Obama and Communist Platforms are Virtually Identical

[Tim]

I listen to facts--you listen to rhetoric (it takes logical and coherent thought to know the difference). We would have a debate right now about any number of topics and by the end of it, you'd be embarrassed because all you know how to do is spout rhetoric with no facts to back any of it up. When pressed--you can't defend it.

I would have to say that this your biggest fault when it comes to debating. It seems you cannot debate or even participate in this section without belittling those you disagree with. The insults you throw out take away from any credibility that your words may carry. And as far as facts go, they can be twisted and manipulated to support any side of an argument.

As much as I disagree with you on many points, I still love to hear from both sides. It just gets harder and harder to read your posts while you continue to belittle and insult your opponents.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I've not been embarrassed yet.

Because you don't know enough to know how much you really don't know. You're just a union mouth piece spouting union rhetoric that you've been coached and told to regurgitate--its like a religious cult--indoctrinate people with as much bullshit as you can.

Like I said before--I have no personal stake in my views--I poist about economics, accounting, and law--subjects I know a lot about--and I quote fact. Unless you are posting about how the flaps work on a plane, you are pretty much just shooting from the hip.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I would have to say that this your biggest fault when it comes to debating. It seems you cannot debate or even participate in this section without belittling those you disagree with. The insults you throw out take away from any credibility that your words may carry. And as far as facts go, they can be twisted and manipulated to support any side of an argument.

As much as I disagree with you on many points, I still love to hear from both sides. It just gets harder and harder to read your posts while you continue to belittle and insult your opponents.

You misconstrue effective analysis of issues as "belittling" or "insulting." An opinion is worthless unless it can be logically and coherently supported. The problem with some people is they think that no one should challenge their opinion. How do you have an effective debate or flush our the real issues without challenging an opinion?

BTW--you won't see any opininion that has good factual support belittled--its impossible.

 

[Minor Axis]

you're just a union mouth piece

And your closed minded. Some how I don't think you'll be able to shake the annoying habit of attacking people because you don't like their ideas.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I would have to say that this your biggest fault when it comes to debating. It seems you cannot debate or even participate in this section without belittling those you disagree with. The insults you throw out take away from any credibility that your words may carry. And as far as facts go, they can be twisted and manipulated to support any side of an argument.

As much as I disagree with you on many points, I still love to hear from both sides. It just gets harder and harder to read your posts while you continue to belittle and insult your opponents.

By the way, you quoted this:

Fox Mulder[/B]
I listen to facts--you listen to rhetoric (it takes logical and coherent thought to know the difference). We would have a debate right now about any number of topics and by the end of it, you'd be embarrassed because all you know how to do is spout rhetoric with no facts to back any of it up. When pressed--you can't defend it.

and accussed me of insutling and belittling (preumably Minor), yet my post was in response to this:

As opposed to the conservatives who listen to conservative bullshit because it falls in line with their perception of the perfect world, like your are some clear minded independent thinker.

So how is it that my reply was any different in kind or tone or implication than Minors?

 

[Fox Mulder]

And your closed minded. Some how I don't think you'll be able to shake the annoying habit of attacking people because you don't like their ideas.

I don't attack people, I attack their points of view. The problem is I do it so effectively (poke holes in their posts), that people take offense as though its an attack on them. The problem is most people aren't used to being challenged and liberals ESPECIALLY hate to be challenged. You expect us all to just buy all the moveon.org bullshit. If you make a good post with facts, there's no way to attack it. Go look at the post I made on CEO compensation--all facts about how much they actually make as compared to the total revenues and expenses of a business. That post essentially rebutted your usual union rhetoric about how the CEO's big salary is the cause of businesses going under when in reality the amounts of the compensation are completely irrelevant--its basic math--its fact, but it doesn't fit the AFL-CIO rhetoric because only by rhetoric and appealing to emotion can unions expect to survive. You don't like the message I provide--I don't blame you--the truth is often a very hard pill to swallow when you have a huge stake in the lies.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't blame you--the truth is often a very hard pill to swallow when you have a huge stake in the lies.

The very hard pill I've had to swallow are the lies and selfishness that economic/social conservatism in this country has come to represent considering I supported them for many years.

==Mulder Filter: turned on==

 

[gLing]

I have a serious question. What is a person who is liberal on social issues but conservative on foreign policy and the general role of the government in people's lives?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I have a serious question. What is a person who is liberal on social issues but conservative on foreign policy and the general role of the government in people's lives?

Intelligent

I am fiscally conservative, foreign policy and government intrusion...I am not sure where my liberal leanings are, I am pro-life (although I still don't think it's any of my business).

I am for man-woman marriage, but don't get involved in who should/should not kinda stuff, it really doesn't affect my life at all.

Let's see...

I dunno, I have always been Independent in thought....At least I think

 

[Fox Mulder]

I have a serious question. What is a person who is liberal on social issues but conservative on foreign policy and the general role of the government in people's lives?

Mulder! I am very conservative economically (because its the only rational position to take--its science--there is only one right answer), and more liberal socially, but with common senses. Things need to add up to me factually--I despise the rhetoric people use on the left to push a social agenda (because it based entirely on emotion).

 

[Strickland]

you did not pass reading comprehension did you?

Perhaps it is you who are unable to comprehend what is being discussed here. She was making the regulation libertarian response to a welfare system that consists of "OMGZ, teh govment is tew bigg!!!1!" She implied that totalitarianism is the inevitable consequence of any form of socialism, however mixed with capitalism it may be, and I therefore demanded proof of this growing totalitarianism which would destroy Denmark's democracy.

Do you understand yet?

 

[Fox Mulder]

Intelligent

I am fiscally conservative . . .

I often wonder how one can be anything else!

 

[Strickland]

Because you disagree with them. lol

No, it's not because I disagree with them, it's because I don't trust such biased sources. For instance, when I was a Marxist I didn't believe what was posted on In Defence of Marxism - Home because they're clearly going to be insanely biased in whatever they report. As such, I always cross referenced with either the BBC or any other respected and credible news source.

You were talking about democracy in a socialist nation. Well guess what, China claims they have democracy too but it isn't true. It does not exist in socialism or communism.

Do you not realise that Denmark is not socialist? Socialism is not a kinder, gentler capitalism, but is its total rejection. For a country to be socialist there needs to be absolutely no private sector, no management positions. What would be required is for every single worker be employed by the government while the individual factories, offices, etc. would be controlled by workers' councils and not by one boss.

Is that what Denmark's like? No. You should also remember that it is you that brought up democracy by assuming that welfare always leads to despotism.

You're right. I guss people with money running to the US to get medical treatment isn't proof enough. Not to mention I have yet in my entire life seen proof that socialized medicine has produced anything better ever. lol

Do you have any proof of the Danish people ever running to the U.S. to get medical treatment? If you don't have any solid proof, this is a hollow statement.

Yes they do. Take a look at the UK's pretty healthcare and what they are proposing.
The sad thing is here in the US some health insurances are following their example. Acting like little governments of their own.

The growing oppressive tendencies of the British government is totally independent of their welfare and healthcare policies. If it were inextricably tied to such a thing, then why is Denmark, or Scandinavia as a whole, not a despotic nightmare? It's tied to the fact that the British government are so hell-bent on the "War on Terror" and the general populace is continually growing more and more aggravated with everything.

So far you have nothing. Doesn't mean I win it just means you have well... nothing.

I have proof from credible sources and all you have is hollow talking points, and yet I'm the one with nothing?