Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/2/12 04:31 PM, Blitzkreig261 wrote: unelectable i say

WELL THAT FUCKING SETTLES IT

Also how dare President Obama go tour the disaster area and meet with families for just a day and a half (while coordinating recovery efforts through FEMA and state National Guards) before leaving to campaign? He should have followed the example of President Bush by not showing up for at LEAST another few days, and then only doing a cursory flyby in the plane. Let those fuckers stew a bit, is all I'm saying.

Doesn't this FOREIGNER know how we presidents are supposed to act?

At 11/1/12 05:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/1/12 05:27 PM, Saen wrote:

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

Lol I'm pretty fucking sure I do son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Boom.

At 11/1/12 05:20 PM, mayeram wrote: What is the purpose of insurance companies in our modern times? To me it seems like people pay insurance companies money, insurance companies keep some of that money and give the rest to people that need it that are also paying the insurance company.

Congratulations, you just described the concept of insurance.

To me it seems like a method to take money from those that are well off and give it to those that are not well off in exchange for the promise that if a person that is well off gets in trouble, they will be helped too.

It has nothing to do with you being "well off," it's called a risk pool. It covers calamities by limiting your risk exposure to potentially destabilizing costs.

Why should people pay an insurance company if they don't think they will take more money from it than they paid into it? Wouldn't it make more sense for people that are well off to just set aside a fund for a rainy day than to pay a company money that they will hopefully never see again?

Cost/benefit analysis.

With the current views that the republican party has of the purpose of government, how can they support the idea of an insurance company?

Because it's a private individual or firm contracting with a private company for private coverage.

On the other hand, if you think that the feeling of security that an insurance company gives is important, why shouldn't the general public act as an insurance company? If a company is in trouble, but has been paying the general public its insurance tax, then the public would help the company in their time of need.

This already happens. Or did you miss that?

Been up in MD the past couple weekends campaigning for this in PG County. Good referendum.

Conservatives gon' be mad in five days.

At 10/27/12 06:51 PM, TheMason wrote:

It is something that political scientists like me....

Having collected three degrees in the field I've only ever heard this kind of posturing from the worst kinds of people.

At 10/27/12 02:26 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/27/12 01:23 AM, JMHX wrote:

In that I don't do any of the things they do? Makes sense. Personal shot #3.

Are you going to vote for Obama this time around despite all the continued war-mongering he's done?

... Exactly.

Don't wait for me to answer the question or anything, you seem to have divined an answer from the ether yourself.

Personal shot #4. Avoiding my move to press you on an issue #1.

Your response was on that was nothing but avoidance.

I asked you if you understood what brought us to the Congressional sequester situation, and if you could explain the sequestration, since you implied that we were suffering from too much compromise in our policymaking. You have now avoided answering that question twice.

Second time you've avoided actually defining the terms of the debate you initiated with me, pivoting unsurprisingly to Personal shot #6.

I said "assuming..."

The issue and positions were already laid out.

Or were you too dull to realize it?

Hey, another personal shot. So I'll take it from this that you agree with the general premises I laid out, and in the next post I'll actually move forward a step with the discussion on abortion. Thank you for finally acknowledging this.

But I'm not going to give you my own personal opinion on it. It's irrelevant.

Well, to be fair you've already given your personal opinion on it in the way you laid out the question, unless you're stating someone else's opinion, which would be odd. But either way, I was just asking you to agree with the premises as I repurposed them into a numbered list, which you've done just above. So we're good on this now.

Please, tell me why I should support Roe v. Wade when there are people alive today who were born before the 24 week benchmark.

This wasn't what you just agreed the premises of the debate was about. You just agreed that the premises were:

Argument: "Abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force"

Premises:
1. That an abortion involves taking a human life
2. That the taking is by force
3. That the taking is unacceptable

This is what we're going to debate because this is what you put forward for me to answer. No changing the goal posts on me midway in.

Personal shot #7

You know, just because they're personal shots, it doesn't mean they're not true.

It just depends on whether you're actually trying to have a discussion (which I suspect you're not, since you've pretty much implied your interest in hearing the other side only goes as far as giving you ammunition to mock them) or whether you're just trying to troll around and inflame people. It's not about my 'caring' about the issue, it's about losing my willingness to have what should be an interesting debate because I'm met with nothing but silly personal attacks.

Honestly, would you continue to entertain someone who cut you off every sentence to shout nonsense like "stupid lefty" or "liberal idiot," or "I bet you enjoy unemployment," as you said to me in another thread? You're going to meet almost anything I say with front-loaded hostility, and you're already laying the groundwork for dismissing anything I say out of hand because you're trying to label me as a "lefty" or a "liberal," which invalidates the arguments before they're even said. But I'll lay out the next round of responses to the premises anyway, because debates follow rules, damnit, or we're going to end up like intellectual Somalis. Regimental discipline has to prevail over name-calling, so we'll move on to the premises.

At 10/27/12 01:51 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Most of this has nothing to do with the topic. Why does that happen in every thread on this forum and the VG forums? An interesting concept, two opposing users with differing opinions constantly trying to get a one up on the other, even if they have to bring up old arguments to help them with degrading the other. Although funny to read, it is exceptionally petty and the lot of you are embarrassing yourselves, but by all means, go right on ahead.

I'd be very happy if I could get Memorized to actually address the points he brought up. I did him the courtesy of responding to his questions, and laying out the premises as I saw them, but he's since refused to cooperate in agreeing on a set of premises to debate. One side can only do so much, man.

Figured I would make a thread on the off chance anyone here has read/appreciated/argued with any of the late British historiographer Eric Hobsbawm's books. Always outspoken but respected as one of the preeminent historiographers of world culture through his life, it'd be nice to get a discussion going or, at least, introduce people to some of Hobsbawm's work.

A quick bit about him:

Hobsbawm wrote quite a bit of analytical history, looking mainly at the concept of the "dual revolution" (the political French Revolution and the British industrial revolution). To badly paraphrase a smarter individual's understanding:

Hobsbawm saw their effect as a driving force behind the predominant trend towards liberal capitalism today. Another recurring theme in his work was social banditry, a phenomenon that Hobsbawm tried to place within the confines of relevant societal and historical context, thus countering the traditional view of it being a spontaneous and unpredictable form of primitive rebellion.

Social banditry is what Hobsbawm called things like Internet piracy, drug trafficking cartels, the Mafia, etc., but it can also be a system of government where losses end up socialized and gains end up privatized, with the state and the social sphere excluded from any of the gains but bearing on all of the losses.

He figured these to be, roughly, statements of protest with the current structure of the state, and ways of proving the inadequacy of the state/business/class structures by actively undermining them and creating a class OUTSIDE those culturally accepted as normal. It's a lot like, to borrow again, that episode of The Wire where the kids in the ghetto explain how the state system no longer even pretends to care for their survival, so they've created their own hierarchical system with its own, separate values and moral codes.

If you're interested in breaking into some Hobsbawm, here's a great link to his first book in a quadrology on the making of the modern world and the changing dynamic between the labor, capital and the state, and between individuals, collectives and state power. "The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848"

Feel free to drop comments here if you start picking through the book.

At 10/27/12 01:37 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

It's not worth my time retorting

Then why did you post this on a public debate forum? This isn't your personal blog.

Once again, regardless of what medical science says...pull in all the experts from all the corners of the globe...stop relying on everyone's opinions and make your own

:3 I knew I was an expert at stuff. I never knew that stuff was biological science.

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote: Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

Already been to court and SCOTUS determined that marijuana laws are part of the Federal government's over-arching scheme of drug control and crime prevention across state lines and therefore any conflicting law is preempted. Can't remember the case and too lazy to look it up.

That's fine, SCOTUS jurisprudence changes with the wind. Sometimes people are humans, sometimes they're property. Sometimes they don't have standing to file, sometimes they get their own busing and integrated schools. Depends entirely on the makeup of the court at the time.

Oh, sweet typos giving you the benefit of the doubt:

8 personal jabs
2 issue dodges

I figured I'd point this out now and deny you an opportunity to dodge the debate again by falling back on how I misnumbered the last personal shot as some commentary on my intelligence.

At 10/27/12 01:17 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 10:07 PM, JMHX wrote:

This one is admittedly a matter of priorities.

That'll ultimately get you nowhere.

Personal shot #1

I prefer the term 'party hack.'

At least you can admit your ignorance.

Personal shot #2

You're exactly like the anti-war protesters who made massive demonstrations under Bush, only to conveniently disappear when Obama got elected and expanded Bush's while starting new ones.

Not really, no. I was never out protesting in the first place.

I never said you did. I said that you were "LIKE THEM."

In that I don't do any of the things they do? Makes sense. Personal shot #3.

I don't think you know what caused the sequestration situation, in that case. It certainly had nothing to do with an abundance of compromise.

I was ignoring your idiocy since you were ignoring my overall point.

Personal shot #4. Avoiding my move to press you on an issue #1.

"If one can" is a lazy excuse for people to do nothing.

Like you, for example.

Personal shot #5

Well, I'm not going to play your stacked game if you're not going to do me the decency of agreeing on the definitions of terms and premises.

Because you know you'll lose.

Second time you've avoided actually defining the terms of the debate you initiated with me, pivoting unsurprisingly to Personal shot #6.

It's not a difficult question to answer... unless you really are a sick, twisted fuck.

Personal shot #7

I don't understand why you expect "proof" of a moral position, that's like asking me to "prove" the superiority of a religion over any other religion.

See? You won't do it.

Define the terms as I set out in response to your initial question and I'll be happy to start engaging you on it. If you're going to try and claim a "win" on me, you should at least be willing to participate in the debate you threw at me.

Because you know you have nothing.

Personal shot #7

It's not quite so easy to dismiss the discussion when you're not arguing with a religious people, is it?

"Discussion": 7 personal jabs. 2 avoided questions I pressed you on.

At least we defined one term tonight.

At 10/27/12 01:06 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote:

Considering it was all 4 liberals who sided with the Federal Government in going after a woman who was legally growing marijuana in California, and that Obama has conducted almost 4 times as many drug raids as Bush, why would you ever expect for Unconstitutional Federal Drug laws to ever be struck down?

News Flash: The Supreme Court is a life time job.

You're really fixated on trying to drive home this "liberal" thing, even when I'm just trying to point out the process by which Colorado would contest its claim. I get it, you don't like Obama/librulz/etc. We can drop that zealotry now.

And as far as SCOTUS striking down the federal statutes? I have no idea, and since I doubt either of us works on the clerk staff of the Supreme Court, I don't think speculation gets us much of anywhere. Let's see if the law passes first, then we can consider the inevitable challenges and counter-challenges. It's going to take years in the court system, at any rate.

Mittlips have locked in as the Hand of Divining prepares to turn that child into a proper Mormon.

Barack = 6 letters
Hussein = 7 letters
Obama = 5 letters

Do a little transmogrifying and I think you see what we get...

Aaaand now more information has come out, rendering much of what I said moot and most of what my friend there said incorrect.

Per Jake Tapper The CIA just issued a statement saying nobody told CIA operatives not to help the individuals involved. More and more this is looking like a case of infrastructure breakdown leading to an unfortunate situation, not a premeditated plan not to help the individuals stuck at the embassy and the CIA annex.

CIA full statement, in response to what they called the 'inaccurate' FOX News story posted above:

âEUoeWe can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.âEU

General David Petraeus, Head of CIA, War Hero, secret conspirator to kill CIA agents?

At 10/26/12 06:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 06:15 PM, JMHX wrote:

Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.

Then quit pretending like you're against state nullification when you're clearly wishing for it.

Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

State nullification, at least as it has always been meant by the people who crafted it in the 19th Century, puts the state legislature in the position of deciding if a federal statute is valid. This is most certainly not the case in Colorado. The state legislature isn't saying "this law is legal and we are disavowing federal authority." They're most likely going to end up going through the federalist system to either uphold or strike down the law. If they REALLY wanted to be nullifiers, they'd just ignore the Supreme Court altogether.

At 10/26/12 06:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 05:48 PM, JMHX wrote:

1) I never said you were pro-smoking. Only that it's remarkably stupid of you to support Democrat Control over drug issues when they've clearly demonstrated for decades that they actually have no intention of doing anything about it, and in face, only limit other drug related choices.

This one is admittedly a matter of priorities.

2) I didn't say you were for the Patriot Act. Only that you consider it of lesser importance now that a Democrat is doing it.

I don't know why you think that.

3) Based on your entirely giddy attitude on getting Democrats in charge despite not being a dime's worth of difference, all actions indicate that you're certainly close to being an apologist.

I prefer the term 'party hack.'

You're exactly like the anti-war protesters who made massive demonstrations under Bush, only to conveniently disappear when Obama got elected and expanded Bush's while starting new ones.

Not really, no. I was never out protesting in the first place.

Ideological purity got us to sequestration.

Compromising idiots like you are the ones who got us here.

I don't think you know what caused the sequestration situation, in that case. It certainly had nothing to do with an abundance of compromise.

The only thing that matters, is if we have laws that prohibit the unjust violation of another person's life, then those laws must apply equally to everyone, and that includes a fetus if one can determine if it is human life.

"If one can."

Okay. So, holding that "Abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force" is essentially holding three premises as true:

1. That an abortion involves taking a human life
2. That the taking is by force
3. That the taking is unacceptable

Before I go further, I want to make sure you agree on the three premises I just raised.

It's a simple hypothetical. My personal position of being pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant.

Well, I'm not going to play your stacked game if you're not going to do me the decency of agreeing on the definitions of terms and premises. That's a recipe for an ad hom bitchfest, and I don't want to get into that. You can join with me in defining the terms and we can have a discussion about your hypothetical, or you can drop the point and let it go as one more word game you won't stand behind.

Considering that a fetus is simply an early developmental stage of a person's life cycle, and that if you were wrong it would mean the acceptance of millions of Government sanctioned killings... then shouldn't the burden of proof be on you to prove that it isn't a human life in the first place?

I don't understand why you expect "proof" of a moral position, that's like asking me to "prove" the superiority of a religion over any other religion.

At 10/26/12 06:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 05:37 PM, JMHX wrote:

That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.

It's so wonderful to know that you support an Unconstitutional law being held up with a bullshit "constitutional" excuse.

Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.

At 10/26/12 05:07 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:40 PM, JMHX wrote:

So is the Patriot Act. Although, since it's Obama who is currently in office who also extended the Patriot Act 3 times, I'm sure you'll just go along with it like a good, little lefty.

I don't know how many things you've pinned on me that I never said. You're welcome to fight straw men, but I'm going to be pretty bored. First I was pro-smoking bans (I'm actually not), then I'm pro-PATRIOT (I'm actually not), then I'm an Obama apologist (I'm actually not). Like I said in the other thread, you could actually inquire as to my opinions before you tell me what they are.

Barring some major ideological shift and a replacement of the bulk of the Supreme Court, I anticipate it remaining that way. It's not an argument from emotion, it's an argument from political intractability.

Translation: "I'm perfectly fine with compromising principles."

Well, given that working in politics actually involves trying to do things, and speculating/commenting on politics allows one to impose rigorous, inflexible frameworks of idealism on things, yeah. Working in Washington is the act of knowing which principles can be compromised to gain victory on larger long-term goals and ideals. Ideological purity got us to sequestration.

You didn't explain how or why he is wrong. You didn't justify your position by demonstrating that a fetus can be killed by the mother's choice or even why it should be ethically acceptable.

Yeah. I doubt anyone can decisively prove the ethics one way or another. Questions of morality are as arbitrary as the language we use to describe the debate itself. Trying to score a "moral win" on abortion either way is predicated on the idea that everyone will at some point agree on the set of morals up for debate.

It depends entirely on the system you value more. And here I hesitate, because even defining the terms will lead to some complaint. But we both know the two sides of the argument. Which has precedence, the right of the woman carrying the fetus or the fetus itself? I ask that rhetorically, because frankly it's just an issue that cleaves on your personal understanding of a lot of things - liberty, individualism vs. societalism, the dominance of courts vs. moral authorities, etc. I can speak for myself and the side I've chosen, knowing the odds of conversion from the other side are minimal.

But assuming for an instance that abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force, would you honestly still sit there and defend that being a "Choice" someone should have?

Okay. So, holding that "Abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force" is essentially holding three premises as true:

1. That an abortion involves taking a human life
2. That the taking is by force
3. That the taking is unacceptable

Before I go further, I want to make sure you agree on the three premises I just raised.

At 10/26/12 05:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:42 PM, JMHX wrote:

Every single one of them have only ever talked about legalizing marijuana, yet these are the same people who make it illegal to smoke in bars or in your own home while marijuana continues to remain illegal.

Yep. Most of them, anyway.

You want to legalize marijuana in Colorado... great! But do you actually believe it'll change anything? Marijuana has been decriminalized in many parts of the country, yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.

Nope, it hasn't. And I don't expect Colorado will stop it, either. But I'm a fan of incrementalism.

And since that Supreme Court you love so much has already Unconstitutionally upheld these Federal Drug laws with their flimsy excuse that Federal law trumps the State

That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.

At 10/26/12 04:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote:

It still amuses me that there are still people like you who exist who believe that the Democrats are any different than the Republicans before (like Mr. Bush 3rd Term- Obama).

I don't think I implied this with what I said.

Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?

Proof that people like you only care about certain civil liberties when you can use it to obtain power.

If you really cared about people being arrested for non-violent crimes, then you wouldn't have used it as an excuse to get all giddy over getting Democrats in power who've only seemed to run in the opposite direction by banning smoking even in your own home.

What? The last part of the comment was a joke. Humor. Marijuana needles. You know? Not to be taken as a statement of fact. And again, I never implied I supported smoking bans. If you asked instead of just going full-forward on the assumption train, that might help.

At 10/26/12 04:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 11:31 AM, Entice wrote:

The problem with you pro-choice idiots is that you're too used to arguing with pro-life, religiously induced idiots.

It's conditioned you people to be able to make stupid ass counter arguments without having to think, just so you can babble on pretending that you're not just as dumb.

This is the language of consensus-seeking.

For instance, the only thing that matters is whether or not that zygote-blastocyst- fetus is human life to begin with. Just about all of these other concerns are irrelevant. So who are you and JMHX to make the claim that other individuals are the ones getting "emotional"?

Ugh, I can't begin to describe how low on my issue priority list this whole abortion debate is, especially since on matters of law the pro-choice side is decisively entrenched. Barring some major ideological shift and a replacement of the bulk of the Supreme Court, I anticipate it remaining that way. It's not an argument from emotion, it's an argument from political intractability.

Though if you don't think the first post was an ad pathos argument, I don't know what to say.

Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases. That said, I'm hopeful turnout on this draws out young and disproportionately Democratic voters who also tip Colorado in the Democrats' favor.

Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?

ITT: Klown spams himself

At 10/26/12 01:19 PM, TheKlown wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-kille d-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/

http://www.kveo.com/news/former-navy-seal-tyrone-woods-4th-a merican-killed-us-embassy-attack-benghazi

Yeah yeah, bad diplomacy and foreign policy in action, there's already a thread for it my crazybro.

At 10/26/12 12:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/26/12 09:45 AM, JMHX wrote:

You don't need this guy to dislike the way the Benghazi incident was handled.

I agree, it was a failure of intelligence and the President bears responsibility for that. I don't know why you think I'm fighting you on that point.

I have less problem though with how Obama and others initally attributed it to the video than how Panetta can go before Congress and say that no reinforcements could be sent because no one had enough information and that it would have been irresponsible to put soldiers in harm's way.

Again, I agree, and I was skeptical of elevating Panetta to the position in the first place. This is one of those areas where the covert nature of Defense really prevents the kind of public investigation required. There are any number of foreign policy incidents over the past decade that would have been greatly improved had there been any authority to launch a public investigation.

Within a half hour of the attack, the State Department knew about 20 armed men were attacking the post, which was staffed by about 30 Libyan guards. That should have been troubling enough. Meanwhile, if this article is to believed, CIA support operatives were denied permission to assist in defense (though they apparently later disobeyed orders and went anyway, the two ex-SEALS that died were part of the group).

First things first. On the ASSUMPTION that the State Department knew (and I know the e-mails you're referencing), even IF a group claimed responsibility, it isn't protocol of the intelligence community to immediately accept a claim of responsibility as genuine. These kinds of things require validation, and it's worth noting that the claims of responsibility came through social media channels - third party channels not directly associated with the group behind the attacks - so a bit of skepticism doesn't seem quite so insane in this case.

Also, how did I know that this link would not only be one referenced from FOX News, but also on the front page of the Drudge Report? I'm not going to say "oh, the article is biased so it's invalid," because I think we're adults and can discuss something even if it comes from a biased source, but Drudge really does rub me the wrong way a lot of the time. He has a knack for, how does one say, "over-hyping."

A few things jump out from this article:

- Every major descriptive point is attributed to "source," without even a mention of where in the intelligence community that source comes from. Not a disqualifying factor, but something to raise one's skepticism.

- The article itself says the United States had landed reinforcements in Benghazi by 2am, but were hindered by a lack of available transportation and cooperation from allied Libyans, who were running around in a general panic. So the initial argument that "no one was dispatched" just isn't true. They were. That the transportation infrastructure broke down is shameful, but it shows that the United States wasn't effectively sitting on its hands in Italy, as others have claimed.

- The article indicates but doesn't confirm (and one can speculate as to why) that American defensive forces arrived at the annex before the team including Woods was killed at 4am. The article points out that the American team as WAS delayed for 45 minutes at the airport, but arrived either before, with or shortly after the Libyan allied forces at 3am.

It seems to me that if the US had to wait to know more about the attack, it'd be a good idea to send in nearby CIA operatives trained in combat to assess the situation. This whole thing stinks and Panetta's remarks have in my mind made it even worse.

What the above shows is that no one was just sitting by. Things got chaotic, we started moving forces around, the CIA base had already begun ignoring direct orders from their superiors, and in general the chain of command was breaking down like, say, a place under siege. It's terrible, and the White House is certainly trying to downplay the strategic breakdown (as any White House would), but a grand conspiracy it is not.

At 10/26/12 10:48 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 09:47 AM, JMHX wrote:

Even after all these years.... you're still a fucking moron.

:3