Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/9/13 02:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

And let's not forget who he was running against: Mr Mitt "Moneybags" Romney, the friendly corporate kill-drone. People might have hated Obama, but nothing makes a person look better than standing next to Mitt Romney.

78% success rate on saving corporations, but let's not let facts get in the way.

---

At 5/10/13 04:05 PM, Korriken wrote: 78% success rate on saving corporations, but let's not let facts get in the way.

You know how you got that number? You subtracted 22%, which is the percent of companies that went bankrupt within a given period after Bain acquired it, from 100. Which is a not so clever way to distract people away from the 22% figure, which is what matters here. And you know where that 22% figure comes from? It comes from this study from the WSJ. It says:

"Bain, after its initial focus on small firms needing capital, later shifted toward the potentially more lucrative business of leveraged buyouts-acquiring control of businesses by using investors' money amplified by debt.

In such deals, a buyout firm tries to improve profitability by refocusing operations and cutting costs, a step that can include cutting the work force. Buyout firms seek to make money not only by eventually selling a business for more than they put into it, but also by extracting fees and sometimes dividends while they own it.

A few investments produced spectacular profits, the documents show. A 1995 Bain investment of $6.4 million in eye-care concern Wesley Jessen VisionCare Inc. yielded a gain of more than $300 million, roughly a 46-fold return.

But the fact that some of Bain's biggest winners later landed in bankruptcy court "is potentially damning evidence" that the firm left the companies in vulnerable shape, said Mr. Stromberg, the Swedish academic. He said research shows that buyout companies, on average, add value to their targets, but it is worrisome if that reverses within a few years."

tl;dr: we should raise the rent on people who don't vote the way we want them to.

---

At 5/9/13 09:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Last I checked, you can't opt out.

Except you can. You opt out by leaving the societal structure. Either by leaving the country, or being like the folks who'd rather go out and be hermits and rough it off the grid and what not. If you choose to take the benefits of a society, you take the responsibilities as well.

---

At 5/9/13 02:28 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Yes??

Doesn't seem so from here.

Yeah, it does

The "nu uh" defense again. Are you really sure you're actually old enough to post here?

Eh, no. See, unless you wanna say people like Mussolini isn't a dictator...

Straw man pure and simple. Mussolini and Obama do not compare.

And he has done NOTHING to end that "carry over" and in important issues like civil rights, fiscal policy and foreign policy he has done nothing but go exactly in line with Bush, and expanded what Bush did.

He signed in the nullification of don't ask don't tell, that's one for civil rights. He created TARP which was a well meaning plus for fiscal policy. He handled Libya as part of a coalition instead of stamping his feet and ordering out the military even if no one supported him. That's one for each area you mentioned. But again, this is more about your charge that he's a dictator to me.

Obama could turn all of that around if he wanted to.

Yes, because Congress has no part in governance at all...

He and he alone made the choice to continue the wars (and start new ones),

He hasn't started any new wars.

keep gay marriage illegal,

gay marriage is legally in many states.

continued the drug war,

Hate that one too, wasteful.

spending money we don't have,

Examples?

and stealing taxpayer dollars to subsidize his political pals.

See above.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain cell. Do you also want proof that the sky is blue?

Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who has no real argument.

Yeah, I didn't imply that.

You did, you still do when you act like he alone is making laws and policy and Congress is no part of it.

No they didn't.

Your correct actually, my bad. They turned over power to the executive to prosecute anyone involved with 9/11. Unfortunately when it became clear this was NOT applicable to Iraq nobody was held accountable for the fuck up.

But this doesn't match up with dictatorships in history.....

Yes it does, dictators have ABSOLUTE POWER. That's what make's them dictators.

nothing. That's kind of my point.

I don't think you even have a point anymore other then to just try and say the opposite of whatever I say.

Even when he was "supreme leader" he still had a (false) "checks/balances" system, just like we have here

We have an actual checks and balances system. Hitler made himself dictator and the supreme leader clearly. Anyone else in his government was clearly his man, and clearly and publicly subservient to him.

they certainly do match the actions of dictators throughout history.

Not really no. Unless you try to cherry pick history to fit your thesis.

Of course the topic started as something else. But that is not the discussion you and i are having.

Right, which is why I say our discussion is tangential and I've been trying to wittle it down and work at least some semblance of the original point into it so we aren't completely derailing this thread.

As for Obama's continuation, that does not absolve his role in it.

I'm not trying to absolve his role. I'm pointing out the unfairness of saying he's a dictator for continuing someone else's policies, but then people fail to call the originator a dictator. Make sense now?

As i said, if he wanted, he could bring the troops home.

He is right now bringing many home. He's following the Bush withdrawal model. We can debate whether or not this is the most expedient method, but in fairness he IS bringing them home.

He could close Gitmo.

He could indeed with some legal maneuvering. But unfortunately he would make quite a few enemies within Congress and in the public if he did. The President can't operate in a vaccuum, but this IS an issue I agree where conscience should trump politics.

He could champion gay right.

He has come out for gay rights. However he can NOT introduce a bill into Congress which would federally allow and protect gay marriage. Congress needs to do that, and then he can sign it.

He could cut your taxes instead of raising them. He has decided not to.

You seem to think he has more unilateral power then he does...

Then why are we talking at all?

That's what I've been wondering. Maybe it's time to just stop then.

No?

I'm guessing you don't know what the slipper slope is?

it's not a conspiracy, just the truth.

Nope.

YOU may not think prison camps are reprehensible just because ours don't kill people. i do.

Straw man.

I disagree.

Then you're not very bright. No other way to put it. If you can't see how a death camp is worse then a detention camp on the scale of outrageously bad things...

Do you even know what the beliefs of a neo-con is?

Yep.

Do you really believe that they're anything but liberal?

Yes, they are the farthest thing from liberal there is.

in what way? Bush interpretation of the constitution is pretty damn liberal as was his econ policy. They're statists. Statism is progressivism. Progressives claim themselves as liberals.

How is "tax breaks for the rich!" a liberal policy? How is endless unjustified war a liberal policy? How is "don't criticize your government" a liberal policy? You seem to only zero in on the parts of Bush's administration and policies that support your views, and you 86 the rest. Also Bush isn't a bastion of neo-con thought. Most neo-cons now actively reject him.

You aren't familiar with the concept Oligarchy huh?

I am. This is not that. Go look at the definition again.

Bush was called a dictator!

By who? Where? I just remember him being called an idiot, a criminal, some other things. But never a dictator, not in serious discourse between serious minded persons anyway.

Were you fucking asleep for his entire presidency?

If only I had been...

I'll put forth the challenge I put to someone else (who chickened out, by the way): Which neo-con policies or concepts do I subscribe to or believe in? Since I'm such a big neo con, you probably have a huge list, huh? How about you trim it down and just post a couple of them?

I didn't say you were a big neo-con. I said that when you make charges that I have heard sources that are identifiable as neo-con or completely in bed with such schools of ultra-right thought, repeatedly, then I can ascribe at least a certain sympathy with them, or at least a familiarity with them. That's it.

Hitler was elected too. The clear majority is made up of idiots.

Psssh. Ridiculous. First it was "the majority hates him" I prove that wrong, then you go "well, they're idiots so who cares?". Sad.

No it's fact. There's video of it. "Ma'am why do you support obama?" "Do you see the color of my skin?" It's racism pure and simple.

So one lady proves that anyone voting for Obama is a racist? Wow, you really aren't bright. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Also I'm a white man that voted for Obama. How was that motivated by racism? hmmm?

They certainly didn't elect him based on policies...I know because most of the country spent 8 years bitching about the policies of war and corporate welfare.

The first time they did elect him on promised policy. I think his re-election however was a combination of the incumbent usually wins unless he is perceived as completely useless, and his opponent was not a palatable option to most.

So, you didn't vote for Obama?

I did indeed. Twice. I support many, but not all of his policies, and I didn't see a palatable challenger. Does voting for someone mean you agree with ALL their policies?

---

At 5/9/13 09:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That I would say is a matter of opinion.

Nope, I present to you the evidence that you had more then two names on that ballot. If you chose to check one or the other of those two boxes, you made a choice for that name. You always have the option of voting for a third party end of the day.

---

At 5/10/13 08:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/9/13 09:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Last I checked, you can't opt out.

Except you can. You opt out by leaving the societal structure. Either by leaving the country, or being like the folks who'd rather go out and be hermits and rough it off the grid and what not. If you choose to take the benefits of a society, you take the responsibilities as well.

I don't want Social Security.

I don't want the "benefits" of social security.

Since I'm willing to note take anything from Social Security when I retire....

Can I now opt out?

I like how when things used to be on a state by state basis, jackasses like you were always bitching about how "unfair" it was for people to have to leave a single state.

But now that you short term idiots have nationalized so many things, you're response to people who actually want to be responsible and not leech off the system is to say "Leave the entire fucking country!"

I also love this idea of community you have. Majority rule, right?

Last I checked, if I'm not even engaging you, you can't accuse me of hurting you by refusing to join your petty associations. You don't get to claim victimhood when I haven't done anything towards you.

Meaning, you're nothing more than a slave driver.

---

At 5/10/13 08:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Straw man pure and simple. Mussolini and Obama do not compare.

Both order assassinations of own citizens...

He signed in the nullification of don't ask don't tell, that's one for civil rights.

He attended a homophobic church while claiming he himself didn't believe in gay marriage.

When a group called the "Log Cabin Republicans" (gay republican group - ironically) successfully sued to find Don't Ask, Don't Tell unconstitutional, Obama directed Eric Holder to block it, claiming it was "procedural."

All during a time when the white house was ordering gay rights protesters removed from a public sidewalk in front of the white house.

He only then signed to repeal "Don't Ask..." when the midterm elections were coming up and he needed votes (because it's not like he could've gotten this done during his 1st year when he had filibuster proof supermajorities).

Only after weeks of media scrutiny, he decides to give a speech on his "evolving" position... conveniently just hours before a Hollywood fundraiser.

During said speech, he said the 1 thing liberals NEVER say when it comes to a "civil right." That each state should decide if it wanted gay marriage... so nothing changes in those states.

lol, he played you morons like a fiddle.

He handled Libya as part of a coalition...

Go tell us how many countries joined us in Afghanistan and Iraq, then compare them to Libya.

That's one for each area you mentioned. But again, this is more about your charge that he's a dictator to me.

Assassinated american citizens, including a 16 year old in a green zone.
Claims to be able to indefinitely detain anyone, including citizens.
Claims he won't use the NDAA to detain citizens indefinitely, but then sends lawyers out to fight for its continued inclusion any time a judge threatened to find it illegal.

Yes, because Congress has no part in governance at all...

He doesn't need congress to pull back troops or close Gitmo.

He hasn't started any new wars.

Libya, Yemen, Syria.

Because as long as you're only killing people from far away with bombs... it doesn't count as a military conflict....

So I guess 9/11 wasn't an act of war?

gay marriage is legally in many states.

But not everywhere...

So move!

Hate that one too, wasteful.

Tripled from Bush after promising to end raids.

Examples?

I could've sworn we were borrowing money.

Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who has no real argument.

You're just too much of a dumb fucker to get it, lol.

You did, you still do when you act like he alone is making laws and policy and Congress is no part of it.

So as long as Congress goes with it... it makes it all magically "ok"

Yes it does, dictators have ABSOLUTE POWER. That's what make's them dictators.

Hugo Chavez.

We have an actual checks and balances system.

You didn't watch my video on how our system is rigged.

I'm not trying to absolve his role. I'm pointing out the unfairness of saying he's a dictator for continuing someone else's policies, but then people fail to call the originator a dictator. Make sense now?

Hm... Bush didn't assassinate Americans....

But I would've sent him to prison too!

He is right now bringing many home. He's following the Bush withdrawal model. We can debate whether or not this is the most expedient method, but in fairness he IS bringing them home.

Troops exiting Iraq... only to be replaced by military contractors while building a surge to nation build in Afghanistan while tripling drone bombings in Pakistan and starting new conflicts in Yemen, Libya, Syria, among other Northern African Nations.

He could indeed with some legal maneuvering. But unfortunately he would make quite a few enemies within Congress and in the public if he did.

No balls, no balls... or... he could've just been lying to you gullible idiots.

What was that about getting rid of the Patriot Act? ...Only for him to extend it... 3 times.

He has come out for gay rights. However he can NOT introduce a bill into Congress which would federally allow and protect gay marriage. Congress needs to do that, and then he can sign it.

No he doesn't.

All he needs to do is take it to the Supreme Court.

And also... see above!

You seem to think he has more unilateral power then he does...

All while he makes sure his most wealthier backers continue to get loopholes and tax breaks!

Straw man.

Good to know you support concentration camps.

Then you're not very bright. No other way to put it. If you can't see how a death camp is worse then a detention camp on the scale of outrageously bad things...

So... forcibly removing families from their homes at threat of gun point, without a warrant, and separating them into concentration camps because of their race isn't considered a dictator-like quality to you... all because we didn't actively kill them?

Ah... FDR!

Sieg Heil!

Yes, they are the farthest thing from liberal there is.

You're such the Fascist.

How is "tax breaks for the rich!" a liberal policy?

He cut taxes for everyone, but point taken!

How is endless unjustified war a liberal policy?

Do you have any recollection of before the year 2000?

World War 1 - Progressive
World War 2 - Democrat
Korean War - Democrat
Vietnam - Democrat
Gulf War - Republican... only we left immediately.

Clinton was the one who bombed Iraq in 1997 claiming they had WMDs after placing sanctions on them.

Bush campaigned on no nation building before he was elected.

How is "don't criticize your government" a liberal policy?

Pledge was written by a Socialist by the name of Bellamy which came with a salute that was imitated across Europe and eventually picked up by Hitler, where upon it was forcibly taught in schools by Progressives like Woodrow Wilson where children were giving the "Nazi Salute."

Oh the irony of the Nazi salute originating in the Good Ol'e US of A!

You seem to only zero in on the parts of Bush's administration and policies that support your views, and you 86 the rest.

I wouldn't call 90% of his policies as "Zero'ing in."

You've mentioned what? Tax cuts?

Meanwhile we've mentioned:

-Healthcare
-War
-Indefinite Detention
-Corporate Bailouts
-Assassinations
-Drone Strikes
-Going to war without declaration
-Patriot Act
-Stimulus
-Drug War

I mean really... who's really guilty of "86'ing" the rest?

By who? Where?

Are you sure YOU aren't the hermit?

If only I had been...

Obviously you were.

I didn't say you were a big neo-con. I said that when you make charges that I have heard sources that are identifiable as neo-con or completely in bed with such schools of ultra-right thought, repeatedly, then I can ascribe at least a certain sympathy with them, or at least a familiarity with them. That's it.

You're more neo-con than us, Mr. Statist!

---

At 5/10/13 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Because the smarter among us realize that without the government leverage in there very few people would actually donate to charities. People are very shitty with thier own money. The average American would watch their future go down in flames if it meant they could do so from the deck of a cruise ship. They would watch others starve if it meant they could do so on a 50" TV. They would watch the streets crumble around them if it meant they could take two extra trips to Red Robin annually. You want these people dictating our welfare and economy?

Which is exactly the problem you can expect to run into when you rely on someone else for your welfare and safety.

Now, if we lived in a society where people were more inclined to help themselves, instead of counting on the government for every little things in their lives, from how much their labor is worth, to how much their food is, all the way down to what they are allowed to eat or drink, then this wouldn't be a problem at all.

The only reason the "world would crumble" is because people trust their entire lives to the government and others in the first place. Put all your eggs in the government basket, and they can't handle it, what does that leave you with? Nothing.

Instead of building a society on government, and then have them force you into things under threat of a barrel of a gun when they can't handle it, wouldn't it be easier and much more logical to rely on yourself and make your own life choices? Or at the very least, work COOPERATIVELY with others to form a governmental body that can actually run itself properly? Like, form a government that will work with the people, and allows them to make their own lifer choices. Don't you think YOU should decide whether or not you can smoke something, or YOU should decide who you can marry?

i just cannot understand the mindset of someone putting their lives and future at the mercy of someone else's choices.

---

At 5/10/13 08:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Doesn't seem so from here.

If you say so...

The "nu uh" defense again. Are you really sure you're actually old enough to post here?

I have no reason to argue anything more. you're not making any statement that warrant anything more.

Straw man pure and simple. Mussolini and Obama do not compare.

I think they do, as does Bill Clinton. Your call, i guess.

He signed in the nullification of don't ask don't tell, that's one for civil rights. He created TARP which was a well meaning plus for fiscal policy. He handled Libya as part of a coalition instead of stamping his feet and ordering out the military even if no one supported him. That's one for each area you mentioned. But again, this is more about your charge that he's a dictator to me.

He signed a piece of legislation that made hardly any difference in that front. Is gay marriage federally recognized. As usual, Obama did the bare minimum to make people happy.

TARP is merging of corporate and state power. A major pillar of facism. But hey, remember when people were calling for Bush's impeachment over his corporate welfarism? Why is it okay when Obama does it?

And Obama did not handle Libya. Our people asked for support, and he turned his back on them, and now they're dead.

Yes, because Congress has no part in governance at all...

Obama executive orders everything else...why not this time?

He hasn't started any new wars.

Somalia and Yemen

gay marriage is legally in many states.

Yet still not federally recognized.

Hate that one too, wasteful.

Good.

Examples?

Tallying up $9 trillion in debt during his presidency?

See above.

Auto and bank bailouts and investment in failed "green" energy companies

Ad hominem is the last resort of the man who has no real argument.

i've made my arguments several times. You just plug you ears and not listen to it.

You did, you still do when you act like he alone is making laws and policy and Congress is no part of it.

Congress are criminals too. They are complicit in his crimes.

Your correct actually, my bad. They turned over power to the executive to prosecute anyone involved with 9/11. Unfortunately when it became clear this was NOT applicable to Iraq nobody was held accountable for the fuck up.

And they should be.

Yes it does, dictators have ABSOLUTE POWER. That's what make's them dictators.

He has absolute power if he wants it. There's a work-around for every check against the POTUS

I don't think you even have a point anymore other then to just try and say the opposite of whatever I say.

That's your opinion, I guess.

We have an actual checks and balances system. Hitler made himself dictator and the supreme leader clearly. Anyone else in his government was clearly his man, and clearly and publicly subservient to him.

Bullshit. There is no checks and balance system. congress can be circumvented by executive orders or the war powers act, as the case may be, the bill of rights is nothing.

Not really no. Unless you try to cherry pick history to fit your thesis.

Well, no, it matches pretty clearly. But, you don't care...

Right, which is why I say our discussion is tangential and I've been trying to wittle it down and work at least some semblance of the original point into it so we aren't completely derailing this thread.

Whatever

I'm not trying to absolve his role. I'm pointing out the unfairness of saying he's a dictator for continuing someone else's policies, but then people fail to call the originator a dictator. Make sense now?

His failure to reverse those policies makes him just as guilty.

He is right now bringing many home. He's following the Bush withdrawal model. We can debate whether or not this is the most expedient method, but in fairness he IS bringing them home.

How many are still in Iraq? How many are still gonna be in Afghanistan when he leaves? The SAME numbER we had when he was elected. How mny do we still have in Yemen, somalia, Libya, Egypt, etc

He could indeed with some legal maneuvering. But unfortunately he would make quite a few enemies within Congress and in the public if he did.

Right. So his career is more important than civil rights. Great. BTW, he could executive order it closed, as he said he would

He has come out for gay rights. However he can NOT introduce a bill into Congress which would federally allow and protect gay marriage. Congress needs to do that, and then he can sign it.

Saying you support it doesn't really mean a damn thing

You seem to think he has more unilateral power then he does...

No, HE seems to think he does

Nope.

no, it actually is. Like...objectively, it is.

Straw man.

No, it isn't/

Yep.

Doesn't seem like you do?

Yes, they are the farthest thing from liberal there is.

Not even close.

How is "tax breaks for the rich!" a liberal policy? How is endless unjustified war a liberal policy? How is "don't criticize your government" a liberal policy? You seem to only zero in on the parts of Bush's administration and policies that support your views, and you 86 the rest. Also Bush isn't a bastion of neo-con thought. Most neo-cons now actively reject him.

Because, semantically, all of those things are leftist concepts. Practically, they are liberal interpretations of the role of the American government system.

I am. This is not that. Go look at the definition again.

a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes

Yep, matches pretty well

By who? Where? I just remember him being called an idiot, a criminal, some other things. But never a dictator, not in serious discourse between serious minded persons anyway.

Come off it. Micheal Moore and the like made MOVIEs about the dictatorship that was the Bush admin.

I didn't say you were a big neo-con. I said that when you make charges that I have heard sources that are identifiable as neo-con or completely in bed with such schools of ultra-right thought, repeatedly, then I can ascribe at least a certain sympathy with them, or at least a familiarity with them. That's it.

Ultra-right? Who in this country, is "ultra-right"? LOL.

Psssh. Ridiculous. First it was "the majority hates him" I prove that wrong, then you go "well, they're idiots so who cares?". Sad.

WHAT?!?! A majority of people do hate him. That doesn;t mean the people who did vote for him are bright people.

So one lady proves that anyone voting for Obama is a racist? Wow, you really aren't bright. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Also I'm a white man that voted for Obama. How was that motivated by racism? hmmm?

it isn't one lady, there is evidence all over youTube for shits sake. What would it take for you to admit it's more than an isolated incident?

Nor did I say everyone who voted for him did so because of race. I said a lot of people did. Numbers prove it. There's video of it. The American people can deny it for 100 years, doesn't change anything.

The first time they did elect him on promised policy. I think his re-election however was a combination of the incumbent usually wins unless he is perceived as completely useless, and his opponent was not a palatable option to most.

There wasn't hardly any difference between them other than the fact that one was mormon, the other wasn't...that's pretty much the only difference. romney would've continued the corporate welfare and war that people love under obama

I did indeed. Twice. I support many, but not all of his policies

In my eyes, there are 3 maJOr things that matter

Foreign policy
Civil liberties
econ policy

Obama fails in all three. Really really hard. He's a warmonger and a killer. He still feels the need to dictate american life by requiring them to buy things they can't afford, and dictating what they can consume or own. And his economic policy consists of "fuck the poor and middle class, the rich are the lifeblood of the economy". Fuck him. i would piss on him if he was on fire.

---

At 5/11/13 02:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I have no reason to argue anything more. you're not making any statement that warrant anything more.

I feel the same. With the attempted trolling taken care of, I'd say there's nothing more for anybody to talk about here except the original issue, or something else that was brought up.

---

At 5/12/13 12:54 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I feel the same. With the attempted trolling taken care of, I'd say there's nothing more for anybody to talk about here except the original issue, or something else that was brought up.

I gracefully accept your concession

---

At 5/12/13 01:02 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I gracefully accept your concession

That wasn't a concession. That was me just saying there's no point in spending 10 to 20 minutes replying when you won't listen to it anyway and I'll just get more of the "nu uh" defense and such. I made my point as to why the dictator charge doesn't fit, I feel confident in that. At some point you just don't feel like banging your head against the brick wall anymore.

---

At 5/12/13 01:23 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That wasn't a concession. That was me just saying there's no point in spending 10 to 20 minutes replying when you won't listen to it anyway and I'll just get more of the "nu uh" defense and such. I made my point as to why the dictator charge doesn't fit, I feel confident in that. At some point you just don't feel like banging your head against the brick wall anymore.

And i, as well as another person on this page explained why it did fit. You can continue to live in ignorance.

---

At 5/12/13 01:02 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I gracefully accept your concession

Graceful acceptance would have been not saying anything. This is self-aggrandizement.

---

At 5/12/13 03:04 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Graceful acceptance would have been not saying anything. This is self-aggrandizement.

shhhh...it's just the internet

---

At 5/12/13 01:32 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And i, as well as another person on this page explained why it did fit. You can continue to live in ignorance.

No, that other person is a troll, he has a giant problem with me and he used the exact same specious bullshit arguments you did. Check out the dictionary definition. It doesn't fit, unless you use specious, bullshit, apples to oranges comparisons. Bend the truth, change history, cherry pick facts, etc. You and that other person employed all those things and that's not honest debate. When you can't have an honest debate with someone, there's no debate to be had. So as I said, I'd like to drop it. You think you're right, I think I'm right. There's no point in arguing about it anymore, we're going in circles because even though I'm willing to concede when I make a faux paux (you can see I did that a couple times) you never do, even when what you're saying agrees with me, you try to insist you aren't.

It's to the point where I honestly wonder if you're just here to troll me or something.

---

At 5/12/13 03:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: No, that other person is a troll, he has a giant problem with me and he used the exact same specious bullshit arguments you did. Check out the dictionary definition.

Nah, I'll stick to documented historical facts.

I have not, anywhere, ever, bent truths, change history, cherry picked facts, etc. We have done nothing but hand over basic, BASIC facts regarding the way the US government, and to a degree, world governments, operate. You have chosen to DISMISS them as false, and that's your own problem. There are people in the world who knows what's going on on this planet. You don't seem to be one, and the fact that you dismiss people who point out contrary (to your opinions) facts to you, as troll, just goes to show you have no interest in actual debate or knowledge at all.

As the other poster pointed out, in a much more elegant, thought out way more than I (typing word is not my platform of debate), you're just flat out wrong, and your opinions are misguided.

Point being, I think you're probably 18-20 years old judging by your misguided world view, as well as your bad debating skills. I'm not the best debater, but at least my facts are correct. Yours have yet to be...except the dictionary definition of a dictator...which is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the actual practical usage of the words....but congrats anyway.

---

At 5/11/13 12:56 AM, Memorize wrote: jackasses like you
you short term idiots

At 5/11/13 01:33 AM, Memorize wrote: you morons
You're just too much of a dumb fucker
you gullible idiots.

Seriously, who shit in your cereal? Do you always have to be like that?

---

From Memorize:

"YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
I love how you left leaning statists are always making fun of people over trivial, useless bullshit like religion, but the moment someone calls you out for your own stupidity on matters of actual substance, you jerk offs immediately whine and bitch about "how mean I am to you! Boohoo!"
It's fun watching you all complain over your own attitude."

Wow, that stick must really be hurting his ass.

---

At 5/12/13 10:35 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Wow, that stick must really be hurting his ass.

Alright, I might as well just admit it at this point. I am Memorize's alt. I got sick and tired of trolling this place so I started using this old account to post seriously. I'm actually a democratic socialist in real life but wound up trolling the liberals here for fun while getting the backwards conservatives to back me up on my ridiculous positions. Boy, I bet they feel silly right about now!

---

At 5/12/13 10:48 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/12/13 10:35 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Wow, that stick must really be hurting his ass.

Alright, I might as well just admit it at this point. I am Memorize's alt.

lol That's actually kinda believable.

---

At 5/12/13 04:10 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Nah, I'll stick to documented historical facts.

Which don't tie into your arguments?

I have not, anywhere, ever, bent truths, change history, cherry picked facts, etc.

Yeah you have.

We have done nothing but hand over basic, BASIC facts regarding the way the US government, and to a degree, world governments, operate.

Whose "we"? Are you and Mem somehow a team now? Is this a concerted effort to mess with me or something?

You have chosen to DISMISS them as false, and that's your own problem.

Uh no, I merely pointed out that words have definitions, and when you make comparisons, you need to compare alike things if you want to say "these things are the same". You didn't do that, so that's why I continue to dismiss your points and charge you with what I charge you with. That's not even touching the other logical fallacies (both formal and informal you committed)

There are people in the world who knows what's going on on this planet.

There are indeed.

You don't seem to be one, and the fact that you dismiss people who point out contrary (to your opinions) facts to you, as troll, just goes to show you have no interest in actual debate or knowledge at all.

Ahahahahaha! The only other person to agree with you is a BLATANT troll. Has been banned for it multiple times, and just a quick glance of his post history would show you why. I merely ASKED if you were trying to troll because I'm honestly running out of reasons why you persist in this discussion when I've asked you two or three times now to let it drop. In fact I asked that after it seemed to me YOU were looking to drop it. Then you had to backdoor with that "concession" stuff because you apparently need to have the last word and appear to be the guy in the right. This last sentence is funny as fuck to me because it's a classic case of projection.

As the other poster pointed out, in a much more elegant, thought out way more than I (typing word is not my platform of debate), you're just flat out wrong, and your opinions are misguided.

Because he agreed with you, he's a saint. Never mind the other poster's faults with his debating throughout his time on this board (excessive ad hominem and blatant trolling the most obvious and prevalent). Shame on you dude, I'm done with you, I actually had a modicum of respect for you and your opinions (even though I didn't agree with them) when this started. But now I just think your pompous, and not willing to listen to anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The fact that you want to let a guy who's been proven wrong time and again, and violates the rules of this board every time he gets back from a ban become some paragon simply because he agreed with you does not speak well to your character.

I'm done.

Point being, I think you're probably 18-20 years old judging by your misguided world view, as well as your bad debating skills.

My birth date I believe is available in my profile. If not, my year of birth was 1983. I assume you can do basic math.

I'm not the best debater, but at least my facts are correct.

Perhaps they are in some cases...not this one though, and not in most of the others I've seen. But certainly I admit I haven't read through every post you've ever made.

Yours have yet to be...

Because they don't agree with you.

except the dictionary definition of a dictator...

Dictionaries are helpful that way.

which is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the actual practical usage of the words....

Did you just say a dictionary is wrong? The book we all agree sets in stone what a word means and you're saying "well, that clearly has nothing to do with it". I can't debate someone who actually tries to say the dictionary isn't a valid source for defining a word....no one can. It's too fucking insane!

---

At 5/13/13 12:59 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which don't tie into your arguments?

Yes they do

Yeah you have.

Where?

Whose "we"? Are you and Mem somehow a team now? Is this a concerted effort to mess with me or something?

Well, no, I'm saying "we" because WE are both addressing you?

Uh no, I merely pointed out that words have definitions, and when you make comparisons, you need to compare alike things if you want to say "these things are the same". You didn't do that, so that's why I continue to dismiss your points and charge you with what I charge you with. That's not even touching the other logical fallacies (both formal and informal you committed)

Can we stick to the actual argument please, instead of just screaming "nuh uh, nuh uh, here's what the dictionary says! see see see!!"

Ahahahahaha! The only other person to agree with you is a BLATANT troll. Has been banned for it multiple times, and just a quick glance of his post history would show you why. I merely ASKED if you were trying to troll because I'm honestly running out of reasons why you persist in this discussion when I've asked you two or three times now to let it drop. In fact I asked that after it seemed to me YOU were looking to drop it. Then you had to backdoor with that "concession" stuff because you apparently need to have the last word and appear to be the guy in the right. This last sentence is funny as fuck to me because it's a classic case of projection.

That's fine if he's a troll or whatever. Doesn't make him, or me, any less correct. For example, the wars he mentioned were indeed started by liberals and democrats. The things you asked about are indeed leftist ideologies.

As for "projection"...a first year psych student knows that that freud shit has been largely debunked lol

Because he agreed with you, he's a saint. Never mind the other poster's faults with his debating throughout his time on this board (excessive ad hominem and blatant trolling the most obvious and prevalent). Shame on you dude, I'm done with you, I actually had a modicum of respect for you and your opinions (even though I didn't agree with them) when this started. But now I just think your pompous, and not willing to listen to anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The fact that you want to let a guy who's been proven wrong time and again, and violates the rules of this board every time he gets back from a ban become some paragon simply because he agreed with you does not speak well to your character.

He agreeed, and is factually correct in this discussion. His "trolling" was not present in this topic. I don't give a shit about it.

We're not talking about agreement in terms of opinions, we're talking about actual facts.

My birth date I believe is available in my profile. If not, my year of birth was 1983. I assume you can do basic math.

Oh. Well, you should brush up on your skills then.

Perhaps they are in some cases...not this one though, and not in most of the others I've seen. But certainly I admit I haven't read through every post you've ever made.

in this topic, they are 100% correct.

Because they don't agree with you.

Obviously not. Your arguments are the equivalent to saying 3+3=46. I don't agree with you because what you're saying just isn't true.

Dictionaries are helpful that way.

Great, however, we're not talking about what words mean. We're talking about a president who adopts similar viewpoints and actions to dictators.

Did you just say a dictionary is wrong? The book we all agree sets in stone what a word means and you're saying "well, that clearly has nothing to do with it". I can't debate someone who actually tries to say the dictionary isn't a valid source for defining a word....no one can. It's too fucking insane!

Um, no, I didn't say the dictionary was wrong. I'm saying you are wrong for citing it, because actual dictators and their actions tend to define what a dictator is.

---

How does Obama compare to, say, Saddam Hussein? I'd love to see parallels between specific policies if you can point some out.

---

At 5/13/13 01:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: That's fine if he's a troll or whatever. Doesn't make him, or me, any less correct. For example, the wars he mentioned were indeed started by liberals and democrats. The things you asked about are indeed leftist ideologies.

This part of your post caught my eye so I just had to see what was up. This is how this started:

At 5/10/13 08:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: How is endless unjustified war a liberal policy?

And this was followed up with:

At 5/11/13 01:33 AM, Memorize wrote: Do you have any recollection of before the year 2000?

World War 1 - Progressive
World War 2 - Democrat

Ah, yes, WWII, a noted unjustified war, caused entirely by American liberals. It's also hilarious that Bush's name is so toxic to American conservatism that he's being thrown under the bus as a liberal, lmao. I thought I'd never see the day, but here we are!

Speaking of being in places you don't want to be, I later saw this nugget:

Pledge was written by a Socialist by the name of Bellamy which came with a salute that was imitated across Europe and eventually picked up by Hitler, where upon it was forcibly taught in schools by Progressives like Woodrow Wilson where children were giving the "Nazi Salute."

Oh the irony of the Nazi salute originating in the Good Ol'e US of A!

This is when I started feeling pity for aviewaskewed, since this is when it was made clear that he just wasted a pretty big chunk of his day debating with someone who literally gets their information from chain email spam. Bellamy was a socialist, this is certainly true. As for the Nazi claim, well that is 100% bullshit. Which is really strange because I thought you were so much smarter than everyone else. Here's the deal:

"In the 1920s, Italian fascists adopted the Roman salute to symbolize their claim to have revitalized Italy on the model of ancient Rome. This was quickly copied by the German Nazis, creating the Nazi salute. The similarity to the Bellamy salute led to confusion, especially during World War II. From 1939 until the attack on Pearl Harbor, detractors of Americans who argued against intervention in World War II produced propaganda using the salute to lessen those Americans' reputations. Among the anti-interventionist Americans was aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh. Supporters of Lindbergh's views would claim that Lindbergh did not support Adolf Hitler, and that pictures of him appearing to do the Nazi salute were actually pictures of him using the Bellamy salute. In his Pulitzer prize winning biography Lindbergh, author A. Scott Berg explains that interventionist propagandists would photograph Lindbergh and other isolationists using this salute from an angle that left out the American flag, so it would be indistinguishable from the Hitler salute to observers."

Yes, liberals caused everything bad on Earth, even the holocaust! Why not throw in the extinction of the dinosaurs while you're at it? You're so full of shit I can't see the harm in going the extra mile.

---

At 5/13/13 02:18 AM, Feoric wrote: Ah, yes, WWII, a noted unjustified war, caused entirely by American liberals. It's also hilarious that Bush's name is so toxic to American conservatism that he's being thrown under the bus as a liberal, lmao. I thought I'd never see the day, but here we are!

I never said WW2 or 1 was unjustified. it was however, instigated by 2 european leftists, by the name of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

So yes, US involvement was in response to leftist aggression in Europe. i will concede that i don't know much about WW2 era japan, so i can't comment too much on ol' Hirihito.

As for Bush, I used to think of him as a conservative...until I looked into things like...the constitution, as well as realizing he has adopted most leftist ideologies like merging of state/govt powers for example.

This is when I started feeling pity for aviewaskewed, since this is when it was made clear that he just wasted a pretty big chunk of his day debating with someone who literally gets their information from chain email spam. Bellamy was a socialist, this is certainly true. As for the Nazi claim, well that is 100% bullshit. Which is really strange because I thought you were so much smarter than everyone else. Here's the deal:

I didn't type that.

Yes, liberals caused everything bad on Earth, even the holocaust! Why not throw in the extinction of the dinosaurs while you're at it? You're so full of shit I can't see the harm in going the extra mile.

Well, Hitler was a leftist, so it's fair to say the holocaust was an action carried out by liberalism

---

At 5/13/13 02:18 AM, Feoric wrote:

:Snip

See, what this post seems to attempt is revisionist history

you can try to hide the evils of liberalism and leftist thought all you want. Doesn't change the fact that crimes against humanity in the 20th century can be attributed to leftists.

Chairman Mao, was communist, and his ideology led to the death of millions
Hitler, a socialist, was also responsible for some monstrosities
Who was it that fought against desegregation and women's sufferage. The democrats
There's also FDR, but I know calling him a piece of shit is a big no-no to the libtards lol

Meanwhile, let's look at conservatives....well, there hasn't really been any true conservatives in the 20th century. MAYBE Reagan, but he was pretty liberal in a lot of aspects to...but at least he beat the Russians.

---

At 5/13/13 02:29 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I never said WW2 or 1 was unjustified.

Look closer, I was quoting Memorize.

it was however, instigated by 2 european leftists, by the name of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

Here's some happy far left partisans enjoying Mussolini's far left government, who they love to be murdered by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement#Par tisan_resistance
Here's Hitler being a leftist doing things leftists generally do, like killing communists and socialists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

So yes, US involvement was in response to leftist aggression in Europe. i will concede that i don't know much about WW2 era japan, so i can't comment too much on ol' Hirihito.

Hirihito bad man. Hirihito bad leftist. Leftist be bad man.

As for Bush, I used to think of him as a conservative...until I looked into things like...the constitution, as well as realizing he has adopted most leftist ideologies like merging of state/govt powers for example.

You're going to have a hard time understanding how American politics works if you believe that liberal=big government; conservative=small government. It has never, ever, ever worked like that.

Well, Hitler was a leftist, so it's fair to say the holocaust was an action carried out by liberalism

Too true.

---

At 5/13/13 02:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: See, what this post seems to attempt is revisionist history

Let's try this again. How does Obama compare to, say, Saddam Hussein? I'd love to see parallels between specific policies if you can point some out.