a 30 year old accomplished scholar, and you as a wannabe debater who's almost reached your 12th b'day. But that's irrelevant....

You're quite right: it is irrelevant, so why did you say it? I think I know: because you can't think of any better way to demean my argument than by attacking my person. This line of reasoning is fundamentally false and inherently unjustified, so give it a rest.

....because as you said, 'it is a forum of debate' rather than 'spouting personal opinions.' Though I don't see how debate can be sparked without personal opinions.

Of course, opinions (premises) are the foundation of a debate, but they must be supported with credible evidence in an empirical argument. I have said this three times now. Is there something about it that continues to baffle you?

 

[Iheartgays]

You're quite right: it is irrelevant, so why did you say it? I think I know: because you saw it as a way to demean my argument by attacking my person. This line of reasoning is fundamentally false and inherently unjustified, so give it a rest.

Of course, opinions (premises) are the foundation of a debate, but they must be supported with credible evidence in an empirical argument. I have said this three times now. Is there something about it that continues to baffle you?

There we go: making an assumption. Never assume: it makes an ass of u and me (get it?). But due to you driving us off topic, I have since forgotten what we were debating. Great one :|