I say NO! Emphatically, NO!

[OzmO]

Do you idiots even know what ad hominem means? The response by Slapper is littered with ad-hominem nonsense, biased opinion and insane rambling. Funny how when someones dumb ass point of view conincides with yours, you nod your head in agreement, but when someone disputes your view, they are cowards, etc.


When have I ever not answered your questions about anything? What assertions have I not backed up? I asked you to explain why the article was propaganda laced rhetoric, I would paste some more of your responses but you convienently deleted some of them ( what a shock). From my recollection there was some BS about all news being propaganda, how the article mirrors how things would have been if Germany won WW2 or some bullshit etc. My point simply was how are facts propaganda? You didn't answer the question, deleted your prior posts and responded in typical douchebag fashion.



And Jaguar please, I'm still waiting for your pretend evidence that Canada's economy is in better shape than Americas. Wake me up when you respond.

As predicted.   

Scroll back and re-read it again skippy.  Yours is not a memory problem but rather a reading comprehension problem.  Most stupid people have similar problems.  Where do i liken this to WW2 or Germany?  

When have you not answers questions?

I'll write them again because, again you are too stupid to use your scroll up function or just too scared to answer them.

Quote from: George Whorewell on August 08, 2008, 06:07:48 PM
Im sure you do. After all, facts dont mean anything, but peoples opinions are dangerous and scary. 

And you are sure i do what?

Facts don't mean anything?

And why are people's opinions dangerous and scary?

Until you can prove that you can carry on a conversation with out regressing into your usual pathetic display of stupidity there no point in talking with you, you should just STFU.

If you can answer those questions (in bold), and the follow up questions, I'll be more than happy to explain why the article is propaganda.

[Decker]

Yes, We Can. But Do We Want To?
August 7, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
www.pajamasmedia.com

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

—   C.S. Lewis

This is a long article but I’ll take a shot. 

Can we adopt a more socialist approach to government and transform America into a state not of equal opportunity for individuals to create their own happiness, but a state where a nanny bureaucracy operates for the supposed “good” of its citizens?

Who wants a nanny bureaucracy?

Can we accept tyranny by a rainbow proletariat of minorities and special interest groups who wish to mandate permanent entitlements for themselves?

Is the author referring to the 1% minority of wealthy elites that own most of the country.
Can we, as Americans, vote to hand over a huge chunk of our national sovereignty to international consensus and global taxation?

As a founding member of the UN, I would say the intelligent thing would be for the US to recognize that it is a member of a geopolitical system and that phantasm arguments of diminished national sovereignty has nothing to do with this reality.

Can we adopt the Marxist cause of the class struggle, the utopian fix for all that ills us, and become part of a unified coalition of socialist countries around the world, in the hope that mankind can find Obama’s “collective redemption”?

I’d comment on this hyperbole but the language is so stilted that I don’t really have a response.

Can we?

That’s not the question.

We’re Americans. We are our own government, and we, the electorate, decide what course we will take. No change whatsoever is necessary to effect(sic) our own national will. Our Constitution guarantees us this right through the ballot.

What’s changed?  The reality that the US is a member of a political world where international relations require intelligence, sophistication and understanding so that disputes can be resolved without having a pro-war government, like the US’s, bomb/destroy countries to settle its perceived problems.

We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Always have been. Since the beginning.

Obama answers the wrong question with his now banal statement: Yes, we can.

Because the question before Americans has never been, Can we become socialists?

The real question, therefore, is: Do we want to?

Nobody poses this hysterical question except for the author.  All forms of government redistribute individual wealth—taxes fund the army, road building, Research & development etc.—that’s all redistribution my friends.

And America’s answer, it would seem, is completely up for grabs at the moment, without a single ounce of certainty.

Media wants Barack-style change; voters are uncertain

Media wants what sells.  Obama sells.  McCain is yesterday’s news.  If 1988 ever comes back, McCain is your man.
Despite the [1] bubble of inevitability that the Obama campaign and its in-the-tank media have blown around this candidate, he is slipping now in the polls. He was holding onto a scant lead prior to his grand foreign tour, but now even that is slipping away.

Obama gets more coverage and much more negative coverage than McCain so the author is lying or misrepresenting the facts.  McCain has been a media darling for 2 decades.  It’s hard pundit law that if McCain is discussed, so is his straight talk, maverick persona, and straight shooter approach to politics.

That is fact.  There are literally thousands of stories that back that up.

The inevitable candidate is anything but.

USA Today published a [2] poll last week that showed Barack Obama actually trailing John McCain by four points, among [3] likely voters. Obama still has a slight lead among all registered voters, but on most polls it’s within statistical-tie territory. In early June Obama had a nine-point lead. Now he’s ever so slightly up, statistically tied, or down, depending upon one’s choice of poll and how much additional error margin one allows for what pollsters are calling the [4] Bradley Effect.

I call it the race effect.  The US will not vote for a black man even if proposes legislation that benefits the majority of people.

Not only is Obama slipping in the national polls, but he received no discernible [5] bounce from his highfalutin, very expensive trip abroad. Candidate Obama used campaign funds to take himself, the press, and a retinue of 700 — count them, 700 — campaign aides, first class all the way, on a trip that was luxurious by any standard, and at a time when many Americans could not even afford a small summer vacation due to very high gas prices. Even the most cursory observer might wonder whether reliable American campaign contributors aren’t just a bit resentful over their hard-earned dollars being spent to rally Europeans, when Europeans cannot even vote here.

That’s a great point.  What it has to do with the author’s thesis is beyond me.  Looks like a cheap shot.

[6] Rasmussen polling now indicates that half the American electorate sees press bias in favor of Obama, and a quarter of us have stopped trusting the media to paint a clear picture of the candidates. The press may indeed want Obama elected, but their overly favorable coverage, which may have aided Obama’s claim to the Democratic Party nomination, has now become a negative in the home-stretch general election. Viewers will now discount nearly every positive they hear regarding Obama, while giving extra weight to every good thing reported about McCain. That’s what bias does; it negatively influences weight given to its arguments.

This must be reverse psychology since Obama gets more bad press than McCain does.  I’m sure that McCain’s adviser Karl Rove will promise Big Media more deregulation like he did when Bush the lesser was running for president.
Do we want a foreign policy rookie in wartime?

Despite the underreported fact that we have now all but won the Iraq War — the war Democrats prematurely declared lost — we are still at war. And, unfortunately, the stakes in our war against Islamo-fascism rise daily as Iran continues unabatedly defiant in its pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

I wish this author would make up its mind.  Is the war won or not?  If it is, then the war is over.  If it isn’t, then the author is just bullshitting again. 

We Americans can and do bicker interminably over domestic issues and sometimes get equally riled over foreign events, but on one thing we have a history of coming together in a unified spirit. That “thing,” of course, is a war against an aggressive enemy. When it comes to our national security, we are historically wont to give our wartime votes to experience, rather than face possible annihilation because of a leader who has not proven his ability to keep our children safe.

Yes, 19 guys with boxcutters could annihilate us all.  These past few paragraphs overstate the criminal problem of terrorism so much that only a pro-war advocate could agree with it.  It is the height of overstatement.

So, even though we certainly can choose Obama, the novice, to lead us through the perilous days ahead in this war, we may resoundingly choose not to do so.

Does the author forget Bush had zero foreign policy experience?  I think so.

Do we want to pay the UN-imposed global poverty tax?

Since the US hasn’t paid its UN dues in some time, I don’t see this happening either.

Barack Obama’s single piece of signature legislation in his less-than-200-day tenure as a United States senator is quite revealing. Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which shows every sign of passing now, amply demonstrates this candidate’s ultimate priority issue.

At a time when real Americans are experiencing inflated gas prices, upsurges in food prices, record numbers of mortgage foreclosures, and an already-out-of-control national debt, which serves to drive the confidence in our currency down worldwide, the Democrat Congress quickly advances the Global Poverty Act and practically shoves it defiantly in taxpayers’ faces, so that their presidential candidate can claim he did something as a senator.

Everyone one of those problems—inflated gas prices, food prices, mortgage failures, NATIONAL DEBT—were made much, much worse by Bush’s policies---the same ones that McCain wants to continue.

Basically, this law if enacted will force all future presidents to oversee and commit a full 0.7 percent of our national GDP to fighting global poverty, in keeping with United Nations expectations of prosperous countries — Western Europe and the United States.

This sounds pretty good.  I mean the more the US opens itself to globalization, the more it races to the bottom regarding wages and standard of living.  Why should any corporation in the US pay workers a livable wage when it can take advantage of foreign labor for pennies on the dollar?

If the worldwide poverty level is ameliorated in some fashion, that would have a trickledown effect on the standard of living in this country b/c our race to the bottom for wages would not hit such a low, rocky bottom.

Who is against helping the poor?

Certainly not Americans. The problem with the Global Poverty Act is that it utterly fails to take into account the actual amounts already contributed by Americans to fight poverty, not only abroad, but in our own country, where sadly some poverty does still exist.

Too bad those alternative sources aren’t compelled to give a dime—that’s unreliable.In his groundbreaking and myth-defying book, [7] Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks explains why press attacks on American refusal to cave to the UN on this tax are based on flat-out lies and, therefore, wrong:

    It is true that U.S. official development assistance (ODA), at about $10 billion, is only about a tenth of 1 percent of [American] GDP. However, this amount is accompanied annually by about $13 billion in other types of government assistance, and about $50 billion in remittances from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals. All in all, total American international aid comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP — approximately $200 per year/per American.

Fantastic.  We have over well over half a trillion dollars to piss away on a war of choice in Iraq and this author is worried about a couple of billion dollars…we’re just made of money.
Let’s throw in another trillion plus tax cut to stimulate the economy!

European charitable giving is practically nonexistent, according to Brooks’ exhaustive research on the subject, which he presumes is the reason Europeans fail to comprehend our national resistance to forced government taxation in this regard. Not only that, but Brooks also takes note of the fact that the $50 billion we voluntarily contribute to good deeds abroad represents a mere two percent of our overall charitable giving. We give the bulk of our charity to Americans.

So, can we fight global poverty? Of course, we can and already do. The question, then, is whether we want to be forcefully taxed to do it, or whether we wish to continue to do it our own way.

Do we want Obama’s the-government-always-does-it-better approach to federal governing?

As in many other Obama policy proposals, this man seems to believe that no matter what the issue, government does it better than individuals.

Government does these things better than private individuals:  insurance-life, disability, deposit and more---military, rural electrification, interstate highways, student loans, GI Bill, park maintenance etc.

Whether it’s a politician telling a general how to fight a war, or telling a mother and father how to educate their children, or telling doctors how to treat illness, or telling businesses how to hire, Barack Obama favors the old socialist do-gooder model of trusting government over individuals.

I suppose that’s why his healthcare plan works with private insurance companies instead of scrapping their worthless asses.  This author is engaging in inflammatory unsupported statements.

As for me and my vote, we will steer clear of a candidate who favors this kind of “well-intentioned” tyranny. We already have too much of this for my taste. And I, like C.S. Lewis, consider this the very worst kind of tyranny there is, the kind that glorifies itself in self-congratulatory accolades for blatant busybody interloping.

Self-congratulatory accolades…like protecting marriage from gays, protecting the workforce from unions, protecting homebuyers from pre-empted state mortgage accountability laws, protecting the USA from the fearful threat of Iraq, and changing French Fries to Freedom Fries.

And when it comes to electing a wartime president, there are three — and only three — genuine issues:

   1. Foreign policy strength,
   2. Foreign policy strength, and
   3. Foreign policy strength.
More nonsequiturs.

Can we elect Obama as our wartime president and nanny-state overseer?

Yes, we can, but I sure don’t want to. Do you?

Ozmo is right, this is a piece of low-grade propaganda.

[George Whorewell]

Yawn... Ozmo your boring me dude. Repost what you deleted on this topic and I will gladly answer your questions. Until then keep patting yourself on the back and pretending your arguments hold water. You posted something that escaped my memory, which you eventually deleted having something to do with 1942 or WW2 or some shit pertaining to the article and how it was comparable to Nazi propaganda. No, I dont have a reading comprehension problem, your just too much of a pussy to repost what you wrote originally.

Thanks alot.

[OzmO]

Yawn... Ozmo your boring me dude. Repost what you deleted on this topic and I will gladly answer your questions. Until then keep patting yourself on the back and pretending your arguments hold water. You posted something that escaped my memory, which you eventually deleted having something to do with 1942 or WW2 or some shit pertaining to the article and how it was comparable to Nazi propaganda. No, I dont have a reading comprehension problem, your just too much of a pussy to repost what you wrote originally.

Thanks alot.

All i did was call you a coward.  And you are proving my point post after post.   Maybe you should learn to use the quote button. 

Again i see you can't answer my questions about your stupid assertions.

Unfortunately i can't repost what ever i wrote because to my knowledge it the forum doesn't save deleted posts.  I don't remember comparing it to nazi propaganda, but propaganda is propaganda.  So it compares in principle.

Hope that helps you find the courage to answer my questions COWARD.

I predict you'll never answer them.  Cause you're stupid, and gutless.

(also tedious)

And this is article is lame propaganda and it's aimed at stupid people like you. 

[Eldon]

All i did was call you a coward.  And you are proving my point post after post.   Maybe you should learn to use the quote button.

Again i see you can't answer my questions about your stupid assertions.

Unfortunately i can't repost what ever i wrote because to my knowledge it the forum doesn't save deleted posts. I don't remember comparing it to nazi propaganda, but propaganda is propaganda.  So it compares in principle.

Hope that helps you find the courage to answer my questions COWARD.

I predict you'll never answer them.  Cause you're stupid, and gutless.

(also tedious)

And this is article is lame propaganda and it's aimed at stupid people like you.

You delete your own post.... and yet you say George is the Coward ?     

[OzmO]

You delete your own post.... and yet you say George is the Coward ?     

Start from the beginning of the thread.  I posted it, realized it would just turn into a tedious argument and removed it.  Which it now has.  He saw it and responded to it before i removed it.  So i explained what happened and reasserted my claim of his cowardice and outlined why i think him either just stupid or a coward and he is doing well in demonstrating both.

hth
 

[George Whorewell]

Ozmo, while your less delusional than Decker, your as inept. Your smug and self satisfied tone and complete inability to reason beyond your cemented ignorance have demonstrated my attempts at having a mature debate with you were wasted.

A coward calling someone else a coward is a standard occurance for a coward.

[Slapper]

Yiiiiiahhhh boyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

[OzmO]

Ozmo, while your less delusional than Decker, your as inept. Your smug and self satisfied tone and complete inability to reason beyond your cemented ignorance have demonstrated my attempts at having a mature debate with you were wasted.

A coward calling someone else a coward is a standard occurance for a coward.

Again so predictable.  Avoiding the issue.

Run coward run.


My predictions are still true.

[shootfighter1]

Some good points in the article.  I guess the take home message is that if you believe the US government should be more powerful and be more in charge of the lives and wealth of its citizens, you vote for Obama.  Also, Obama is in favor of more globalism, funded by more US taxpayer dollars.  If you believe in more of a socialist style gov, then vote for Obama.

I am not a big fan of McCain, and in some ways, I like Obama better...but I cannot vote for someone who will take the US in this more socialist direction.  There are a lot of things that need to be changed...but this is not a good general direction for the country.

[George Whorewell]

Whatever helps you sleep better at night douchebag. 

[OzmO]

Whatever helps you sleep better at night douchebag. 

Once again........the COWARD speaks as he runs away.

Actually you are putting me to sleep because you continue to the the same thing:  AVOID THE ISSUE.

Run COWARD run.

[George Whorewell]

Ozmo what imaginary issue are you reffering to now?  Your making me sleepy bro. This is becoming a tedious example of what I already posted numerous times already. Calling me a coward makes you look silly and weak, posting about a non-existant issue makes you look like a lunatic.


The last "questions" you asked me were about 25 posts ago, which I had to go back and repost here-->

And you are sure i do what?

Facts don't mean anything?

And why are people's opinions dangerous and scary?



Answer to question 1: I have no idea what this question is reffering to, I can't quote any questions you asked prior to this because you either deleted them or they simply aren't there anymore.


Answer to question 2: Facts don't mean anything becuase when I asked you to clarify how the article is propaganda in terms of its FACTUAL ASSERTIONS you were unable to do anything but whine about the authors difference of opinion from yours, hence my response--> Facts dont mean anything

Answer to question 3: That last line was written with one of these attached to it 

And was written as a form of sarcasm to demonstrate YOUR position on the article which was simply stated as follows: Ozmo: I dont agree with the authors opinion, its mind control propaganda, the facts the author cites dont matter and the authors position is dangerous and scary.

Im sure you do. After all, facts dont mean anything, but peoples opinions are dangerous and scary. 

(Nice job ommiting the smiley face by the way)

Ok, now that Ive answered your idiotic questions (which could have easily been answered had you bothered to read any of my prior responses) are you going to repost all the stuff you deleted?  No no, wait your a big bad moderator of a political board on a bodybuilding website lolol.... Don't let that immense power to remove posts and call people cowards go to your head now!

[OzmO]

Ozmo what imaginary issue are you reffering to now?  Your making me sleepy bro. This is becoming a tedious example of what I already posted numerous times already. Calling me a coward makes you look silly and weak, posting about a non-existant issue makes you look like a lunatic.

So you deny there any issue or that i'm making it up and then you proceed to answer the questions that are a part of the issue?

Par for the course for you.   

Now to the questions.  I'll put it the simplest way i can so you can follow it with out getting confused.

This was my original assertion that you responded to:

I'm not at all surprised you fail to see that.

and you responded by saying:

Im sure you do. After all, facts dont mean anything, but peoples opinions are dangerous and scary.  Roll Eyes

and now, after 25 posts and your cowardice, your answer to that question is:

Answer to question 1: I have no idea what this question is reffering to, I can't quote any questions you asked prior to this because you either deleted them or they simply aren't there anymore.

You have no idea what the question i am referring to?  You lack the smarts to scroll up?   I'm not surprised if you do. This was all before the "removed post".  This is why i called you coward becuase you refused to answer them.  I was wrong, you are just stupid and not a coward.  You only appear to be a coward because you lack the intelligence to even explain your self or answer a simple question.

so let's review so then maybe you can answer the question:

I said:  I'm not at all surprised you fail to see that.  (fail to see that the article is propaganda)
You said:  Im sure you do. After all, facts dont mean anything, but peoples opinions are dangerous and scary.  Roll Eyes

So i ask again:

You are sure i do what?

Question #2

Fact don't mean anything?

which you have now answered:

Answer to question 2: Facts don't mean anything becuase when I asked you to clarify how the article is propaganda in terms of its FACTUAL ASSERTIONS you were unable to do anything but whine about the authors difference of opinion from yours, hence my response--> Facts dont mean anything

which relates to #3

And why are people's opinions dangerous and scary?

which you have answered:

Answer to question 3: That last line was written with one of these attached to it  Roll Eyes

I asked you those questions becuase the first sentence ("Im sure you do.") didn't make any sense to the last to assertions.

You aren't smart enough to figure out that much of all propaganda is based in fact. 

For example from the article:

Barack Obama’s single piece of signature legislation in his less-than-200-day tenure as a United States senator is quite revealing. Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which shows every sign of passing now, amply demonstrates this candidate’s ultimate priority issue.

Fact:  Obama single piece of signiture legislation in his less than 200 day tenure is the "Global poverty act."

Propaganda:  "Amply demonstrates the candidates ultimate priority issue."

Why is that propaganda?  The answer should be obvious, but you are not that bright so I'll see if i can spell it out for you.

The writers leads the readers to assume based in conjecture (much like CT'ers do) that becuase that was the only legislation Obama introduced that it must be his "ultimate priority issue".  However, what writer doesn't take into account is any elements of obvious objectivity such as the other senators who may have already introduced many bills Obama may feel are far more important.  Or that Obama saw this as an opportunity to introduce a bill that hadn't already been introduce and lead the way on, and at the same time support many other bills that are just as important or more important.  Is it that the first bill any senator introduces is thier priority issue?  What if they don't introduce a bill? does that mean they have no issues that are important to them?  Just becuase he introduces a bill doesn't mean it's his most important. 


If Obama said "this is the most important bill period, and this is my priority issue."  Than he might have a case.

So the writer easily manipulated stupid people, like your self who would run around thinking everything this guy said is fact but cannot distinguish fact from propaganda.

Ok, now that Ive answered your idiotic questions (which could have easily been answered had you bothered to read any of my prior responses) are you going to repost all the stuff you deleted?  No no, wait your a big bad moderator of a political board on a bodybuilding website lolol.... Don't let that immense power to remove posts and call people cowards go to your head now!

Dude, me having some weird power trip as mod is not something you ever have to worry about.  The only post i remove of other people are one's that have racism or gender slurs.  Other than its a free for all IMO.

I did post accusing you of a coward.  You are not a coward.  just not intelligent enough to see propaganda aimed at the simple minded.  that's your posts lack substance and are tedious. 

If you want to debate the route of how this compares to German propaganda against the jews I'd be more than happy to.  Just let me know.


HTH

 

[240 is Back]

GW,

I respect your intelligence.  You posted something about a month ago, something anti-obama, which I found remarkably profound.  Since then I've worked to read all your posts, as you really are a smart guy.

However, when you insulted CTers last week and completely disowned the possibility that 911 could have been allowed to happen, despite the dozen identical warnings that came from our allies and domestic agencies on Aug 5/6, one arriving on a red-eye flight from DC...

When you dismissed any possibility of "let it happen on purpose", I realized that despite your intelligence, I think you lack the emotional maturity to accept simple parts of history, even when they're sad and leave a historical skid mar on your party's guy.