SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Question for the policitally minded Sydlexians.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 03:21 pm

Ash Burton wrote:

3) I'm not the biggest fan of Obama (I wanted Webb), but the man has brought change like it or not. We are actually talking to other nations instead of talking tough to them. He isn't dancing like a monkey on the white house steps while the country goes into financial collapse, he's actually working. The change is that our Presidency may be a punching bag, but no longer a punch line.

4) As for his mandate, the man was black, inexperienced and had a middle name of Hussein. Winning the presidency is his fucking mandate, period.

Your post just sounded like "bitch bitch bitch", but figured I'd coment on these two:
3. Little has changed, and none of it for the better. You're right that he isn't dancing like a monkey while the country goes into financial collapse, he is actively forcing the country into financial collapse.

4. That's not a mandate. Mandate, like all words, has a definition. You can't change the definition because it's fucking convenient or suits your argument. Given his race and inexperience etc. it may be shocking that he won or indicative of the general political climate of our nation at the time, but it was NOT a mandate. You want to see what a mandate looks like? Well if recent elections have been an indication, you can probably expect the midterm elections this year to be a mandate AGAINST Obama's agenda.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 03:23 pm

Kubo wrote:

The fact that his middle name is Hussein has no bearing on anything.

Not entirely true. I think we all got that ignorant, lie-filled chain e-mail claiming that pointed out his middle name was Hussein and said, among other things, that Obama was Muslim, was a terrorist sympathizer, and was sworn into the Senate on the Koran and not the Bible. And we all collectively facepalmed.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Ash Burton wrote:

So much to respond to... Let me sum it up.

1) Bush was a pussy, he hid out in the National guard to avoid deployment, and still couldn't keep the candy out of his nose long enough to even show up for drill. This is what we call a shit-bag. But, like many turds, some float to the top.

2) Cheney was a bitch, and if I ever see him I will smack his monopoly man looking ass right in the mouth. Bastard took 5 deferments to stay out of the war, but has no problems starting them and then sending his company to get all the no bid contracts it can or can not handle. Fuck him.

3) I'm not the biggest fan of Obama (I wanted Webb), but the man has brought change like it or not. We are actually talking to other nations instead of talking tough to them. He isn't dancing like a monkey on the white house steps while the country goes into financial collapse, he's actually working. The change is that our Presidency may be a punching bag, but no longer a punch line.

4) As for his mandate, the man was black, inexperienced and had a middle name of Hussein. Winning the presidency is his fucking mandate, period.

5) I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

Kinda lost track there at the end, but yeah, mudslinging sucks.

1. Service life shouldn't really fucking matter one way or the other. No one is jumping at Obama for not serving. I never cared that Clinton never served and the fact that people brought that up shows how ridiculous politics are. Just because someone was shit at one point in their life, doesn't mean they are now. How does then translate to now? It fucking doesn't. I don't care if Bush, Clinton or Obama pretended to be dead rather than serve in the armed forces, it doesn't fucking matter because it was DECADES before, people change. Also while Bush was doing coke, Clinton was smoking cannibus and Obama admitted to drug use as well. Who fucking cares?

2. No you won't. And again, who cares if he didn't serve or not? Some of our best leaders through war never fucking served. I'm not saying Cheney is a great war leader, but to say he's incapable or shouldn't be allowed to lead is a fucking joke.

3. The man has also allowed the country to spiral even more out of control. He's hell bent on passing a health care bill that over half the nation is against. He's also jacked up taxes and my father's quarterlies are completely fucked and now has even less to get by on, and also take into account he will now not be able to retire any sooner because of it.

4. Race shouldn't fucking matter in 2010. I'm sick of people making excuses for this. The only people that care about race are rich white liberals, everyone else has been fine with interracial harmony since The Cosby Show.

5. You're entitled to your opinion. We all are.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Syd Lexia wrote:

Kubo wrote:

The fact that his middle name is Hussein has no bearing on anything.

Not entirely true. I think we all got that ignorant, lie-filled chain e-mail claiming that pointed out his middle name was Hussein and said, among other things, that Obama was Muslim, was a terrorist sympathizer, and was sworn into the Senate on the Koran and not the Bible. And we all collectively facepalmed.

Fair enough, and I agree. The collective facepalm is what I mean by not having any bearing on things. Other than how stupid some smear campaigns can be.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 03:31 pm

Doddsino wrote:

2. No you won't. And again, who cares if he didn't serve or not? Some of our best leaders through war never fucking served. I'm not saying Cheney is a great war leader, but to say he's incapable or shouldn't be allowed to lead is a fucking joke.

I think every president who never made any attempt to serve in the military should be considered a failure, a hypocrite, and a coward as a matter of principle. Especially FDR. Oh, he was in a wheelchair? Waaaaaaaaaah. I don't wanna hear it. He could have still held a gun.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Also keep in mind that even though Abraham Lincoln served as a captain and ended up as a private at the end of the Black Hawk War, he saw absolutely no action at all. Keep in mind this is the man who held the union together and is idolized by almost every American.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 05:32 pm

Kubo wrote:

I never thought I'd feel like I'm feeding the troll on these forums, but here goes...

Wow a troll? I honestly had to look that one up because the only forum I'm ever on is this one. Look, Kubo, if you want to have an intelligent discussion on policy than I'm all for it, but what I wrote is how I feel, I was not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I live a life where I am bound my duties not to ever challenge authority, especially that of the President. So now that my former boss is my former boss, I enjoy coming on here once in a while and talking some shit about him. You may have your views that you have derived from fox news, I have mine from being deployed until I bleed out of my eyes. I wasn't trying to derail this topic I was just sharing my views on it, (Rove), but somehow this turned sideways. Either way, fuck it, I'm off to troll the best Final Fantasy Game...

(Edit: Most of what I wrote was a joke, it's hard to pass sarcasm via the internet I guess. Please don't take politics so seriously or you could end up like Glenn Beck.)

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

....or Bill Maher

Posted: Mar 12 2010 06:00 pm

Kubo wrote:

Ash Burton wrote:

Obama has gotten himself into trouble during this presidency for actually trying to bring change and trying to work with republicans, while he needs to tell the GOP to shut the fuck up and take his policies. The republicans have made him out to be such a demon that now it's political suicide if they choose to work with him on anything. Maybe he's figured out now that there is no working together. If the GOP can force 2 wars, a patriot act, a bank bailout and the banning of buying foreign pharmaceuticals down our throat, then I think they can deal with some tax raises and some fucking healthcare reform.

Also, for Chrissakes... you're going on about how the Republicans have "demonized" Obama and how the poor, defenseless Democrats were pushed around and forced...

Two wars:
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. So they cooked up a story and dropped us in a meat grinder to quote Arnold.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05

War in Afghanistan: This war was needed, but again mishandled by the administration. I was one of the first units on the ground and there had already been rangers and spooks there for months. Then, they fucking outsourced our job to a foreign military and allow Mr. Terrorism 2001 to fucking escape via goat. It is the failed policy of not listening to Ground Generals that blew these two wars. Rummy and friends tried to go on the cheap, not listening to the Powell doctrine, Gen. Zinni, Jim Webb or any other competent military leader around.

The USA Patriot Act (WITH a Democrat President AND Congress):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-backs-expiring-patriot-act-spy-provisions/

*This was just one of the many things Bush used 9-11 to push through. It's not all bad, but it sure isn't all good either.

The Bank Bailout:
Just check the date on when it occurred... and if you're trying to pin all the reasons for the banks' failures between the years 2001-2008, you should look back farther. The financial crisis was put into motion in at LEAST 1996, but probably as far back as the 1970s. Here's just one of the many reasons that went down (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html)

Here is another reason:

http://consumerist.com/2008/04/how-much-did-deregulation-contribute-to-the-recession-economic-slowdown-whatever.html

During the Reagan era, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Now I'm might be crazy, but having the richest one percent actually pay taxes may help this country.

I don't know nearly enough about the pharmaceutical industry to provide any educated commentary on it, so I'll assume you're right about that one.

Under U.S. law, it is illegal to import drugs from Canada. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

...the Democrats have had enough power to make some differences in the last decade, and they've done nothing. If the Republican Party has been the party of bad ideas for the last decade, then the Democratic Party has been the party of NO ideas in the past decade.

I agree, It's like they are scared to stand behind something. I take no pity on the Dems for being pussies. To me, not getting anything done is just as bad as fucking things up.

I have two points, really. One, which I made above, part of Obama's appeal was that he was the anti-Bush... at least that was his rhetoric. For all this talk of change, hope, sunshine, and rainbows, and smoke up your ass... ::looks around for change, doesn't see too much of it:: there's been little to show that he has changed anything.

Second, maybe you're right that the GOP could "handle" some tax raises and healthcare reform. Only problem is, you're talking as if higher taxes and healthcare reform are universally attractive things. For example, didn't the Affordable Health Care Act get shot the fuck down in the Senate not two months ago? And yet, Obama's back at it, trying to push it through? That's fine, and that's what his constituency expects him to do, and probably what he SHOULD do. That's what politics are. But still, you can't expect political opponents to lay down for the second coming of Jesus Christ in the Democratic Party.

American's don't want health care? We are the only nation that makes keeping people alive a profit based industry. Of course, with all the lobbyist money in politicians pockets we will never see real reform. So, if this is all Obama can get done, then I'm all for it.

"Obama has gotten himself into trouble during this presidency for actually trying to bring change and trying to work with republicans, while he needs to tell the GOP to shut the fuck up and take his policies"
That is, by definition, totalitarianism. That's why I like my government with checks and balances.

Checks and balances? Republicans vote no on everything, and some Democrats who are scared do the same. The country does nothing, seems like it's working.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 06:33 pm

Ash, can you please reformat your post so it's decipherable what you're quoting and what you're saying?

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Ash Burton wrote:

Kubo wrote:

I never thought I'd feel like I'm feeding the troll on these forums, but here goes...

Wow a troll? I honestly had to look that one up because the only forum I'm ever on is this one.

If you weren't trolling, then I genuinely apologize. Your later posts that were just blatant ad hominem spoke to that though. Still, I understand writing from feeling, and that's cool, so my apologies for wrongly accusing you of trolling.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Ash Burton wrote:

You may have your views that you have derived from fox news, I have mine from being deployed until I bleed out of my eyes.

But this I will take issue with. I made no assumptions about where you derived your views from. That's your business, and I'm sure that all who are deployed develop their own viewpoints based on their own particular experiences (along with everybody else).

But I'm sick and tired of those individuals (read: like you) saying I derived my viewpoints from "Fox News" as if to imply that I can't come to right-leaning opinions on my own. Nope, the left has a monopoly on free thinking... those to the right are mouthpieces of Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove. Forget the fact that you went RIGHT to the Patriot Act and the two wars as launching points for your arguments... just. like. everyone. does.

Look, I understand your viewpoints, man. I really do. Especially as someone who has been deployed and seen the tangible repercussions of declarations of war, I get it. But just because someone disagrees with your viewpoints doesn't mean they aren't any more valid than your own. And this isn't directed only at you specifically... I've heard this same shit on the campuses I've been on for the past six years.

For the record, most of my opinions are derived from doing research on the psychology of terrorism, political violence, and asymmetric warfare. And before that, being trained in social psychology, communication, and economic theory. Take that for what it's worth.

Joined: Feb 16 2008 Posts: 832

Most of my opinions are based on the fact that my parent's watch the news but i'm the only one in the family who doesn't take everything at face value and actually checks facts and things.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

A solid foundation for opinions, Koj Smile

Posted: Mar 12 2010 07:50 pm

Ash is not a troll. His opinion in this particular situation may be uncomprising, emotional and somewhat unpopular, but I assure you that he is good people.

Posted: Mar 12 2010 07:59 pm

That Fox news bit was a bit harsh Kubo, your responses were actually far too intelligent to warrant that remark. My apologies for that, once again, I just spout off on emotion rather than intellect. I really am going to work on that.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Ash Burton wrote:

That Fox news bit was a bit harsh Kubo, your responses were actually far too intelligent to warrant that remark. My apologies for that, once again, I just spout off on emotion rather than intellect. I really am going to work on that.

No worries at all. It's a bit of a reflex of mine to immediately go "FUCK NO" when I hear that sort of thing. Mostly because I know what kind of crap gets spewed off of Fox News. I have no doubt you are, as Syd pointed out, good people.

See? Political understanding!!! Why the fuck can't our politicians do it?

Posted: Mar 12 2010 11:01 pm

Kubo wrote:

See? Political understanding!!! Why the fuck can't our politicians do it?

good question

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Knyte, I've figured over the years that the reason for the prevalence of negative political ads pretty much falls on the fact that it's easier. Attacks don't need to be thoughtful, or well-written, because they are meant to stir up anger or outrage, which is pretty easy to do. That's why when you get that rare candidate that will campaign by laying out his plans, he's viewed as boring or labelled as "elitist" or some kind of pejorative term referring to him being a smug intellectual. Attacks are short and effective, while thoughtful and friendly campaigning requires cooperation on all sides.

Posted: Mar 13 2010 11:27 pm

EDIT- Sorry about the almost complete hijacking, but a mudslinging thread has basically become an Obama/Healthcare thread, and I spoke my mind on it. It's very tl;dr, so yeah, skip it if you wish.

Here's my beef with some of these questions:

1. Unless you either still live with your parents or make a great deal of money, what's the problem about taxes? Democrats are stereotyped into Tax Hungry Spendocrats, and it's true to an extent. There's programs like welfare and such, and people abuse the shit out of those programs, but are you going to blame the government for the individual abuse?

2. How many of you actually pay for your own health care anyway? I can tell you already that I've waited in several goddamn hospital ER waiting rooms in my life. Some paid upfront, some paid through insurance, and some free clinic visits. I recall waiting long periods of time in ALL cases. You know what the only real, tangible difference is between ANY of those visits? How much I had to pay for them. Governmental Health Care has a strike against it relayed by the fact that, in Canada, you have to wait forever and a day to get into the doctor, therefore relaying back to my original point-- If waiting is the issue, I sure as fuck don't see any difference. Are you worried about getting taxed to pay for it? Again, unless you live with your parents and it affects them, or you make a significant amount of money, your gouging is negligible. Let's say you make $500 every two weeks-- you're getting maybe $1 or $2 extra dollars taken away.

3. Again, why blame the government when it'd be the individual who fucks the system? I can see bills skyrocketing for Munchasen cases and people who go to the ER for a goddamn splinter, but having to foot the bill for cancer surgery, I can tell you it'd have made me a LOT less fucking anxious over a period of a few years if I didn't have to foot the bill, or at least had a fraction of it taken care of. It's almost encouraging- the reason I don't go to the doctor as much as I should is because I simply can't afford to. This fucks me as far as work- If I'm sick, I either have to work sick or pony up money I can't really afford to pony up to get a doctor's excuse to miss work. How often have you procrastinated doing something important simply to save a few dollars, like haven't changed the oil in your car only to blow out the engine? Same thing in principle-- it may suck, but you have the potential to save lives. If people abuse the system, blame the individual. Blaming the government for it is pointless- if some Munchasen's patient costs the taxpayers $1,000, is it Obama's fault for implementing the system? Sure, if it's your parent's fault that you grew up to be a sadistic murderer or something.

4. Not all of us can afford medical insurance at a private rate. If you can, great. But I can't. As far as I know, the cancer I had at 15 years old may be returning, but I can't afford cancer treatment now. Under government health care, I have a chance. Under private care, I'm fucked. And so is my wife and kid, since I'm the breadwinner. I die, we lose our house, our car...I may get enough out of my life insurance to get a midgrade funeral and a small gravestone. I'm sorry if someone feels cheated by having to pay extra taxes, but if $1 out of your pocket means my family is cared for, then I'll even shoulder the $1. Take the dollar out of my check! This comes with an addendum- if you feel cheated that some welfare mom who has 12 kids and lives strictly off the government not because she's disabled but because she's lazy, then I agree. But I can assure you I am a great employee, overworked and sort of underpaid. To be blunt, I feel I'm a little more entitled to health care than someone who has cholesterol problems from sitting on their fat asses all day eating three bags of Cheetos between meals.

I like objective debate, I really do. If I hear real reasons against the health care proposition besides slight financial inconvenience (aren't all taxes? Well, let's stop paying for cops, then!), personal dislike for current administration, and such, I may well change my tune. Subjectively speaking, I'm probably in the perfect position to be FOR health care. I'm not rich, I have a family, and I could use the ability to go to the doctor when I should. In all honesty, I didn't like Bush, but I'd have been for health care if he'd proposed it. This isn't about politics for me, it's about what (at least on the surface) seems to be the best for me and people like me. Feel free to rip into me if you want, but I'm speaking as someone who will be directly affected by this, much deeper than my pocketbook, and perhaps in a very positive way, and if not, I am willing to hear objective arguments, because after all, personal feelings aside, a valid point IS a valid point.

Posted: Mar 14 2010 03:41 am

DOUBLE

Posted: Mar 14 2010 03:47 am

I think it's downright silly to believe that a politician is going to deliver on every promise they made to get in to office.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I think the last person to actually fufill that promise was James Polk...and it basically killed him.

Posted: Mar 14 2010 04:08 am

Undeath wrote:

1. Unless you either still live with your parents or make a great deal of money, what's the problem about taxes? Democrats are stereotyped into Tax Hungry Spendocrats, and it's true to an extent. There's programs like welfare and such, and people abuse the shit out of those programs, but are you going to blame the government for the individual abuse?

I am a 26 year old college student without insurance. I worked as an EMT for a while and it was ridiculous that the company i worked for would bill the insurance company 1,000 dollars each time they took a patient to dialysis 3 times a week. These people could have driven there and back home, yet abuses like this is what keeps people who needs insurance off qualifying lists because their isn't enough money to go around when all is said and done. The companies love to keep the people who are already in the system because it poses less liability and less paperwork. I can't blame them totally because they are trying to remain profitable in a capitalistic world.

Most dialysis patients die within 3 years if they don't get a kidney transplant. The ethnics issue comes into place because technically these people should be given a one year window to find a kidney in that they are eventually going to die. Keeping the person on life support so to speak for 2 extra years drains money for other people who could use those funds to get better and be back into the work force.Think about that wasted 100,000 dollars and how it could be used for people that can actually get better. I will use my tax dollars for 1 year to cover the costs of a person on dialysis looking for a kidney, but after that they are on their own.

The bottom line in my opinion is that insurance companys are corrupt and have too much power. People abuse the system, but they allow it.

Ash Burton wrote:

1) Bush was a pussy, he hid out in the National guard to avoid deployment, and still couldn't keep the candy out of his nose long enough to even show up for drill. This is what we call a shit-bag. But, like many turds, some float to the top.
.

You are correct but your rhetoric is all wrong. Using words like "pussy" and shit-bag" are going to offend people in the sense that it seems you are being emotional rather than rational in your thoughts while also preventing people from swaying to your viewpoint .People who are effective in debates will throw one positive for every three negatives against the other side because it shows your not biased and willing to listen to the other sides viewpoint.

Quote:

Let's put this in an understandable way.

Using that line makes you sound elitist even though your trying to simplify things

Quote:

Mudslinging can be compared to two overweight nerds trying to woo some chick. They're both desperate to win her affections, but both are geeky and fat. So one nerd will mudsling the other by saying he also has zits on his ass and hair on his back or something. It's just simply being bad and making the competition look worse, rather than playing on the positives.

Clever analogy that would work on the Daily Show but not in a real life debate.Some audience's dont' have the same sense of humor. Hence Fox News.

Quote:

To continue the analogy, a backfire would be if this girl would consider the other nerd an asshole for making fun of his hairy back and ass zits and went with him because he was nicer or something.

Your good at understanding all the possible angles, just try to use this compare and contrast in a real life issue that is going on so your audience will walk away agreeing to your viewpoint and not just a hypothetical that would never materialize.

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

I don't think the Patriot Act was forced down anyone's throat. There was a LOT of support from Democrats, and it was JUST renewed by the liberals in power (Like 2 weeks ago I think?). The Patriot Act wasn't some crazy ideology being forced down people's throats, it was an attempt to protect our national from terrorists in the incredibly technological age we live in; that's not a partisan issue. Raising taxes and socialized healthcare IS an ideology being forced down people's throats, and polls overwhelmingly show that voting Americans are against it.

As for mudslinging, yes it can work. It's also not new. Back in the days before technology, there was an election (I believe a presidential election, though I can't remember who the candidates in question were) where one candidate started the rumour that another candidate had died. There was no quick way to verify this from across the country, and the rumour would spread much faster than the proof of its inaccuracy. Slightly different from the simple "He's a douchebag" mudslinging we see today, but people have done it for hundreds of years because it has worked for hundreds of years (Though in varying degrees based, much of which is based on how well it was executed.)

You ARE correct in my opinion and it seems you have done your homework somewhat,yet you seem to be saying all this in an attacking sort of way. Angry tones rarely work because it overshadows the practical side of your argument.

Kubo wrote:

Obama didn't win because he ran a mudfree campaign- he won the election because 1) McCain picked Palin as his VP, 2) the GOP was in power for 8 years, and the political pendulum swings in the other direction after a group has been in power for too long (Clinton in power for 8 years before Bush, Bush and Reagan in power before Clinton, Carter before Bush and Reagan....), and 3) rather than sling mud, Obama ran his campaign on abstract and unmeasurable pies in the sky like "Hope" and "Change." Obama won mostly because McCain screwed up and because he blew rainbows up the voters' collective ass at a time that it was prime to have rainbows blown up it.

You are mixing in factual data with your own personal opinion. When you say "abstract" and "unmeasurable", explain what exactly he has done to warrant a claim like that by using outside sources. Also show sources on the "rainbows in the voters collectives asses" so your audience can see more than just the way you see it.

Quote:

That said, mudslinging is contextual. It's polarizing. The people that originally agree with the position are usually reinforced, and the people who are not usually go in the other direction. There's a theory in communication called "psychological reactance theory" that says that if someone tries to convince you of something in an overtly persuasive way (e.g. mudslinging), then there is a real risk of pushing those that slightly disagree with you further in the other direction. That's what happens with political mudslinging I think. It's meant to rev up your constituency. That's also why the Swift Boat veterans were so effective. The Bush base was much larger than the Kerry base. The Swift Boat campaign wasn't meant to bring any Democrats to the right, it was meant to keep the right-leaning swing voters to the right. And it worked... if I remember right, Kerry didn't win the swing votes he needed and Bush maintained the votes of his constituency.

Your whole argument was solid until "That's what happens with mudslinging I think". You have to show your audience that you believe your statement 100 percent or they will write it off. When you say "if I remember right" that also shows you might be incorrect even if it is common knowledge to you and "in good faith". It might not be common knowledge to your audience so thoroughly explain what you mean.

Quote:

Obama didn't need to sling mud because once McCain picked Palin, he just had to keep the campaign in cruise control. As long as he kept being the anti-Bush and making vague, abstract assertions, he couldn't lose.

Obama was still "mudslinging" even a month up until the election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/06/obama-allies-warn-mccain-to-back-off-on-personal-a/

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Please reply to these in one post