# Well done, President Clinton. Well done.



## Shannon (Sep 5, 2012)

Absolutely amazing speech.
No one could sum it all up like he did tonight.
Americans needed to hear the truth.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 5, 2012)

He'll be scoring the pinnochios left and right tommorow when politico fact check goes through his numbers lol, especially as they pertain to Ryan's plan to stabalize medicare for future generations to benefit from.

All this "truth" coming from a man who claims he didn't even know blowjobs counted as a sexual act.
I for one haven't forgotten his disgracement of the office (oval to be specific lol) and his own family.

edit; "the least he could've done was send her home in a clean dress"


----------



## Shannon (Sep 6, 2012)

*sigh* Yes, yes....we all remember that.
Still doesn't change that he knows what he's talking about. But then again, if you're looking for an argument, seek it elsewhere. I'm not biting.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> He'll be scoring the pinnochios left and right tommorow when politico fact check goes through his numbers lol, especially as they pertain to Ryan's plan to stabalize medicare for future generations to benefit from.
> 
> All this "truth" coming from a man who claims he didn't even know blowjobs counted as a sexual act.
> I for one haven't forgotten his disgracement of the office (oval to be specific lol) and his own family.
> ...



Clinton was definitely the first and only one to disgrace the Oval Office. You're super right. 

OT, I was really impressed with Clinton's speech.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Clinton was definitely the first and only one to disgrace the Oval Office. You're super right.
> 
> OT, I was really impressed with Clinton's speech.


 
So it was all cool because others done it first? 
I could care less about it, but it pertains to my claim that he's not so great at telling people the truth.

him saying that he didn't think oral sex counted as sexual activity is right on par with Akin saying that a womans body will prevent impregnation from rape.


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> He'll be scoring the pinnochios left and right tommorow when politico fact check goes through his numbers lol, especially as they pertain to Ryan's plan to stabalize medicare for future generations to benefit from.
> 
> All this "truth" coming from a man who claims he didn't even know blowjobs counted as a sexual act.
> I for one haven't forgotten his disgracement of the office (oval to be specific lol) and his own family.
> ...



I like how you go almost strait for the ad hominem, with only the usual assertion that someone else will prove him wrong first. (That's my ironic ad hominem of the day.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Off topic, why do people still call him president? He's not been president for ages.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> So it was all cool because others done it first?
> I could care less about it, but it pertains to my claim that he's not so great at telling people the truth.
> 
> him saying that he didn't think oral sex counted as sexual activity is right on par with Akin saying that a womans body will prevent impregnation from rape.



As with all ad hominem attacks, his character, or lack of it, in your opinion, doesn't have any effect on the veracity of the facts mentioned.


----------



## Mexi (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't think Clinton legitimately didn't think oral sex was a sexual activity, but he had to save face in light of being viewed as some kind of sexual deviant, cause that was SO UNCOMMON in the office of the President

Akin's comment was a result of blatant ignorance to the nth degree. Clinton gambled with people's ignorance and greatly underestimated our own sexual appetites, so people saw right through that charade. However, I really think he's moved on since then, as should everyone else. I really don't think telling people that you didn't get your dick sucked when you did completely negates your years of political experience and expertise.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2012)

Here is an example of Clinton flip-flopping on the whole raise taxes on the corparations philosophy.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm confident that most, if not all of what Clinton said was true. He was right about Romney and Ryan's claims against Obama gutting medicare and abolishing the work requirement for welfare. Those were absolutely false. Romney and Ryan lied SO much during both of their speeches. The republican party's platform is 'say whatever we need to, to get elected', no matter if it's true or not. Clinton's sexual scandal is so far removed from anything that actually matters today, it's ridiculous to even bring it up.

edit: ^^ lol talking about flip-flopping from an out of context 22 second clip, when _Romney_ is the republican nominee... _OK_.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2012)

Well here's another one.
It's all in the first 2.5 min.

Clinton says that he supports the Bowles-Simpson plan for economic recovery.
He says he don't know why Obama didn't embrace it.


----------



## Tang (Sep 6, 2012)

It was a good speech.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 6, 2012)

Wow, that got me choked up. Nice one Billy.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 6, 2012)

Flip-flopping is a dumb thing to get upset about. If someone, whether Democrat or Republican, changes their position because they have done more research or thought more about an issue, then we should be embracing this change, because it's the result of a more critical process. It's people who flip-flop because their _party_ has changed positions or to distance themselves from another politician's position who we should be calling out. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with Clinton changing his mind on economic policy. Not that it matters, anyway.


----------



## Varcolac (Sep 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Flip-flopping is a dumb thing to get upset about. If someone, whether Democrat or Republican, changes their position because they have done more research or thought more about an issue, then we should be embracing this change, because it's the result of a more critical process. It's people who flip-flop because their _party_ has changed positions or to distance themselves from another politician's position who we should be calling out. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with Clinton changing his mind on economic policy. Not that it matters, anyway.



This. Changing your opinion isn't flip-flopping. 

If I think the world is flat, you show me a picture of the Earth from space, and it changes my mind, I've expanded my world-view and changed my opinion. 

If I think the world is flat, you show me a picture of the Earth from space, and I stick to my guns, I'm a moron. 

Those who are so convinced of their opinions that they are unable to be swayed frighten me. We can always learn more, and we can always change. The world is in flux, and we must change with it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> He'll be scoring the pinnochios left and right tommorow when politico fact check goes through his numbers lol, especially as they pertain to Ryan's plan to stabalize medicare for future generations to benefit from.
> 
> All this "truth" coming from a man who claims he didn't even know blowjobs counted as a sexual act.
> I for one haven't forgotten his disgracement of the office (oval to be specific lol) and his own family.
> ...



You really like to focus on the pettiest part of every issue.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> He'll be scoring the pinnochios left and right tommorow when politico fact check goes through his numbers lol, especially as they pertain to Ryan's plan to stabalize medicare for future generations to benefit from.
> 
> *All this "truth" coming from a man who claims he didn't even know blowjobs counted as a sexual act.
> I for one haven't forgotten his disgracement of the office (oval to be specific lol) and his own family*.



Poisoning the well much? Yeah, because of his past indiscretions everything he says will forever be *void*. VOID I TELL YOU!!!




TRENCHLORD said:


> him saying that he didn't think oral sex counted as sexual activity is right on par with Akin saying that a womans body will prevent impregnation from rape.



I... Don't even know what to say to this...
Did you actually look at this when you had typed it and thought:
"Yeah, this is a well formulated, thought-out and resonable parable. This is such an iron-clad argument that none of those SSO hippies will be able to refute it."


----------



## skeels (Sep 6, 2012)

^Hippies?!


----------



## Jakke (Sep 6, 2012)

skeels said:


> ^Hippies?!



I did include myself in that group


----------



## hairychris (Sep 6, 2012)

Yeah, well, the blowjob thing. The funniest thing about that whole episode was that ol' Newtie Gingrich, who pushed the issue, is far more of a dishonest scumbag towards women then Clinton was.

Clinton was always a good speaker. Not sure about some of his policies but way better then Bush.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> You really like to focus on the pettiest part of every issue.


 
No, my focus is on the videos.
His truth telling resume is only a small part of his bullshit factor.

Those videos are from a very short time ago, so I do see the things he says last night as very suspect.

To say last night that the Obama plan is the right plan for america to move forward, while just lately having said that something very different is the correct path, well that's certainly very troubling and absolutely discredits much of what he was saying last night.

He's turning on a dime to change his tune in order to attempt keeping the democrats in power.
It's the only way he ever has a chance at getting his own ass back in the oval office in 2016. Although this time, he'll be the one under the desk.
(unless Hilary wants to get jiggy sometimes and switch places .

Really folks, the videos say it all. He does not agree with Obama on the economy, but must tow the line for their (the Clinton's) own political future.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)

skeels said:


> ^Hippies?!



Yessir...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, my focus is on the videos.
> His truth telling resume is only a small part of his bullshit factor.
> 
> Those videos are from a very short time ago, so I do see the things he says last night as very suspect.
> ...



I've watched you post here enough to know that every time a liberal says anything you shove your hand firmly up your ass, grab the biggest handful of shit you can and start flinging it haphazardly... 

EVERY time...

It's to the point now that even if you do make a good point I could give a fuck less bc most of the time you're either full of shit or desperate to make *some* derogatory remark simply bc you align with a different ideology... 

You must be one of those cats that believes we're "losing the country." But I guess if Chuck Norris says so...


----------



## Randy (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD (as well as a lot of the Republican ilk) have what I call 'Sean Hannity Disorder' where, as soon as somebody sympathizes with the 'other' party, instantly nothing they say is credible, nothing they do is right and you can expect everything they *will* do is equally stupid/dishonest. Don't disagree with them; hate them because they're the enemy and they're wrong in every way.

That's one of the things I loved about Clinton's speech that I thought 'hit it on the nose'. He gave credit to former Republican presidents and things they did right, as well as nodding to some of the Republicans who had 'a hit put out on them' by the Tea Party for willingness to compromise "with the enemy". You can recognize that, in your opinion, your political ideology produces better results but you don't need to paint everyone the devil.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)

^ The Obama commercial I saw most recently featuring President Clinton is about the only thing that made me want to vote (I sincerely didn't want to).

It had NOTHING to do with my inclination to agree with the liberal point of view. It had NOTHING to do with a celebrity cameo from good ol' Slick Willy. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it was a campaign commercial talking about what the candidate responsible for said ad IS doing or IS planning to do as opposed to talking about all the things his opponent won't do/can't do/hasn't done. 

I remember there was a point in time when McDonald's couldn't say Burger King's name in a commercial. And now presidential candidates can call each other out in the most petty ways on national television and we're to look at them as "leaders." It doesn't sit well with me.

You can feign diplomacy with people pointing nuclear weapons at you, but you can't do it with your own countrymen for want of winning an election which to some folks only seems to equate to a public pissing contest.


----------



## Varcolac (Sep 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> You can feign diplomacy with people pointing nuclear weapons at you, but you can't do it with your own countrymen for want of winning an election which to some folks only seems to equate to a public pissing contest.



Well, if you piss all over a president's legislative agenda for four years, you can then turn around and say he didn't pass enough legislation, and you win the long-game pissing contest! And screw the country for four years, stymieing growth and holding back legislation that would need to new jobs and infrastructure. But it's OK, you can still start a small business or go to college! Just ask for a loan from your father.

Oh, your father's not a multi-millionaire? Too bad lol, try harder. 'MERICA!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)




----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 6, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> Well, if you piss all over a president's legislative agenda for four years, you can then turn around and say he didn't pass enough legislation, and you win the long-game pissing contest! And screw the country for four years, stymieing growth and holding back legislation that would need to new jobs and infrastructure. But it's OK, you can still start a small business or go to college! Just ask for a loan from your father.
> 
> Oh, your father's not a multi-millionaire? Too bad lol, try harder. 'MERICA!



And there we have it. "Oh life handed you a shit sandwich? U mad bro?" is the republican mentality. I see a majority of them as nothing more than real life trolls. Sure I've made some bad choices in life and I accept full responsibility for them. However there are just as many times where my life was fucked over by other people making equally shitty choices. Tough shit for me right?

Ask my dad for a loan? I remember asking him to stop when he tried raping me, so yeah getting a few extra bucks for college wasn't in the cards. Therefore I have to put my OWN ass through college. But hey, slash funding for grants and loans so that I can't finish my degree and have to turn tricks for a living, then condemn me for being a dirty hooker right? 

Or you know, stop judging and stop over burdening people that actually ARE trying to overcome impossible odds and make something of their life. That works too.

And no, I don't see EVERY republican as the enemy. I do have some conservative values myself and consider myself a proponent for compromise. But if I'm at the negotiating table and I'm giving far more than I'm receiving it stops being compromise and me just giving up to placate people that don't give a shit.

Bill actually did know how to work with both parties fairly well and was closer to achieving bi-partisanship than any other president that I can think of in recent memory. Probably why misogynistic asshats like Gingrich decided "you got a bj in office? CRUCIFY HIM!!!", despite the fact that Gingrich was probably fucking every intern he came across. (and my guess would be on)

That said, Clinton isn't an angel either and I won't make any claims to that effect. But I remember living pretty damn good while he was president and I remember things actually being affordable at the time.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> (...)
> him saying that he didn't think oral sex counted as sexual activity is right on par with Akin saying that a womans body will prevent impregnation from rape.



Are you really comparing both statements? One implies that women who get pregnant through rape get what they deserve because they're likely to have secretly enjoyed it; the other makes a fool of himself while trying to hide his adultery.

If only the worst thing MY president ever did was having his dick sucked while in office...

Oh wait: my president is a woman now. Carry on.





Varcolac said:


> Well, if you piss all over a president's legislative agenda for four years, you can then turn around and say he didn't pass enough legislation, and you win the long-game pissing contest! And screw the country for four years, stymieing growth and holding back legislation that would need to new jobs and infrastructure. But it's OK, you can still start a small business or go to college! Just ask for a loan from your father.
> 
> Oh, your father's not a multi-millionaire? Too bad lol, try harder. 'MERICA!



I find it amazing how republicans conveniently ignore this fact - and their electorate actually buys it! Unbelievable...


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 6, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> So it was all cool because others done it first?
> I could care less about it, but it pertains to my claim that he's not so great at telling people the truth.
> 
> him saying that he didn't think oral sex counted as sexual activity is right on par with Akin saying that a womans body will prevent impregnation from rape.



Infidelity has fuck all to do with knowing what he is talking about and being able to do the job he was elected to do. Given the track record of the last 5 decades or so of presidents, Clinton is the only one to leave office with a budget surplus, not to mention it was the last time that the middle class had actually started to really rise in median income. Interesting side note, the wealthy had increased wealth as well *despite* paying higher taxes.

Besides, do you really think any politician is really as moral as they make themselves seem? At least Clinton didn't run on a platform of returning America to morality *cough*Mark Sanford, Larry Craig*cough * Fuck, at the very least Clinton didn't use tax payer money to fly to fucking Brazil and bang his mistress.

OT: damn good speech!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 6, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> I find it amazing how republicans conveniently ignore this fact - and their electorate actually buys it! Unbelievable...



Politics is a team sport, viejo.

That's called a pick n roll.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 6, 2012)

Politifact is already hard at work, parsing his speech. So far 4 of the comments have been vetted, rating true, mostly true, half true, and true, respectively:

http://www.politifact.com/

Of course, there are already articles floating around disputing other points of his speech, but I'll wait until Politifact finishes up before I give credence to any other sources.


----------



## Ckackley (Sep 6, 2012)

Clinton could have had a harem of women and men chained up in a BDSM parlor in the basement of the White House for all I care. He could have been getting blowjobs DURING meetings for all I care. He and Hillary could have invited foreign dignitaries over for orgies for all I care... The budget was in amazing shape, we weren't blowing people up, and the economy was rolling. To hell with someone's sex life if he's doing his job. My only complaint is that he did such a good job that when Bush rolled in he had free reign with copious resources.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 6, 2012)

Ckackley said:


> we weren't blowing people up



I'm all for cheer leading, but let's be honest with ourselves:


Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1995 NATO air campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...To name but a few.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 6, 2012)

The hilarious part is that, contrary to a certain troll's belief, most of what ol' Bill seemed to be saying checks out! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/05/Bill-Clinton-Democratic-convention/


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 6, 2012)

It wasn't till I started watching a few interviews with Clinton that I really understood what a smart bloke he is. Sure, he's fucked up, but then who hasn't? Everyone makes mistakes, and at least he made a mistake that involved his job directly, like say, going to war with a country based on false evidence. 

Besides, criticise him all you want, you couldn't lower him to the levels of some of the cretinous wretches that make up the Republican party.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 6, 2012)

Bill Clinton still is, and forever will be, one of my biggest heroes.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 6, 2012)

And still, not one person addressing the fact that Clinton's recent reccomendations do not line up with what Obama has done and wanted to do in economic policy.

You all love Clinton, that's obvious, that's fine.
So why are you all not defending his recommendations on the video.

"lower the corperate tax rates"
"widen the tax base"
"get this economy moving forward"

In reality I am the one siding with the real Clinton.
That's the Clinton that comes out when he's on his own, not pandering for Obama.

Many of you are throwing Clinton's true RX under the bus in your love affair with the annoited one lol.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 7, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And still, not one person addressing the fact that Clinton's recent reccomendations do not line up with what Obama has done and wanted to do in economic policy.
> 
> You all love Clinton, that's obvious, that's fine.
> So why are you all not defending his recommendations on the video.
> ...



Stop blowing hot air. Please. For all of is. It is REALLY getting old.

Clinton went on that podium to defend the President because there's too much on the table in this election to let small disagreements get in the way. That's what he's all about; Cooperation. In fact, the ironic thing about him is that, compared to Republicans, _Clinton has more legitimate issues with the President than the GOP ever will,_ because the GOP has been operating under an alternate reality for four years now. Compromise is not weakness, *compromise is progress.*

You may act like you're the only one talking about "the real Clinton", but _I've read his book_. Every single idea in it has been emulated in some way by Obama's policies or his efforts to compromise with Republicans. His speech was unbelievable, and it kicked Romney in the fucking face with the most honest discussion of current issues we've seen so far in this race.

You're the only one dissenting Clinton's speech because you're the only one with such a lack of humility to troll the best speech we've heard in years.


----------



## dooredge (Sep 7, 2012)

Clinton is Clinton. Obama is Obama. 

I think Clinton was great at building bipartisanship & listening to all parties and finding a reasonable way to get things done. Clinton would be a welcome addition to the Whitehoue in my book. 

Because Clinton proffered an excellent speech does not mean Obama will adhere let alone be able to accomplish what Clinton touched upon. Obama is the one that needs to make his presidency count. 

All speaking engagements aside, whoever is president, they need to start putting the interests of the US first instead being the self-appointed global police. I'm all for global citizenship, but not at the expense of our own well being.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 7, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And still, not one person addressing the fact that Clinton's recent reccomendations do not line up with what Obama has done and wanted to do in economic policy.
> 
> You all love Clinton, that's obvious, that's fine.
> So why are you all not defending his recommendations on the video.
> ...



What if Clinton looked more into Obama's plan and decided it was a more practical and more stable plan then the one he'd been backing last year? You act like human beings are static creatures, incapable of changing in character and in thought.


----------



## Cdub (Sep 7, 2012)

Clinton went to north Korea and then RETURNED ALIVE. He sat next to Kim jong ill (and they watched top gun a couple times, I think...)

Clinton has some huge balls to do that, so maybe he needs them drained just to walk. BJ.

On topic, I hate politics, but the republicans are unbelievable. I'd like this country to go blue to prevent bad things from happening.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 7, 2012)

The U.S has a hell of a lot of changing to do before it becomes the country it aspires to be, but it sure as hell won't be the Republicans that get you there.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 7, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> The U.S has a hell of a lot of changing to do before it becomes the country it *believes itself to be*, but it sure as hell won't be the Republicans that get you there.



Fix'd 

I feel like at one point Republicans weren't 100% batshit crazy, though. Maybe I was just too young to understand.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 7, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Fix'd
> 
> I feel like at one point Republicans weren't 100% batshit crazy, though. Maybe I was just too young to understand.



I was wondering whether to write it like that actually aha.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 7, 2012)

I can see how the remark might be viewed as inflamatory from a "foreigner" but sometimes ppl need to hear shit they don't like as incentive to change. 

Sometimes there's no other way.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 7, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I can see how the remark might be viewed as inflamatory from a "foreigner" but sometimes ppl need to hear shit they don't like as incentive to change.
> 
> Sometimes there's no other way.



Help us Bill Clinton. You're our only hope...







Also, new fact check on Fox News' claim that Clinton's speech tied in ratings with Honey Boo Boo.

Clinton's speech drew 25.1 million views, over 10x the draw of Honey Boo Boo.

It also beat the ratins for both Ryan's speech and the second half of the NFL season opener.

Faith in humanity: Restored.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 7, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And still, not one person addressing the fact that Clinton's recent reccomendations do not line up with what Obama has done and wanted to do in economic policy.
> 
> You all love Clinton, that's obvious, that's fine.
> So why are you all not defending his recommendations on the video.
> ...



Anointed one? You sound like a talking head at Fox News dude. It's laughable.

Are you going to address the glaring discrepancies between Ryan's platforms and Romney's or are you going to just flap your gums about the Democrats before even looking at the Republicans with the same lens? How about Romney pandering to the entirety of the Republicans in an almost absolute 180 of opinions on almost everything he apparently stood for? You're an absolute hypocrite and I only read your posts now because I know it's going to make me laugh.

"I remember the disgrace" ....seriously. The guy got a blowjob. The administration of GWB managed to drive your entire country into a hellhole.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 7, 2012)

But did their genitalia remain dry?

The ppl need to know equally as badly as they need to see the ONLY black president's official birth certificate AFTER he's elected even...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> The administration of GWB managed to drive your entire country into a hellhole.


 

Yeah Clinton did the right thing also by allowing al-Qaeda to stay setup over there and train away for years, preparing without obstruction for events like and including September 11th. 

The Clinton administration was very aware of the threat even before the first WTC bombing in 93.
At the very least he should have acted after the 93 bombing alerted to the full seriousness, but all he did for the next 7yrs of his term was play footsie with the bad guys and play cigar-poker with the interns .


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah Clinton did the right thing also by allowing al-Qaeda to stay setup over there and train away for years, preparing without obstruction for events like and including September 11th.
> 
> The Clinton administration was very aware of the threat even before the first WTC bombing in 93.
> At the very least he should have acted after the 93 bombing alerted to the full seriousness, but all he did for the next 7yrs of his term was play footsie with the bad guys and play cigar-poker with the interns .



I think Mr. Clinton might take issue with that (starting at roughly 4:20 on this video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU&feature=related

Continuing his rebuttal:



I'd wanna hear from more sources confirming his assertations, but it sounds like Bill was cocked and ready to go, but was shut down from political bullshit.


----------



## Varcolac (Sep 8, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I think Mr. Clinton might take issue with that (starting at roughly 4:20 on this video):
> 
> 
> Continuing his rebuttal:
> ...




First video's a music video. Might wanna change that.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 8, 2012)

Fixed. Not sure how the hell I didn't catch that. 

Although one could argue that Cemetery is a fantastic alternative to fox news talking points.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah Clinton did the right thing also by allowing al-Qaeda to stay setup over there and train away for years, preparing without obstruction for events like and including September 11th.
> 
> The Clinton administration was very aware of the threat even before the first WTC bombing in 93.
> At the very least he should have acted after the 93 bombing alerted to the full seriousness, but all he did for the next 7yrs of his term was play footsie with the bad guys and play cigar-poker with the interns .



Way to totally deflect away from what I said dude. How very staunchly die hard Fox News Republican of you. Latch onto some faint detail and run with it so you can do a GOTCHA! moment. Too bad your argument is actually total bs.

I should write a filter that just turns everything you say into NUH UH!!! DEMOCRATS DID IT FIRST!!

Not *ONCE* have I even made an attempt to defend Clinton's administration so don't get all butthurt about it. The Bush administration went to war based on total lies in Iraq and waged a "war on terror" in both Iraq and Afghanistan causing the death of untold amounts of people and soldiers now. If you're going to just pin it on the Clinton administration because they didn't act sooner because Bill was getting a hummer, then I'm just going to assume everything you say from here in is the equivalent of defecating out of your mouth.

Now that everything is out of the way there, care to apply the same logic to Ryan and Romney like the original post or are going to nit pick some other statement in my post to draw attention away from the fact that you're actually just full of hot air?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 8, 2012)

Trench, when a Canadian is kicking your ass about American politics, it's time to give up.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 8, 2012)

I'm moving to Canada


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 8, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Trench, when a Canadian is kicking your ass about American politics, it's time to give up.



Could not have said it better. Dear god this just keeps getting better.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> Way to totally deflect away from what I said dude. How very staunchly die hard Fox News Republican of you. Latch onto some faint detail and run with it so you can do a GOTCHA! moment. Too bad your argument is actually total bs.
> 
> I should write a filter that just turns everything you say into NUH UH!!! DEMOCRATS DID IT FIRST!!
> 
> ...


 
Actually I've yet to hear anything you've posted be anything more than liberal talking point crap.

Not suprising that the liberal leftist squad enjoys you attempting to bash me, but that still doesn't get you anywhere in a crowd of patriotic americans.

I still don't see what logic you want me to apply to Romney and Ryan.
You'd likely want YOUR twisted leftist logic applied everywhere, but no that's not going to happen in this case.

Bottom line is that Romney/Ryan will start making positive economic adjustments, not the least of which will be in the energy industry.

Obama/Biden just whine and moan about why things aren't getting done.

It's just like Eastwood said man, sometime when they don't get the job done "you just gotta let'm go".

aka fire they're socialist whining asses


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Not suprising that the liberal leftist squad enjoys you attempting to bash me, but that still doesn't get you anywhere in a crowd of patriotic americans.



Oh, interesting... So if someone is at the left, they can not be a patriotic american?



TRENCHLORD said:


> aka fire they're socialist whining asses



Again, there is no such thing as socialism in american politics. I know you like to call people you don't agree with socialists, but it doesn't really work that way. First, there is a definition as to what a socialist is. Second, socialist is not a derogative term. It's nothing wrong with being a socialist.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Oh, interesting... So if someone is at the left, they can not be a patriotic american?


 
They can attempt to be, but at this point it's merely obstructionism.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> They can attempt to be, but at this point it's merely obstructionism.



I think you are confusing conservatism and leftism. Conservatism is the romantic idea of how it was in the good ol' days, which is by definition obstructionism. The GOP seems to want to at least take your country back to the 50's, and you dare to claim that the "left" (as you have no real left in the US) is obstructionist?

Secondly, how does being obstructionist keep one from being a patriot. And thus, by definition, the GOP should be the least patriotic party, since they are in fact obstructionist. Especially considering how those childish asses really went out of their way to block every democratic initiative in congress, which is not only assholery, but also obstructionistic. And that apparently makes them non-patriotic.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> and you dare to claim that the "left" (as you have no real left in the US) is obstructionist?


 
I do .

edit; As to the pubs blocking Democratic initatives, that's not obstructionism, it's patriotism.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I do .



Then by all means, explain why.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Then by all means, explain why.


 
Easy.
Because they are wannabe socialist. Obviously that is patriotic to you, but most of the country will disagree in November.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Easy.
> Because they are wannabe socialist. Obviously that is patriotic to you, but most of the country will disagree in November.



Well, I am not an american, so I don't care what is patriotic in your country. 

Wannabe socialists, now we get back to that again. Do you understand what being a socialist means? 
Socialist is not something you can use as a boogieman to smear opponents, it actually has meaning. I can tell you, you have no socialists in your congress, McCarthy persecuted them so hard in the 50's that the american left has not recovered yet. 
What you have are libertarians, righ-wing, and less extreme right-wing. The less extreme right-wing is not left or socialist just because you say so. And don't even get me started on the american inability to differentiate between "left", "socialist" and "communist"
Don't you do some sort of social science in school?

Second, I would like to know what is innate in socialism that makes it obstructionist.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Well, I am not an american, so I don't care what is patriotic in your country. I would like to know what is innate in socialism that makes it obstructionist.


 
This. The socialist led senate blocking the nation's path to prosperity.
Thats's obstructionism at it's filthy worst .

Senate Democrats reject House GOP budget plan | Fox News

and they also blocked Obama's budget plan as well.
Two years in a row now with 0 votes in favor for two straight years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This. The socialist led senate blocking the nation's path to prosperity.
> Thats's obstructionist at it's filthy worst .
> 
> Senate Democrats reject House GOP budget plan | Fox News



Nice choice of a balanced and nuanced news outlet there
So your basic argument is that if someone does not vote for one of two equally bad alternatives, then they are obstructing? "Hey, what do you want to have, plague or cholera?"
"Well, I want neither!"
"Damn you, you obstructionist!"

I also like that you completely blew over me saying that you have no clue what a socialist is, only to start the next sentence with calling the democrats socialists. Is selective reading and hearing a common trait among american conservatives?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Nice choice of a balanced and nuanced news outlet there
> So your basic argument is that if someone does not vote for one of two equally bad alternatives, then they are obstructing? "Hey, what do you want to have, plague or cholera?"
> "Well, I want neither!"
> "Damn you, you obstructionist!"
> ...


 
Any news source will tell you that the senate blocked the budget plans of both the house and the president, so your news source point is moot.

This lines right up with what the Senate leadership and the President are after in the long run. So yes, I'm saying they are a group which aspires to move the country closer to socialism.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This lines right up with what the Senate leadership and the President are after in the long run. So yes, I'm saying they are a group which aspires to move the country closer to socialism.
> Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And I am saying that that is a goddamm conspiracy theory on your part. You are mortally afraid of socialists, dislikes the democrats, thus you are inclined to believe that they are ultimately in for bringing Soviet into the US. The thing is that socialism isn't the baby-eating ideology you believe it to be. It's a completely valid political philosophy, so painting it like some nefarious scheme from the devil is not very thruthful, nor very informed.

The truth is that the US is so privatized that any attempt at owning something communally is going to stick out when it is released. If something is out of the ordinary, it is going to be noticed. 
*This does not mean that just because something is owned communally, communism is at the doorstep!*


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And I am saying that that is a goddamm conspiracy theory on your part. You are mortally afraid of socialists, dislikes the democrats, thus you are inclined to believe that they are ultimately in for bringing Soviet into the US. The thing is that socialism isn't the baby-eating ideology you believe it to be. It's a completely valid political philosophy, so painting it like some nefarious scheme from the devil is not very thruthful, nor very informed.
> 
> The truth is that the US is so privatized that any attempt at owning something communally is going to stick out when it is released. *This does not mean that just because something is owned communally, communism is at the doorstep!*


 
Fair enough, I admit that I believe what you say I do for the most part. 
Obviously I think any move towards socialism, even if not a complete one, is bad for America and counter-productive to the very things that have made the nation a world leader.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Fair enough, I admit that I believe what you say I do for the most part.



Well, we all do. I am more inclined to believe, if I am not careful, crazy stuff that I hear about religious people for example.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Obviously I think any move towards socialism, even if not a complete one, is bad for America and counter-productive to the very things that have made the nation a world leader.



And that's a completely valid opinion, and I respect your right to have it. I don't agree, but at least we can fight it out here
I would for example point to your strong position after WWII, and that this position made you prosporous. Just as it did for us (Sweden), and we were basically a DDR-light until the 80's. So if socialism were bad for a nation, we would have been in the shitter of the entire 20th century.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 8, 2012)

Trench, I could just as easily dismiss everything you're saying as Republican talking points, so don't be so quick to dismiss others based on something as loose as that. 

You were proven wrong about the statistics Clinton used in his speech, you gleefully and consistently equate other modes of thought with evil, and you're by far the least-insightful conservative member of this board. I have great respect for the other guys here, as their viewpoints are informed and their arguments and logic valid, something I cannot say about you, unfortunately, if your recent posting is to be taken as indicative of your political beliefs.

It is the blind obedience to a rigid set of ideals that Clinton referenced in his speech and you are putting on display that is sinking this country slowly into idiocy and decay, _on both sides of the aisle_. One of the things I found refreshing about Clinton's speech was the deliberate praise he gave to Reagan and Bush, Sr. for the positive things they accomplished in their presidencies. It's been a long time since I've heard a prominent conservative, news anchor, or even just average Republican give any left-leaning politicians kudos on _anything_. 

If you think the American way of life was set in stone by the Founding Fathers, including what kind of economic system we'd have, and what extent if any the government would have in that, I encourage you to do more research. Not only did they have vicious disagreements, they also had much different ideas about how the country should work than most Constitution-humping talking heads do now. My point in bringing this up is that it is not "patriotic" to obstruct any measure that may help. We're bleeding out; it doesn't matter if the bandage we use isn't sterilized, it matters that we stop the bleeding. Neither party is willing to make that happen. I know just as many liberals with the same vitriolic disgust for conservative policies as you display towards liberal ones, and it depresses me much the same. _Something _needs to happen, and it's the duty of every citizen to think long and hard about how to effect that change. It's more than clear that no single initiative by any president or party has _ever_ totally fixed any issue in our country's history. It is without fail a process. America is not a math problem to be solved, with a fixed solution. It's a living, breathing country, a reflexive being that needs constant tinkering and adjusting. The sooner you admit that, the better, because it means we are one person closer to restoring America to a healthier state.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Trench, I could just as easily dismiss everything you're saying as Republican talking points, so don't be so quick to dismiss others based on something as loose as that.
> 
> You were proven wrong about the statistics Clinton used in his speech, you gleefully and consistently equate other modes of thought with evil, and you're by far the least-insightful conservative member of this board. I have great respect for the other guys here, as their viewpoints are informed and their arguments and logic valid, something I cannot say about you, unfortunately, if your recent posting is to be taken as indicative of your political beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
Well thanks, I appreciate your opinion also.
It seems Clinton was more than a bit deceptive though in making his pitch for an Obama re-election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...5b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html

Even politico has him leaving out many important and determining details in order to sell his often misleading "facts".
I guess that's just politics though lol.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 8, 2012)

Hannity Junior said:


> Actually I've yet to hear anything you've posted be anything more than liberal talking point crap.
> 
> Not suprising that the liberal leftist squad enjoys you attempting to bash me, but that still doesn't get you anywhere in a crowd of patriotic americans.



Are you serious? Only Republicans are patriotic Americans?

Here. Let me ask the questions again that you are dismissing as "Liberal Talking"
points, or as I like to call it, calling Republican lackeys on their shit.



> Are you going to address the glaring discrepancies between Ryan's platforms and Romney's or are you going to just flap your gums about the Democrats before even looking at the Republicans with the same lens? How about Romney pandering to the entirety of the Republicans in an almost absolute 180 of opinions on almost everything he apparently stood for?



In one paragraph, I asked for you to address the issues between the platforms of Romney and Ryan. The massive discrepancies between the two? Like the identical things that Ryan has that Obama has? The other thing was to address the savage level of flip flopping that Romney has done in recent years to accomodate pretty much every pivotal point that Republicans have....most people who read books and have attended school have learned the term "pandering" that you used recently and in this case, i'm applying it to the Republican Presidential candidate.

These SHOULD be easy points to address, but you're acting all butthurt and spouting off about how "Liberal Leftist" here enjoying this and once again, completely deflecting any attempt to show the Republican candidate doing ANYTHING including compromising his own previous ideals to get a vote.

You should probably refrain from using ridculous terminolgy to describe my logic as being "twisted" as the only things that you have to make this conclusion is that I think you're full of shit and that I'm posting said opinion in a public forum. There's also me believing that you are unable to answer a straight question but I can see where someone tugging the party line would take extreme offence to it.

If you're going to attack Clinton for his speech and promptly follow that up by holding a senile Clint Eastwood up for a talking point, you're pretty much annihilating any shred of credibility you might have conceived that you actually had.

So. Are you actually capable of addressing the original points?


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 8, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> As to the pubs blocking Democratic initatives, that's not obstructionism, it's patriotism.



I'm calling Poe's Law on that one.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> Are you serious? Only Republicans are patriotic Americans?
> 
> Here. Let me ask the questions again that you are dismissing as "Liberal Talking"
> points, or as I like to call it, calling Republican lackeys on their shit.
> ...


 
As has been stated by the men themselves, they aren't even running on Ryan's "platform".
This is Mitt Romney's campaign. Anything that Ryan has endorsed is not in play unless they decide to change the ticket format.
Do there policy issues line up exactly? No of course they don't.
How many times in presidential election history have we had the #1 and #2 guys with an identical policy voting and legislating history?

Romney's is the only relevent platform in this debate.
Or I should say his vs Obama's.

I seriously doubt that Biden's voting history lines up perfectly with Obama's current platform.

Since Obama was voting "present" most of the time in the Senate, instead of making choices, then his record isn't much to begin with, which is more than I can say for his record as president.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 8, 2012)

Point one has been addressed. Please continue with the pandering and flip flopping of Romney on every single point of his previous campaigns (ie - abortion.).


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> Point one has been addressed. Please continue with the pandering and flip flopping of Romney on every single point of his previous campaigns (ie - abortion.).


 
Well what he might say is that when governing Mass. he was there to represent the majority in a very liberal state, thereby conforming to the beliefs and preferences of his constituentcy was in the best interest of his state.

I personally don't care much about which side he has taken in the past or present concerning non-economic based issues. I don't care if he has changed his mind this week on abortion.
In fact, I hope he doesn't even get sucked into all those sorts of issues.
I'd be most happy if Washington would stay out of those things and pass a damn budget.

We (the USA) have been operating without any budget at all for 3yrs now.
Obama did submit a plan, so I'm putting most of the blame on the Senate, but that is the president's political party, and he did have control of the house and the senate for 2yrs.
If the Democrats can't work together even when they control all three spots, then what are we to expect for the next 4yrs if Obama was re-elected?


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 8, 2012)

Your ideal budget being what, double the military and eliminate everything else?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Your ideal budget being what, double the military and eliminate everything else?


 
I don't have a budget (except; buy more gear, buy more gear ).
It's those in Washington who must be held accountable for their lack of work and compromise, they did all apply/run for their respective jobs.
Military mite is a must though IMO. Peace through strength ala Reagan.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2012)

Trench, sometimes I can almost imagine this being your reading material:
"Help us destroy Jesus and start a new age of liberal darkness" Obama urges voters


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 9, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Trench, sometimes I can almost imagine this being your reading material:
> Help us destroy Jesus and start a new age of liberal darkness



Time to drape Trench in a cape made from the Iwo Jima flag, after eating an apple pie made by Aunt Bea herself and smoking from Douglas MacArthur's corncob pipe and arm him with a baseball bat signed by both Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio and send him soaring into battle atop a giant bald eagle to fight such evil socialism, communism, fagism, or whatever the hell you call it and nail that bastard Obama to the liberal-demon-blood-stained cross. Jesus commands it. 

Or we could just state that people like him are what's causing the country to fall apart because they refuse to see the good in anything anyone else does. Nah, Jesus wouldn't want you to have peace, love and tolerance for your neighbor. It's all about how far you can shove your combat boots up liberal commie homo ass right?


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2012)

^Never has there been a patriot a singulary awesome.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 9, 2012)

Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 9, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Military mite is a must though IMO. Peace through strength ala Reagan.



Yeah, that seems to be working well so far.


----------



## Wrecklyss (Sep 9, 2012)

Late reply, but still on topic. 

Being a company representative to this forum, i was trying to stay out of this thread. 

Threnchlord, I resent the notion that conservatives are the most patriotic Americans. I am a democrat serving in the military and a gun enthusiast. I am extremely patriotic, taking great personal offense to disrespect to my flag or my countrymen. This is not just talk either, i took a job neutralizing roadside bombs so my brothers and sisters in arms can more swiftly and safely seek out those who would do our country harm. 

My biggest complaint against Romney is that he wants to run the country like a business, which to him means always using the cheapest bidder and looking for maximum return. I think the American workers need to have a say, the people making the country move deserve financial security, and that we as a country should maintain a reputation of delivering the highest quality. 

If Americans bought American, the county's economy could grow tremendously in under a year. You want to call yourself patriotic, let me see you supporting American production and American workers, or better yet, let me see you in uniform.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 9, 2012)




----------



## canuck brian (Sep 9, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well what he might say is that when governing Mass. he was there to represent the majority in a very liberal state, thereby conforming to the beliefs and preferences of his constituentcy was in the best interest of his state.



I just want to confirm something here considering you're totally ok with Romney pandering to the most popular demographic.

If he's elected and the United States becomes 55% all for gay marriage, abortion, gun control, outlawing assault weapons, removal of all religion from state operations and everythign else that is against the Republican platform, it's totally OK for Romney to flip over to supporting these? It's totally cool if he just panders to what is popular to remain a popular President?

I'm literally just applying your logic to a larger scale as the United States would basically become his constituency.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 9, 2012)

Aside from all the back and forth bickering, the thing that pisses me off most about all of this is that the idea of democracy seems to have been lost.

The idea behind democracy is not that the majority rules, the idea is that we come together as a united people, put aside our differences and work for the _common _good, not just the idea of what is good of whoever is in power.

Realistically, the majority of this country are not liberals or conservatives. We are mostly centrists (as are most people in civilized countries the world over). We have extreme polarizing groups on either end that have been able to usurp and monopolize the dialogue in this country and paint issues as either black or white when they are really shades of gray. Do most of the country really think that abortion is bad, that lbgt, women and minorities shouldn't have equal rights or that we should institute a theocracy? Hell no. Ive not seen a single independent poll that supports that premise, and yet that is where our country's dialogue has been directed.

The thing is, your average joe on the street could care less about who is in power, only that they have the opportunity to live the American dream. Unfortunately, that will remain but a dream until the richest few are not able to dictate the direction of this country to fulfill their short-sighted avarice.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 9, 2012)

Majority rules is the very definition of democracy, which is why we have a constritutional republic and not a democracy.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Majority rules is the very definition of democracy, which is why we have a constritutional republic and not a democracy.



No, that is a gross over-simplification. Here is what democracy actually is defined as:

*Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.*


----------



## Semichastny (Sep 9, 2012)

S&#822;o&#822;c&#822;i&#822;a&#822;l&#822;i&#822;s&#822;m&#822; Democracy is a great idea on paper but it just doesn't work well in real life. (I'm joking)


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 9, 2012)

Democracy means 'rule/power of the people', not 'rule/power of most of the people'.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 9, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> I just want to confirm something here considering you're totally ok with Romney pandering to the most popular demographic.
> 
> If he's elected and the United States becomes 55% all for gay marriage, abortion, gun control, outlawing assault weapons, removal of all religion from state operations and everythign else that is against the Republican platform, it's totally OK for Romney to flip over to supporting these? It's totally cool if he just panders to what is popular to remain a popular President?
> 
> I'm literally just applying your logic to a larger scale as the United States would basically become his constituency.


 
Very good point.
Yes, I'm all for the president representing the will of the majority because I have faith in the people's collective logic.
Obviously we can't run a national poll for every day to day decision that the president must make, but when an issue has a long feeling out process (like the affordable healthcare act), and is still clearly unpopular (as it was in the months preceeding the legaslation), then the will of the people should be served as best possible. IIRC that's kind of how Clinton did it in his later years.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 9, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> No, that is a gross over-simplification. Here is what democracy actually is defined as:
> 
> *Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.*



The ONLY way to treat everyone equally is to make every decision by simply siding with the majority. If you side with the minority, then you are giving those people more than an equal say. This is very basic logic here... everyone equal implies majority rules, no special treatment for minorities.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 9, 2012)

Wrecklyss said:


> Threnchlord, I resent the notion that conservatives are the most patriotic Americans. I am a democrat serving in the military and a gun enthusiast. I am extremely patriotic, taking great personal offense to disrespect to my flag or my countrymen. This is not just talk either, i took a job neutralizing roadside bombs so my brothers and sisters in arms can more swiftly and safely seek out those who would do our country harm.


 
Thank you for your service to America .

Just to clarify (which I should have done initially), I'm not even for a second saying that non-conservatives have any less patriotic intent.
I am saying that conservatism (in general, not getting hung up on every single issue debate) results in America's best interest being served.
IMO of course. 
(yes I'm back pedaling on this one )


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> The ONLY way to treat everyone equally is to make every decision by simply siding with the majority. If you side with the minority, then you are giving those people more than an equal say. This is very basic logic here... everyone equal implies majority rules, no special treatment for minorities.



Not with EVERY decision. Historically, there have been cases in which siding with the majority would have resulted in having a worse democracy. For example, there have been times in history when the white majority in both our countries would have voted against legislation that would give voting rights to ethnic minorities.

In most cases majority rule is preferred, except when they're voting on the rights of minorities.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 9, 2012)

If we had only conservative impulses, blacks would still be enslaved, women wouldn't be able to vote, we'd have no interstate highway system, no civil rights movement, and no space program.

All of these programs were relatively to incredibly controversial when enacted. Also, very progressive.

I think the United States is better off with all of them.

Similarly, universal healthcare, abortion, and gay rights are similarly controversial (for some ridiculous reason) and very progressive... yet when we have them in the coming years (and we will) they will be looked back upon as part of what makes America great.

Conservatism is necessary to ensure fiscal and moral responsibility, but this modern brand of radical regressivism is not truly conservative. It's a no-holds-barred race to the bottom that seeks to undo 90 years of American progressive achievement.


----------



## Varcolac (Sep 9, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> If we had only conservative impulses, blacks would still be enslaved, women wouldn't be able to vote, we'd have no interstate highway system, no civil rights movement, and no space program.
> 
> All of these programs were relatively to incredibly controversial when enacted. Also, very progressive.
> 
> ...





The West Wing, of course, is my pragmatic centrist fantasy of American politics. Clinton's speech was the closest I've seen in the real world to someone doing this; tellin' it like it is, and tellin' the regressive halfwits on the right where to stick it.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> The ONLY way to treat everyone equally is to make every decision by simply siding with the majority. If you side with the minority, then you are giving those people more than an equal say. This is very basic logic here... everyone equal implies majority rules, no special treatment for minorities.



No, again an over-simplification. Majority rule decides which representatives are elected. Those representatives are charged with considering the best interests of all of their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them or the ones who gave them the most money.

The way the elected representative is supposed to work is to debate, listen to all points of view and come to a compromise. That is not the case now, but that is the charter of democracy to deliver.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 9, 2012)

Can we all just get back on topic and revel in the greatness of this man again?

Clinton Kicks the Crap out of Fox News Part 2 - YouTube



swoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 10, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Can we all just get back on topic and revel in the greatness of this man again?


 
Lets .


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2012)

Yeah, we get it - he was unfaithful to his wife. Very old news about a very good president. Though, have you ever seen his wife, or listened to her talk? Good for him, if anything


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 10, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Yeah, we get it - he was unfaithful to his wife. Very old news about a very good president. Though, have you ever seen his wife, or listened to her talk? Good for him, if anything


 
Problem isn't that he cheated, it's that he got caught and disgraced the office and his family .

Presidents are supposed to IMO be the nations #1 role model.
It's an unBcumming act .

Everyone seems to think "they all do it", but the only ones I ever actually hear the dirt on are he and Kennedy (another democrat BTW).


----------



## Necris (Sep 10, 2012)




----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 10, 2012)

Anyone see Romney's speech? He spent half the speech talking about the good things Obama has done without challenging them and championing a few liberal values... very strange.

He also gave off the overwhelming vibe that he didn't believe in what he was saying!


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 10, 2012)

Guise, srsly. Getting a blowjob from an intern in the oval office negates any and all good you've ever done as a president. I thought you all knew this. 

Trench, please. Stop with the ad hominem attacks. WE GET IT. He got a hummer from a hooker in a business suit. Doesn't change that the vast majority of his time in office was spent doing actual good other than starting pointless, needless wars and causing bloodshed and chaos. Sorry if the lack of death and destruction of actual innocent people displeases you, but for once just admit that you're wrong already. It's okay. Nobody will think less of you if you admit that you're wrong on this. Hell, people might actually respect you more for it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't care if our prime minister get's caught in a massive orgy as long as everyone is of legal age, consents and that it doesn't affect his ability to do his job.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Problem isn't that he cheated, it's that he got caught and disgraced the office and his family .
> 
> Presidents are supposed to IMO be the nations #1 role model.
> It's an unBcumming act .
> ...



How many pages into the thread are we now and you're still on this bullshit?

Did Nixon disgrace the office? How about Kennedy when he and his brother fucked Marilyn Monroe and she sang him happy birthday all skanky like in front of his fuckin' friends and family?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 10, 2012)

Yeah, I'd say someone like Nixon did more "disgrace to the office" than someone like Clinton. Personal failings are one thing. Actual corruption and use of Executive power to suppress evidence of corruption is much worse.

And what about Bush Jr? He was a laughingstock for the rest of the world. Americans abroad were looked upon with a lot more disdain and dislike while he was in office; a position which began to change in Europe upon Obama's election.

FT.com / In depth / US election 2008, Global reactions


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 10, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Yeah, I'd say someone like Nixon did more "disgrace to the office" than someone like Clinton.
> And what about Bush Jr?


 
Yes Nixon was another example of a great president with a very dishonest side to go along with his great diplomatic prowess.

As for Bushy J., he was clutch all the way.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 10, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Problem isn't that he cheated, it's that he got caught and disgraced the office and his family .
> 
> Presidents are supposed to IMO be the nations #1 role model.
> It's an unBcumming act .
> ...



You disgrace yourself with every comment you post about this non-issue of personal affairs.

You want to live in the fantasy world that our leaders and great thinkers are supposed to be perfect human beings? Okay, but first recognize that the founding fathers owned slaves. George Washington owned slaves. U.S. Grant owned slaves. Zachary Taylor owned slaves. 

Also, if you wanna talk about dirt, don't focus on just Democratic presidents. This is what I mean when I say you disgrace yourself with your views in the face of countless rebukes based in facts or evidence, and it's also the reason you're considered the Glenn Beck of this forum.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at the other president that was more or less impeached on the other side of the spectrum. 

Richard Nixon got caught bugging the offices of rivaling democratic campaigns, and was then pardoned by Gerald Ford because _the intimate details of an administrations flaws are the ultimate distraction from what actually matters._ Nixon started the EPA. Nixon cut the number of troops in Vietnam from half a million to 25,000, and soon thereafter ended the war completely. Nixon was the first president to recognize China as a future world power and began developing vital relations with them. Perhaps most notable of all is the fact that Nixon was the president that executed John F Kennedy's vision of landing on the moon.

You can talk mindless shit about presidents all you want, but in my not-so-fox-news-influenced viewpoint, EVERY president has done great things and accomplished them despite all the bullshit you're spewing in spite of those accomplishments. Even I, an idealist moderate liberal can see that your version of history is through the absolute smallest and most selective perception possible.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 10, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Even I, an idealist *moderate liberal* can see that your version of history is through the absolute smallest and most selective perception possible.



GTFO. We have no place for "moderates" here on the left, it's communist or nothing




Treeunit212 said:


> it's also the reason you're considered the Glenn Beck of this forum.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

George Bush Jr. was clutch all the way? I want you to go sit down in the corner by yourself and think about that.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 10, 2012)

Let's get back on topic. Here's the fact check of Clinton's speech, in all it's non-glory.

FactCheck.org : Our Clinton Nightmare

Let us note that they only two corrections they could possibly even try to make about the speech were his slight defacto "Overselling of Obamacare" and a much less descriptive paragraph of _"other exaggerations."_



Thank you Fact Check for demonstrating what we already knew through your hard work.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

Question: Does no one have access to the speech prior to it being given? Why is it fact checked afterwards? If it were done beforehand, wouldn't that save us a lot of trouble?


----------



## Treeunit212 (Sep 10, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Question: Does no one have access to the speech prior to it being given? Why is it fact checked afterwards? If it were done beforehand, wouldn't that save us a lot of trouble?



John Stewart had a similar question for Tom Brokaw on The Daily Show.

"When did fact checking become a separate job from Journalism?" 

Exclusive - Tom Brokaw Extended Interview Pt. 1 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

Seems odd... Like it's been intentionally made that way...


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 10, 2012)

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-clinton/

^ When in doubt, go with Politifact!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

Well I know, but I was more concerned with why it's necessary. 

The way I envisioned it is this... Someone should check the speech before it's aired and if it's not factual it can't be aired. Allowing it to be aired beforehand allows for unnecessary confusion.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 10, 2012)

Free speech yo, people can lie all they want. I'm sure these things are checked beforehand, then they make a calculated decision as to whether they're better off telling the truth or saying whatever sounds good.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2012)

Seems like a gross misuse of free speech. 

A great deal of the voters probably aren't going to check the facts and will listen ONLY to what is said. That + the electoral college makes me sad. With that sort of thing in mind it kind of DOES feel like it might be pointless to vote as they effectively taint the voting well every election.


----------



## groph (Sep 10, 2012)

Randy said:


> TRENCHLORD (as well as a lot of the Republican ilk) have what I call 'Sean Hannity Disorder' where, as soon as somebody sympathizes with the 'other' party, instantly nothing they say is credible, nothing they do is right and you can expect everything they *will* do is equally stupid/dishonest. Don't disagree with them; hate them because they're the enemy and they're wrong in every way.
> 
> That's one of the things I loved about Clinton's speech that I thought 'hit it on the nose'. He gave credit to former Republican presidents and things they did right, as well as nodding to some of the Republicans who had 'a hit put out on them' by the Tea Party for willingness to compromise "with the enemy". You can recognize that, in your opinion, your political ideology produces better results but you don't need to paint everyone the devil.



That's the genetic fallacy and that's one of the things that is poisoning American politics right now. Trench's first post is an example. Yes, Trench I am calling you out but I'm not going to jump on a Trench-hating bandwagon. Though I disagree with you I'll respect an alternative point of view (within reasonable limits).

"Tu quoque" or "You too" is another, it's pretty much a spin-off of the genetic fallacy. It's also a mistake seemingly everybody makes when they argue. Hypocrisy does not override fact in terms of importance.

"Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky so he can't be credible"

Bullshit. Yeah he did (probably), and that was probably not the smartest thing to do, YES he is a hypocrite but that doesn't mean he is no longer capable of forming a sentence which is factually correct. Doesn't mean he can't accurately or effectively comment on the situation of politics today (I didn't watch the video and I'm not talking about the video) because Monica blew him. If politician X derides politician Y for starting a war, and politician Y counters with "Yeah, well politician X was caught in a tax fraud scandal last year." So what? Politician X's criticism is still totally valid; it doesn't matter who makes the criticism and that's where the genetic fallacy (genetic = origin) comes in. 

Republicans and conservatives blame liberals for using ad hominem attacks only which is a giant fucking crock, anybody in politics uses ad hominem and it waters down political discussion into a childish argument. Both sides do it - this is NOT condoning ad hominem because both parties partake in it, lest I fall prey to the ethical fallacy I'm talking about - but turning debate into what it's become just destroys any facade of democracy that was there in the first place. Nobody gives a fuck about politics anymore, the "corrupt, clueless idiot" politician is basically a cultural archetype and that's kind of terrifying. We expect our leaders to be incompetent, childish idiots who point fingers at each other. It's a game.


----------



## Painhawg (Sep 11, 2012)

Why even bother fussing about Democrats or Republicans? They are one in the same. Every one of them. They all do the same crap and have the same goals. Some are dumber than others and get caught, so what. They rely on the devisiveness that is in the country today. They rely on the party faithful to carry the water and preach to the choir and keeps folks stirred up. They rely on you to hate Bush, and you to hate Obama. 

They have no fucking idea how to DO anything. Except to pander. And they troll you guys all the time, and you DON"T EVEN KNOW IT. Wow. THis country sucks because the thoughtless, mindless, shit tossing morons are allowed to vote. Enjoy the fruits of whatever party you support. They saw you coming along time ago.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 11, 2012)

Painhawg said:


> Why even bother fussing about Democrats or Republicans? They are one in the same. Every one of them. They all do the same crap and have the same goals. Some are dumber than others and get caught, so what. They rely on the devisiveness that is in the country today. They rely on the party faithful to carry the water and preach to the choir and keeps folks stirred up. They rely on you to hate Bush, and you to hate Obama.
> 
> They have no fucking idea how to DO anything. Except to pander. And they troll you guys all the time, and you DON"T EVEN KNOW IT. Wow. THis country sucks because the thoughtless, mindless, shit tossing morons are allowed to vote. Enjoy the fruits of whatever party you support. They saw you coming along time ago.



So what do you recommend we do to change this? 

After all, while their positions on the political spectrum are similar, the constituencies they represent are dramatically different. Therefore, I would much rather have someone NOT beholden to the Tea Party or anti-choice groups running the country.


----------



## renzoip (Sep 11, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> So what do you recommend we do to change this?



An American spring, perhaps? 

I know it seems unlikely for the time begin, due to the high level of consumerism (killing people's class consciousness), and due to the great level of middle class reaction. But I just think the both factions of the ruling class (Dems and Reps) part of the problem, not part of the solution.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 11, 2012)

Explain to me how Democrats and Republicans are similar, please.

I am fucking *sick* of these claims, mostly heralded by Paul-tards, that there is no difference between both parties. I would like to see an itemized goddamned-fucking list that supports this claim. I see a stark contrast between the two in every key issue, and it seems that there's a lot of people implying or just directly stating that they are very close on some kind of spectrum. Hell, if you removed the fringe element from the aforementioned spectrum, I bet it'd throw off all your B.S.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, Obama is center-right in terms of his policy and Romney is far-right in terms of his platform. So, they're not as far apart as one might like. 

However, you have pinpointed the fact that most of the Ron Paul supporters (I like to call them Radical Libertarians) are complaining about how they're the same because they don't want to burn the whole system down and let social darwinism govern what remains.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 11, 2012)

They are actually pretty damn close.

The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012




Edit: The differences are pretty important though.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 11, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> They are actually pretty damn close.
> 
> The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012
> 
> ...



Both links take me to the same bias-heavy article. That article seems to be parading facts without taking into account the context those facts should be backdropped with.


----------



## renzoip (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, I for one, am not at all into ron paul, or right wing libertarianism for that matter. 

For another, both parties are right wing parties, so while they may not have the same exact views on social issues like abortion/gay rights/immigration, both parties do support the one system that allows for the corporate ruling elite (who funds them) to exercise an extremely disproportionate amount of power over government and over workers. 

I see that neither party has taken the time to address poverty as a serious issue. Both write it off as just a personal issue that may happen to unlucky or lazy people. Also, I don't see any party discussing the war in Afghanistan. While parties may have different views on the welfare system, they don't address the underlying issue of inequality and how wages are not keeping up with cost of living. Both parties support US military intervention (when/where/how is what they mainly discuss). Both parties unconditionally support the Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain regimes. Both parties try to sell us their own versions of "the war on terror" and "the wart on drugs". Both parties rely on the reactionary ideas like "the american way of life" and nationalists appeal such as "America, the best country in the world" and imperialist propaganda about how the US is a model democracy for the world and how it should go around democratizing every other country. And of course, they both support their two party monopoly over politics. 

Granted, this is an opinion of mine, not something I looked up on any other website.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 12, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Guise, srsly. Getting a blowjob from an intern in the oval office negates any and all good you've ever done as a president. I thought you all knew this.
> 
> Trench, please. Stop with the ad hominem attacks. WE GET IT. He got a hummer from a hooker in a business suit. Doesn't change that the vast majority of his time in office was spent doing actual good other than starting pointless, needless wars and causing bloodshed and chaos. Sorry if the lack of death and destruction of actual innocent people displeases you, but for once just admit that you're wrong already. It's okay. Nobody will think less of you if you admit that you're wrong on this. Hell, people might actually respect you more for it.



I do believe we had a war (battle?)during Clinton era. I don't remember to what extent, it certainly isn't to the extent of the last decade, but it existed nonetheless. 



Konfyouzd said:


> Well I know, but I was more concerned with why it's necessary.
> 
> The way I envisioned it is this... Someone should check the speech before it's aired and if it's not factual it can't be aired. Allowing it to be aired beforehand allows for unnecessary confusion.



But then they couldn't lie to deceive the masses. 



renzoip said:


> Well, I for one, am not at all into ron paul, or right wing libertarianism for that matter.
> 
> For another, both parties are right wing parties, so while they may not have the same exact views on social issues like abortion/gay rights/immigration, both parties do support the one system that allows for the corporate ruling elite (who funds them) to exercise an extremely disproportionate amount of power over government and over workers.
> 
> ...



Unlike the republican convention the DNC actually brought up the war and plan for removing the troops, veterans, etc.


There are major policy differences that shouldn't be overlooked. Don't ask, don't tell, affordable healthcare act, just to name a couple things, would have never happened under a republican banner.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 12, 2012)

I feel like there are too many fundamental flaws in the system before you even get to splitting up ideologies. If they're allowed to lie the way they do publicly then how do we know they even represent the ideals--let alone the ideology--they say?

What if they're all just like Anne Coulter on the Boondocks?

If you haven't seen the episode, essentially Anne Coulter was on some show giving this black guy a really hard time (apparently she's a kinda stuck up lady; I don't know much about her, honestly) and making a lot of borderline offensive ethnic comments.

At the end of it she runs to her black boyfriend and yells at him for looking at "some white bitch..." After that, she goes up to the black guy with whom she was just arguing on national TV and hugs him. They rejoiced in how much they both helped each other's <whatever-the-fuck-they-had-going-on>, so really all the bickering was just some facade to keep people stirred up. In our case it will keep people voting. I wonder if they feel like ppl won't vote unless they think every election is life or death.


----------



## hairychris (Sep 12, 2012)

Anne Coulter is a malignant, hateful, witch. Uurgh. Yeah, Coulter, invade other countries and convert them to Christianity. I'm sure they'll like that.

Anyway, from outside the US it looks like the Republican party has gone completely BUGFUCK insane at national, state and local level.

I really think that Obama, gasp a non-white man, being elected actually caused a strain of mental illness - or, at least, damaging cognative dissonance - across a whole swathe of the population.

I mean... magic-underwear Romney and lie-about-everything:marathon-times-and-up Ryan as presidential candidate team, the Tea Party (my how we laughed at their many references to Urban Dictionary: teabagging), the whole birther thing, anti-science madness.

If the US wasn't such an influential and powerful country I'd be thinking that it's all the funniest thing ever. It isn't. Fuck.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 12, 2012)

Painhawg said:


> Why even bother fussing about Democrats or Republicans? They are one in the same. Every one of them. They all do the same crap and have the same goals. Some are dumber than others and get caught, so what. They rely on the devisiveness that is in the country today. They rely on the party faithful to carry the water and preach to the choir and keeps folks stirred up. They rely on you to hate Bush, and you to hate Obama.
> 
> They have no fucking idea how to DO anything. Except to pander. And they troll you guys all the time, and you DON"T EVEN KNOW IT. Wow. THis country sucks because the thoughtless, mindless, shit tossing morons are allowed to vote. Enjoy the fruits of whatever party you support. They saw you coming along time ago.



As an outsider, I see there are drastically different fundamental qualities that separate Republicans and Democrats. If I were American, it wouldn't be a difficult choice for me. It sounds like me to be a cop out. 'Oh everyone is bad so I'm not going to get involved'. How about analysing their policies because once you do you'll realise these people have very different ideas that will affect your life in different ways, and it's up to you to decide what is best. Neither might be great, but progress was never made by simply allowing shit to happen.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 12, 2012)

These candidates could hardly be more different, let alone the parties they represent. There are differences great and small, so numerous we could never list them all here. 

Only one candidate has a plan. For anything. The other attacks him for "not having a plan", says he has one, but repeatedly refuses to detail what it could be. One candidate believes that Citizens United should be overturned, the other does not. One believes in women's rights, the other does not. One brews his own beer in The White House, the other can't even drink it. 

One party believes that health care is a right, the other thinks it's a privilege. One party supports labor unions, the other subverts them. One is trying to get our troops home, the other seeks to profit from placing them in harm's way.. 

I could go on for hours, but I'm out of time. ;-)


----------



## flint757 (Sep 12, 2012)

^^Exactly, at the end of the day if your truly independent (or dependent still living with parents) you may not notice, but that is because things don't happen over night and the things that have happened are subtle. One big example for me (as I'm in college and have a pre-existing condition) is that I can be on my parents health care until I'm 26, I believe, and with the affordable health care act even if I lost my insurance it wouldn't matter, as far as the pre-existing condition goes.

Romney has said he wants to appeal these laws and has said that he believes in a continuous coverage pre-existing condition plan (It is what we had before). This is where it is only a problem if you get a lapse in coverage, if it is like it was before you have a month between a lapse in coverage or it goes on your record as pre-existing. This includes cancer patients who are probably having trouble paying their bills and once the coverage is gone there cancer is now officially pre-existing.

It is stuff like this that are truly different and will happen pending on party alignment. This election (with the exception of abortion talk) has a whole lot less BS as far as what they actually intend to do/undo or at least at seems so. Again if you aren't struggling, white, male, independent or still a kid, not gay, healthy etc. you may not notice the things going on, but they are happening. Hell I think if Gore won things would have turned out different from Bush, I don't understand where this idea that it doesn't matter comes from. Even if we pretend they will pass the same laws (and in a perfect world they would actually, compromise) the president has power of appointment which means he can pick people to influence other areas of the government like the Supreme Court. That in itself is a big deal as there is a big difference from a Democratic SCOTUS and a Republican SCOTUS.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't think anybody is saying they're the exact same, I sure hope not anyways, but from an, "outside the US," viewpoint there are a lot of similarities. 

Like I said before, I personally think, the differences that do exist are a pretty huge deal, but there are plenty of similarities. Especially when compared to other countries opposing parties.


----------



## Semichastny (Sep 12, 2012)

Trying to discrediting each other with insults rather then factual assertion and rational explanations is unhelpful regardless of whether you're trying to undermine someone by calling them a "Liberal", "Socialist", or a "Paul-tard". No one person owns a monopoly on knowledge and treating people with opposing view points as mentally incompetent when you don't have a complete understanding of a situation undermines our democracy. We know there are some people who have no basis to their claims and are spouting hot air. There will always be nuts who wave their signs because our constitutional freedoms allow them to. Nobody with the ability to think critically even in the slightest believes the UN is coming to get us. We know this because there is a lack of factual proof and the story they spout just doesn't add up. However targeting and launching ad hominem attacks against a person who's opinion falls outside of the current discourse enforces a monopoly on knowledge by not just excluding and ignoring the person but by excluding and ignoring their ideas. The process by which someone came up with an idea or answer has no bearing on the answer's legitimacy. Someone saying that 2+2=4 because aliens control the TV doesn't mean 2+2 does not equal 4. We step out of bounds when we refuse to apply critical thinking to ideas that oppose our own or make us uncomfortable for whatever reason. We have no problem pointing out how many of the people who throw the term "Socialist" around don't know what their taking about because we can look at the definition and see it's used out of context, but when we attempt to discredit people by vague references without a firm factual basis we lower themselves to their level because we never really seek to understand what they are saying and the real reasons they believe it. Not everyone who believes 9/11 didn't happen exactly as specified is a crazy conspiracy theorist just the same as not everyone who believes in socialism wants an authoritarian dictatorship with no freedoms.


----------



## Varcolac (Sep 13, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Not everyone who believes 9/11 didn't happen exactly as specified is a crazy conspiracy theorist just the same as not everyone who believes in socialism wants an authoritarian dictatorship with no freedoms.



At the risk of invoking the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I don't think _anyone_ in the modern era who believes in socialism as a political doctrine wants an authoritarian dictatorship. We're kinda past that whole Stalin/Mao thing...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 13, 2012)

We tots need another Castro... Dat beard...


----------

