Emperor to sign UN Arms Treaty while Congress in recess?

[Bubblehead1980]

Reports are in that Emperor Obama plans to sign this absurd treaty, giving yet more US Sovereignty away to that bloated, ridiculous body known as the UN. The Emperor plans to do this while congress is in recess, of course.How can anyone be okay with this? Do they just not understand the implications? :/\\!!

[Tchocky]

Oh Christ.

[Ducimus]

Bubblehead, you might get a more constructive tone if you lay off the rhetoric. Yes, BO signing this Arms treaty is important, but your not gonna get people to listen with an open ear when the very first word of the post title is boilerplate rhetoric.

The NRA has been warning about this arms treaty for awhile, trying to drum up campaign funds against it. Unfortunately for me, I simply have no money to donate right now. BO signing it is a sure certaintly, but it still has to be ratified by the senate.

[Rhodes]

In before all the craziness!

[Feuer Frei!]

I actually found it funny:
"Emperor O" :up:

[mapuc]

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

This treaty has nothing to do with the domestic weapon laws in USA. It's about export of weapons from USA and other countries.

Until now there has been no, regulation what so ever about selling weapon worldwide.

Markus

[Tribesman]

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

That is written every time the topic is brought up, it doesn't stop the flow of pure nonsense though as the same rubbish will be posted again and again by people who havn't got the faintest idea what they are talking about.

[Ducimus]

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

This treaty has nothing to do with the domestic weapon laws in USA.

Actually it could. The devils IS in the details, and our politics are strewn with "backdoor" styled legislation. Aside from that, this administration has lost all credibility. Personally I no longer care what it is, anything this administration tries to sign or pass, is automatically suspect, and should be fought against tooth and nail.

[Tribesman]

Personally I no longer care what it is, anything this administration tries to sign or pass, is automatically suspect, and should be fought against tooth and nail.
So if they try to pass laws for more guns and less restrictions Ducimus will be manning the barricades to fight against it:haha:

[mookiemookie]

In before all the craziness!

Too late. It started on post #1.

[Rhodes]

Too late. It started on post #1.

Yes, you're right, but I was refering to the craziness that comes after post number 1!

[Jimbuna]

In before all the craziness!

Yes, you're right, but I was refering to the craziness that comes after post number 1!

Well I suppose some might argue two additional posts that add nothing to the thread, are worthless and could possibly create some of the 'craziness'.

[Sailor Steve]

Emperor Obama
And right off the bat you show that you still haven't figured out that your extreme bias makes you a running joke here in GT. As Ducimus said, if you want to gain any respect here at all you might at least try to show some semblance of reason and logic, actually discuss a subject rather than just spout rhetoric.

[Dowly]

Well I suppose some might argue two additional posts that add nothing to the thread, are worthless and could possibly create some of the 'craziness'.

Like you never do that. :O:

Besides, this thread is crazyness, nothing more. :yep:

[Schroeder]

And right off the bat you show that you still haven't figured out that your extreme bias makes you a running joke here in GT. As Ducimus said, if you want to gain any respect here at all you might at least try to show some semblance of reason and logic, actually discuss a subject rather than just spout rhetoric.
You could just as well be talking to a wall instead. It would have the same effect. Let him be a running joke, I don't think alot of people here take him serious anyway.

[Wolferz]

The Banking clan will sign your treaty, Count Dooku.
Together with the Techno Union and the Trade Federation's droid army we'll have an army large enough to overwhelm the Jedi.

I'm sure the puppet masters will have something to say about it. As well as the arms makers.
It's just good business. The more illegal it is, the more you profit.

[vienna]

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

This treaty has nothing to do with the domestic weapon laws in USA. It's about export of weapons from USA and other countries.

Until now there has been no, regulation what so ever about selling weapon worldwide.

Markus



Thanks for noting this fact. This is the crux of the real opposition to the treaty: money. The US manufaturers of arms are the ones who are most frightened of the treaty simply because it will make it harder for them sell/export their wares. In an attempt to derail the treaty, they hav enlisted their long-time ally (and , in terms of contribution to, virtual 'employees/agents'), the NRA. By planting a spurious idea the treaty in some way affects domestic gun ownership (which it does not), they hope to hide the fact it is all about mega-arms bottom line and not really about the 2nd amendment. This is a cheap political trick, rather along the lines of when politicians or proponents of certain measures try to wrap their flawed ideas or measures in the Flag or haul out tired cliches and umbrella slogans (i.e., 'it's for the kids', 'you'll harm job creators', etc.

...


<O>

[CaptainHaplo]

Before jumping on this topic, I took the time to read the treaty itself. Its not very long, as such things go.

The biggest gripe by the NRA folks had to do with draft language that required the US to garner, keep and maintain records on the "end user" if someone purchased a firearm that was imported - for 20 years.

That draft language has been stricken. The treaty now "encourages" signatories to make and keep such records for 10 years. However, it is no longer a REQUIREMENT.

(Specifically - see Article 12: Record Keeping)

As such, and because the treaty does not touch issues of internal production for domestic sale, the NRA objection is no longer viable or reasonable on that issue.

My concern is specific to Article 3, which in essence mandates an inventory system to account for every round expended outside one's national borders. I don't think that the Secretariat has any reason or right to that info.

Still - I do not see that as a reason to refuse to sign or ratify it.

If someone can point to a specific article that they take issue with, I will consider it. But read the thing first - don't just go off on "so in so group said this or that" about it.

For those interested in actually looking at the details - you may find it here:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

[Stealhead]

My concern is specific to Article 3, which in essence mandates an inventory system to account for every round expended outside one's national borders. I don't think that the Secretariat has any reason or right to that info.


I agree with your thoughts here except for the section that I quoted.I can see a few logical reasons to want to know the ammo expended.

For two reasons one being the clean up of harmful chemicals found in certain ammo even lead in high amounts is bad (though many nations now use none lead bullets) but you still have 20,25 and 30mm depleted uranium rounds which are used by several nations.The additional logic would the clean up UXOs I have no doubt that a certain percentage of rounds that are designed to explode M203 rounds for example or RPG rounds do not explode and become a risk years after the conflict is over.

It also covers a possible loop hole of one nation bringing munitions some place under the guise of it being for their use when they could in fact simply supply the munitions to another party.Of course they could still do that and simply say that they expended it and that would really just be a white lie.

The only thing they will learn is that a war consumes a crap load of bullets and the larger more powerful forces have more ammo and better logistics the data would be of little use at exposing any useful information that would not already be obvious.

[Tribesman]

Haplo kindly provides the link:up:
So bubbles and Ducimus are taking the side of Iran, N.Korea and Syria on this issue...nice company to be keeping eh?:rotfl2:

[vienna]

So bubbles and Ducimus are taking the side of Iran, N.Korea and Syria on this issue...nice company to be keeping eh?:rotfl2:


That sort of thing happens when one argues something of which they have no real knowledge. Perhaps if Rush or Sean had, you know, something like footnotes, or rational explanations, or, dare we hope, facts?


<O>

[Ducimus]

I've read and heard enough about this treaty over the last several months to the point where discussing it at all makes my head hurt.

A couple videos if your bored:
Arms Trade Treaty Finalizes Draft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZzYUfCy2k)
US to Sign Arms Trade Treaty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E9yFYOsoRQ)
Obama's Signature ATT Ratification vs. US Constitution (RE-UPLOAD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUDlH9v66A4)

A general summation of the problem as I see it is

a.) will open doors that should not be opened and could be a problem down the road. Anti constitutionalists like Obama, Bloomberg, Fienstien, et al, work in increments. Chipping a bit away at a time until they get what they want. (The rhetoric level in that statement does not even come close to my level of anger, disgust, and distrust.)

b.) It's a backdoor to make people like Fienstien and Bloomberg happy in the pants. Not all firearms sold here are made domestically, and anything imported could be restricted heavily, numbers reduced, if not outright banned because of this treaty. The operative word here is "backdoor", and it's a door often sought by those who cannot be trusted.

This treaty is nothing new, and neither of the two previous presidents signed it. It's just Obama that wants to sign it, and that should tell you something. I DO NOT trust this government anymore - at all. Everything they do, and everything they say is suspect of every negative connotation i could possibly list. I don't even want to hear what this administration has to say anymore, because as far as i can tell, everything said is a lie anyway.

[CaptainHaplo]

Those links will give you a headache. They did me.

[Dowly]

Frankly, I dont understand this whole 6-4 month period of paranoia on that side
of the pond. What would it achieve for [insert name here] to disarm you guys?
Or strip you from your other rights?

Think about it. As many US members have stated here, they would not take it,
and many say much of the military would not take it either. Result? Possible civil war.
What would that achieve? US being very much undefended from outside threats.
What would prevent [insert country here] here from taking advantage of the situation?

Common sense. Use it.

[Platapus]

Common sense. Use it.

On GT? :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Stop it! You are killing me. :haha::haha::haha:

[Dowly]

On GT? :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Stop it! You are killing me. :haha::haha::haha:

Sorry. :oops:

*Gives Platapus CPR*
http://www.1songday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Apex-Twin-Windowlicker.jpg

[Ducimus]

Frankly, I dont understand this whole 6-4 month period of paranoia on that side of the pond.

I guess you haven't been following the news much.


What would it achieve for [insert name here] to disarm you guys?
Or strip you from your other rights?

Though one could say it start's with guns, they are but one piece of the overall picture.

Think about it. As many US members have stated here, they would not take it, and many say much of the military would not take it either. Result? Possible civil war.

Which is why the government is trying to maintain status quo, while at the same time ratcheting up their over watch, and power over the citizens of this nation.

What would that achieve? US being very much undefended from outside threats. What would prevent [insert country here] here from taking advantage of the situation?

I think the only country that could manage that would be china, but i doubt they'll want to upset their best customer.



Common sense. Use it.

"common sense" has nothing to do with it.

As an aside, what really amazes me, is how much my own opinions have changed over the last 9 months, and how strong my convictions have become.

On GT? :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Stop it! You are killing me. :haha::haha::haha:

Sadly, even the term "common sense" is a loaded and politically charged term in the US nowadays.

[mapuc]

I have now read the English version of this treaty, I read it in danish some month ago in a danish newspaper.

But I can't find anything related to what bubblehead wrote:
"giving yet more US Sovereignty away"

Or have I missed something ?

Markus

[vienna]

Or have I missed something ?


No, but, as usual, bubbles has jumped on a band wagon with out wheels...

<O>

[Tribesman]

Those links will give you a headache. They did me.

Only the first time he linked to her, after that you can just sit back and enjoy them for what they are.:D

[Penguin]

Congratulations, Barack! :salute:
Changing from a Socialist to a Monarchist is a big step, but accomplishing what Joshua Norton couldn't, is more than remarkable!

[Cybermat47]

It's disgusting how the President has hundreds of armed people to protect him, while the American people only have the largest and most well armed military in the world which swore an oath to protect them :nope:

EDIT: Oh crap, more gun-control debate :doh:

[Platapus]

It should be noted that the President can sign a treaty but only a super-majority of the Senate can ratify it. The only exception is for what is called a Congressional-Executive Agreement which requires a simple majority from both houses.

Technically, the Senate does not ratify a treaty, they vote to approve a resolution of ratification, but let's not quibble. :D. The take-away is that it is the Senate that does it, not the President.

It is not uncommon for the US to sign but not ratify treaties. The United States, being one of many ratifying type governments is not legally bound by a treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention on Treaties, until the treaty is ratified by a super majority of the US Senate.

Why would the United States sign a treaty but not ratify it?

To show support and to indicate general intent not to break the treaty (which is subtly different from a general intent to abide by the treaty), but at the same time, the United States wants to maintain the full authority of sovereignty in the context of being able to take action not in accordance with the treaty is the situation calls for it.

The United States does not have to either ratify or not ratify a treaty. In typical international policy weaseling, the US can ratify with reservations, which is an international way of crossing one's governmental fingers. :yep:

There are 22 treaties that US Presidents have signed and the Senate has not, and is not expected to ratify. The earliest one is from 1825. I think the Senate has had long enough to make their decision. :D

Some of the more current ones that ain't ratified

World court
Law of the Sea Convention
Montreal Aviation Protocols
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Contrary to the belief of some -- not a conspiracy. Just a normal way of doing business international policy wise.

A thought to ponder: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...

OK, that's how you make a treaty, but who has the power to end one?

The Constitution is strangely silent on that one. :hmmm:

We have terminated three treaties (let's not talk about violating treaties!) Two of them were terminated by the President (one unilaterally and one with congressional consent); Only one treaty was terminated solely by a joint resolution of congress -- A mutual defense treaty with France in 1789.

[Bubblehead1980]

I think that people, before they rush out with bombastic rhetorics, should read this treaty and what it's about.

This treaty has nothing to do with the domestic weapon laws in USA. It's about export of weapons from USA and other countries.

Until now there has been no, regulation what so ever about selling weapon worldwide.

Markus

Wrong, this treaty will be used as a "back door" method to infringe on the constitution.Then they can say "well we are bound by a treaty" etc No stupid treaty passed by the useless body known as the UN will stop illicit arms trade.This is just another power grab and attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to which american citizens are entitled.

[Bubblehead1980]

Haplo kindly provides the link:up:
So bubbles and Ducimus are taking the side of Iran, N.Korea and Syria on this issue...nice company to be keeping eh?:rotfl2:

Well, if opposing this treaty puts me on the side of Iran, NK, Syria while preserving our rights at home, absolutely.What is happening in Syria is none of our business anyways..No stupid treaty will actually stop the distribution of weapons.However, this will be used to usurp the constitution.Like Ducimus said, the Obamas, Bloombergs, Feinsteins etc work in increments, with this binding us, they would gladly use it as an excuse for their tyrannical agenda.

[Bubblehead1980]

Congratulations, Barack! :salute:
Changing from a Socialist to a Monarchist is a big step, but accomplishing what Joshua Norton couldn't, is more than remarkable!

There is no one world that defines him anymore.Much of his beliefs and attitudes are rooted in marxism, that is who he is at heart. Now, that he is President, his disposition and actions are much that of a dictator, he is a statist but marxism is where his heart is.Anyway who has studied this man's life long enough can see that, read his books, look into his life, who his associates are, things he has said, his actions etc Easy to see, really..How he acts, is as if the man sees himself as a king, an emperor of sorts.I use the term Emperor to describe him as that is what he acts like, more than a president.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have now read the English version of this treaty, I read it in danish some month ago in a danish newspaper.

But I can't find anything related to what bubblehead wrote:
"giving yet more US Sovereignty away"

Or have I missed something ?

Markus



Anything to do with the UN that we sign, erodes our sovereignty little by little, sometimes, in large amounts. Signing such a document would be used by those in power in our country as an excuse to circumvent the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land but they would use it as an excuse. The UN is a useless body that we should have no part of, all the money we wasted on that useless body, could be used for better purposes.

[Cybermat47]

The UN is a useless body that we should have no part of, all the money we wasted on that useless body, could be used for better purposes.

Hey, you Americans formed it :)

[CaptainHaplo]

Anything to do with the UN that we sign, erodes our sovereignty little by little, sometimes, in large amounts. Signing such a document would be used by those in power in our country as an excuse to circumvent the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land but they would use it as an excuse. The UN is a useless body that we should have no part of, all the money we wasted on that useless body, could be used for better purposes.

While you are correct that the UN is pretty darn useless, the treaty does not "erode our sovereignty" at all. Specifically - let me point out this part.....

Signing such a document would be used by those in power in our country as an excuse to circumvent the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land but they would use it as an excuse.

That isn't a problem with the treaty or the UN - that is a problem with the crappy politicians we have in Washington. Focus on the problem - and don't let them use it as an excuse.

With that said, point to a specific line/sentence/article that erodes the sovereign authority of the US as a nation. As I said - if you can I will consider it - but if you can't and you make the claim that it does so - your just venting your spleen for no cause.

[Bubblehead1980]

Frankly, I dont understand this whole 6-4 month period of paranoia on that side
of the pond. What would it achieve for [insert name here] to disarm you guys?
Or strip you from your other rights?

Think about it. As many US members have stated here, they would not take it,
and many say much of the military would not take it either. Result? Possible civil war.
What would that achieve? US being very much undefended from outside threats.
What would prevent [insert country here] here from taking advantage of the situation?

Common sense. Use it.


Exactly, you are don't get it because you don't live here.

The people currently in charge wish to disarm the public because it is much easier to control the population. There are many things they wish they could implement that simply will not be tolerated when have such a large part of the population that is armed. They know they can only push so far with things they way they are, with so many liberty minded people who are entitled to be armed.They know they can't get away with confiscation and have yet been able to get the tyrannical gun laws they want through, so they seek other means, even if in increments.

Sadly, the roughly 50% of gullible idiots in our population fall for their "we do this to prevent crime and mass murder" line when it is all about one thing, CONTROL.

The whole reason the second amendment was put in place was exactly for as it is functioning and has for many year, to keep the government in check.The founders knew the nature of men, the nature of governments, history repeats itself, that is why the the second amendment is there, to ensure that citizens have the means to defend themselves should that time come.Also, to make sure those who seek to violate the rights of the citizens know they will have an armed populace to deal with should they chose to engage in tyranny.Judging from your comment, you are a not an American, so would not understand but perhaps you will get it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Hey, you Americans formed it :)

Sadly, we did ,and should disband it.

[Bubblehead1980]

And right off the bat you show that you still haven't figured out that your extreme bias makes you a running joke here in GT. As Ducimus said, if you want to gain any respect here at all you might at least try to show some semblance of reason and logic, actually discuss a subject rather than just spout rhetoric.


No, that man acts like an Emperor instead of a President, so I call him that, I have many other names for him.Really, it is my choice.Extreme bias? No. I see that piece of crap for what he is and am not shy about it. Should he actually do something decent, in line with the constitution, with the best interests of this country, I would be all for it but he does the complete opposite.

[Tchocky]

Judging from your comment, you are a not an American, so would not understand but perhaps you will get it.

:down:

This is easily one of the most tired and used-up arguments here in GT.

The non-Americans in this thread are doing a lot better than the thread starter as far as reasonable and grounded discussion goes.


Much of his beliefs and attitudes are rooted in marxism, that is who he is at heart. Now, that he is President, his disposition and actions are much that of a dictator, he is a statist but marxism is where his heart is

Your definition of a dictator is in need of calibration.

I think WND is leaking.

[Bubblehead1980]

:down:

This is easily one of the most tired and used-up arguments here in GT.

The non-Americans in this thread are doing a lot better than the thread starter as far as reasonable and grounded discussion goes.




Your definition of a dictator is in need of calibration.

I think WND is leaking.

The "You are not an American" is a completely valid argument.The cultures are very different and the poster said he did not get what he called the "paranoia" so I explained why so many are up in arms about the actions of our government.The US has been for a long time, the last bastion of liberty on the planet basically.There are those within the power structure of this country, in both major parties, who seek to maximize their power and achieve their agenda in order to make things better, well better as they see it.The respect for individual rights is not seen as a priority but rather the collective.This does include usurping the constitution which is and always has been a big inconvenience for these types, which is why they push the "living constitution" theory to try give their absurd notions so constitutional legitimacy, its smoke and mirrors and does not always work, sadly so many in our nation are just idiots and do not know any better. The one thing that gives the constitution teeth is the second amendment.The obama types out there HATE this, which is why instead of respect the constitution, they try to circumvent it etc and hope that in increments, over time, they can achieve their goals.

Dictator is an accurate term for obama.The use of "executive power" , his willingness to bypass the legislative branch, ignore the constitution, push his agenda etc, do what he wants certainly fits the bill of a dictator, he has the attitude of one. I'm not making this up, just examine the man's actions, read into his life etc, not difficult to do really.

[Cybermat47]

The US has been for a long time, the last bastion of liberty on the planet basically.

:har: if you had so much liberty, why did you only ever have two political parties?

[Bubblehead1980]

:har: if you had so much liberty, why did you only ever have two political parties?


Those are the only two MAJOR parties because of the people, they don't join the others in large enough numbers.Perhaps that will change in the future, I hope so.

[Tchocky]

The US has been for a long time, the last bastion of liberty on the planet basically.

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Outsiders by definition can't understand America, but you can say that it's the final outpost of freedom in a nasty socialist world. Give us a break on the double standards please.

Others countries have freedom too.

If you choose to define freedom by how many guns you can own, well than of course you're going to see it differently and there's nothing myself or indeed any adequately trained mental health professional can do to change your mind.

The rest of your post is wandering drivel about people who don't respect the constitution and how they want to disarm the country, which this UN treaty would do precisely nothing towards.

You're saying that signing the treaty would give the administration an "excuse" to try to change gun law in the US. That doesn't make any sense. You say it like it's a sure thing.

Wrong, this treaty will be used as a "back door" method to infringe on the constitution.Then they can say "well we are bound by a treaty" etcHOW? BOUND TO DO WHAT?

Haplo posted the text of the treaty. It will not work as you describe. It can't. Go read. Absorb. Peruse. Return.

[AndyJWest]

For the benefit of any of my fellow non-Americans who haven't seen it, there is only really one thing you need to read to understand this thread: Richard J. Hofstadter's essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, written in 1964. http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ The names change. The alleged conspirators change. The paranoia remains the same. Quite entertaining to watch actually, in a weird sort of way...

[Tchocky]

It's been ages since I've read that, Andy.


When in doubt, reach fordeTocqueville :)

[Cybermat47]

Perhaps that will change in the future, I hope so.

That might work better than just having two parties. It does here.

[Sailor Steve]

I see that piece of crap for what he is and am not shy about it.
You need to learn how to discuss things without slurs and insults. Comments like that cheapen you and, as I've said before, makes the other conservatives look bad.

Consider yourself lucky I have rules to follow myself. If it were up to me I'd brig you every time you played that game, until you finally figured it out.

If you can't discuss the issues without calling people names, maybe you should stick to SH4. You seem to do alright there.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, you're right, but I was refering to the craziness that comes after post number 1!

You were right, so far its up to 4 pages :dead:

[Betonov]

I love how the Americans always say how they're the only nation in the world that has liberty.
Gives me a same guilty pleasure of watching the N. Koreans rant how they're the most prosperous nation.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I love how the Americans always say how they're the only nation in the world that has liberty.
Gives me a same guilty pleasure of watching the N. Koreans rant how they're the most prosperous nation.
Unfortunately the misconceived and ignorant have access to computers, too.

I usually dont let the overwhelmingly ignorant brainwashed banter get to me but when millions of people buy into it, it starts to become a real problem. Propaganda from both sides inundate the masses with overwhelming amounts of filth and they eat it up with a spoon. It makes me more and more depressed to see so many people who still believe that Obama is the anti-christ, a terrorist, a kenyan, a rampaging murderer, that obamacare has actually forced businesses to cut hours for workers (because god forbid the average american have access to affordable and fair healthcare, right?) and all manner of unwarranted propaganda. People regurgitate it like its fact without ever putting in some unbiased research for themselves.

In the same manner, propaganda from the left likes to propagate false ideas about what an assault rifle is, misconstrued and biased ideas about the way immigration should be handled, political correctness, ect.

And both sides eat it up. Those who do very superficial research very often look up sources that just tell them what they already wanted to hear and not the truth. Its all a disgusting mess of misinformation and tribalism, pushing biased agendas onto an increasingly distant population that gets most of their ideas from partisan sources.

[eddie]

I love how the Americans always say how they're the only nation in the world that has liberty.
Gives me a same guilty pleasure of watching the N. Koreans rant how they're the most prosperous nation.

Don't put all of us in that catagory!:D

[Betonov]

That's the problem. As long as the media is feeding you the same ''we're the beacon of liberty'' that you actually were at the beginning of the 20th century, the masses will believe that. And when the masses believe they're free, more and more can be taken away.
Like being driven in a windowless car and being told no-one is overtaking you while cars pass you all the time.
Wake up people, a backwater balkan state has more liberty :timeout:

[Betonov]

Don't put all of us in that catagory!:D

You really should have a word for that category, so we can avoid that :hmmm:
Perhaps media believers :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

I have no idea how Bub's posts gain the traction that they do. The whole forum is being trolled and I don't know why people feed it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Unfortunately the misconceived and ignorant have access to computers, too.

I usually dont let the overwhelmingly ignorant brainwashed banter get to me but when millions of people buy into it, it starts to become a real problem. Propaganda from both sides inundate the masses with overwhelming amounts of filth and they eat it up with a spoon. It makes me more and more depressed to see so many people who still believe that Obama is the anti-christ, a terrorist, a kenyan, a rampaging murderer, that obamacare has actually forced businesses to cut hours for workers (because god forbid the average american have access to affordable and fair healthcare, right?) and all manner of unwarranted propaganda. People regurgitate it like its fact without ever putting in some unbiased research for themselves.

In the same manner, propaganda from the left likes to propagate false ideas about what an assault rifle is, misconstrued and biased ideas about the way immigration should be handled, political correctness, ect.

And both sides eat it up. Those who do very superficial research very often look up sources that just tell them what they already wanted to hear and not the truth. Its all a disgusting mess of misinformation and tribalism, pushing biased agendas onto an increasingly distant population that gets most of their ideas from partisan sources.

First of all, the whole thing about "god forbid americans have access to affordable health care" shows your lack of understanding. The healthcare law, has done nothing positive in terms of costs.Premiums have risen, I know my parent's insurance went up quite a bit. I am no longer on their insurance but they've seen a huge increase, as so many others have. This law was garbage from day one and still it, it's why it is so unpopular, it's why they are trying to delay full implementation until after the mid terms.

Just because they state the purpose of the law is to do so and so, does not mean it will, it has not, and it will not make healthcare affordable.What it will lead to is making the private healthcare insurance market, now mandated by the way, so unpopular, so expensive, people will open up to the idea of a single payer, red taped, NHS style healthcare system in the US. This means, the most grotesque form of bureaucracy, the federal government, will now be in charge of your your health, they can control a lot of things if they do that.This is a loss of liberty, of course they distract people like you with "well we are providing healthcare for those without" etc. Really, if they honestly wanted everyone to have healthcare, they would have just said, okay medicare for everyone, instead of just being for seniors, they would fund it properly and give everyone who WANTS it, the option.This is not about healthcare though, they could care less, it is about power and control.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have no idea how Bub's posts gain the traction that they do. The whole forum is being trolled and I don't know why people feed it.

Not being trolled, you simply never have an argument or a point, you make a smart comment or insult me.You shill for the left and accuse me of being a right wing so and so when I am not talking just about the left, I am talking about those, that are on both "sides" who seek to push garbage like this treaty upon us.

[CaptainHaplo]

Not being trolled, you simply never have an argument or a point, you make a smart comment or insult me.You shill for the left and accuse me of being a right wing so and so when I am not talking just about the left, I am talking about those, that are on both "sides" who seek to push garbage like this treaty upon us.

Sadly - when your challenged to back up your assertions by others on the right - like myself, and you fail to do so - you demonstrate you are just as much of a "shill" for your "side" as anyone else.

Its one thing to have an "argument or a point" - its another to misrepresent the truth to make your "point" - which is what you have done. It is this fact, along with a perceived history of doing so - that makes people not take you seriously.

[donna52522]

I have no idea how Bub's posts gain the traction that they do. The whole forum is being trolled and I don't know why people feed it.


I believe he only started a thread in GT to express something that was on his mind. I don't think anyone is being forced to view it, agree to it, or respond to it.

[Bubblehead1980]

That's the problem. As long as the media is feeding you the same ''we're the beacon of liberty'' that you actually were at the beginning of the 20th century, the masses will believe that. And when the masses believe they're free, more and more can be taken away.
Like being driven in a windowless car and being told no-one is overtaking you while cars pass you all the time.
Wake up people, a backwater balkan state has more liberty :timeout:

First of all, I do not believe this because of anything the media says. I made the "last bastion" remark as when look over it, our country seems to be the last one the truly values individual rights as opposed to that of the collective. Really, we no longer enjoy the liberties we once did but that is through the slow efforts to bring us in line with the rest of the world, but not for the better. Sorry, but firearms are a symbol of and a means to maintain liberty. This is why the Hitler, Mao types seek to disarm the population, no real means to fight back.. Do I believe obama etc want to mass murder millions of dissenters? no.However, they would love a disarmed populace, a lot easier to push their radical agendas and use force that way.Understand how these people think, they are marxist revolutionaries at heart, this is their drive.They use the tactics of exploiting the ignorant masses by telling them they are oppressed etc and will have better if they just given them control.They promise healthcare, etc and sadly, to a large part of our population, they just don't understand the history behind these people, they don't understand what makes them tick.They in a naive way, think they have only noble intentions.They do not understand the dark nature of the philosophy these people live by.

The US as it stands now is not the bastion of liberty it once was yet in some ways it is, but this is part of our downfall, we are so open to differing views, people etc, we have, over time, been infiltrated, dangerous political philosophies have been allowed to spread like a cancer and it has nearly killed us. This is the downside the first amendment etc but better to have this small downside than none of the benefits we have enjoyed for so long.

[mookiemookie]

Not being trolled, you simply never have an argument or a point, you make a smart comment or insult me.You shill for the left and accuse me of being a right wing so and so when I am not talking just about the left, I am talking about those, that are on both "sides" who seek to push garbage like this treaty upon us.

You've shown a complete and utter disregard for logical and open minded debate based on fact and reason. To try and engage you in one is pointless.

[Tribesman]

Frankly, I dont understand this whole 6-4 month period of paranoia on that side
of the pond.
Time to make it 3 mentions of N. Korea just to hammer home the point for the fearmongers and what they are wanting.
Its easy to explain Dowly
The Democratic Republic of the people has only one party, that's why all the nuts with a voice make their sound from that one direction.
Many other countries have semi viable many multiple party systems, the nuts join the fringe parties so their voice tends to come from the lunatic fringe and the sound gets easily identified a treated for what it is.
The US has what is essentially a two party system, the nuts attach themselves to those two parties and the propaganda machine of those parties make the voice of the loony fringe heard because they want to court the support no matter how crazy the supporters are or how irrational their fearmongering is.

[Ducimus]

In reference to the few posts citing Paranoia is just being paranoid. All i can say is that I wish I too could dismiss things like the IRS scandal, the NSA surveillance on everyone scandal, the fast and furious scandal, the bengazi scandal, the patriot act and the NDAA, various local stories that range from unreasonable searches to swat teams knocking on innocent peoples front door, not to mention this years attempt to undermine the second amendment.... I wish i could dismiss all that as paranoia too. I really do.

As an aside, it occurs to me, if we didn't have term limits to give us the illusion that we the people are still in charge, metaphorically speaking, the pot of boiling water that is this country, would be violently boiling over given enough time.

[Tribesman]

In reference to the few posts citing Paranoia is just being paranoid. All i can say is that I wish I too could dismiss things like the IRS scandal, the NSA surveillance on everyone scandal, the fast and furious scandal, the bengazi scandal, the patriot act and the NDAA, various local stories that range from unreasonable searches to swat teams knocking on innocent peoples front door, not to mention this years attempt to undermine the second amendment.... I wish i could dismiss all that as paranoia too. I really do.
There is no problem dealing with these "scandals" for what they are.
The problems arises when people treat them as the "scandals" the lunatic fringe claim they are.
This current topic being a prime example.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe he only started a thread in GT to express something that was on his mind. I don't think anyone is being forced to view it, agree to it, or respond to it.
You've apparently missed the hundreds of times I've quoted the same phrase to him: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Many of us agree with his assessments, up to a point anyway. It's when he stoops to the single-minded (and simple-minded) tactic of calling anyone on the other side names ("Emperor", "piece of crap") that he garners derision. After all the time he's been here he still hasn't figured out that there is a way to discuss things without making yourself look, let's see, "limited".

[donna52522]

You've apparently missed the hundreds of times I've quoted the same phrase to him: It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Many of us agree with his assessments, up to a point anyway. It's when he stoops to the single-minded (and simple-minded) tactic of calling anyone on the other side names ("Emperor", "piece of crap") that he garners derision. After all the time he's been here he still hasn't figured out that there is a way to discuss things without making yourself look, let's see, "limited".


I wasn't talking about what was said, or how it was said. I was saying everyone has the choice to bypass or ignore it.

[Ducimus]

I wasn't talking about what was said, or how it was said. I was saying everyone has the choice to bypass or ignore it.

True. My initial post was more along the lines of "Yeah, I hear what your saying, though its not the end of the world just yet, and by the way you really need to be careful with your wording", to go along with what steve was saying.

Ordinary, for the most part I ignore threads started in this manner, but It's happened so often now, I figured, "oh what the hell".

[Sailor Steve]

I wasn't talking about what was said, or how it was said. I was saying everyone has the choice to bypass or ignore it.
Sure, if everybody ignored him he might get the message.

I don't know about the others, but my goal is to try to turn him into a responsible and worthwhile poster. I always have hope.

[Ducimus]

I don't know about the others, but my goal is to try to turn him into a responsible and worthwhile poster. I always have hope.

There's a quote or old saying applicable here. I think it goes something like, "Don't try and change a person. You'll only make an enemy of them." or words to that effect.

[donna52522]

Sure, if everybody ignored him he might get the message.

I don't know about the others, but my goal is to try to turn him into a responsible and worthwhile poster. I always have hope.


I am not a big fan of forced conformity.

[vienna]

I am not a big fan of forced conformity.


You stop that right now and act like the other normal people!...


<O>

[donna52522]

You stop that right now and act like the other normal people!...


<O>

OMG! Your right Vienna.....What was I thinking......Ever since Oprah Winfrey stopped telling us what to do, I have been so lost. :o


Fight nice children.

[vienna]

OMG, Your right Vienna.....What was I thinking......Ever since Oprah Winfrey stopped telling us what to do, I have been so lost. :o



:haha:


Maybe you could turn to Dr. Phil for advice and counsel...



http://www.paunchstevenson.com/photos/dr-phil-275x310.jpg



<O>

[Sailor Steve]

I am not a big fan of forced conformity.
Not forced. He can believe, and say, what he wants. I'm just trying to help him not be a laughingstock anymore.

[donna52522]

Not forced. He can believe, and say, what he wants. I'm just trying to help him not be a laughingstock anymore.

Well if you are trying to defend anyone, making them feel like an a** doesn't seem like the proper way to go about it.

And "He can believe and say what he wants." Can be said without two commas. I know you like to correct others about that.

Lets just drop it.

[Platapus]

Wise words. If no one replies to his posts, they will just be pushed back to the second page.

[Tchocky]

To drop into something that doesn't concern me - Steve* attempting to tip Bubbles away from the land of dreams is nothing new, he has a lot more patience than he should at this point.

* overfamiliar use of first name hopefully excused

-Paddy

[Tchocky]

Edited.

Er, whatever. Carry on.

[Bubblehead1980]

Steve, you admit you agree with me often but you just don't like the way I say things.Well, I could word things differently but I don't believe in that, I type what I feel.I have to temper myself enough in academic settings, and even around certain friends.There are times I "go off" and say things as I feel the.The Emperor is a piece of garbage and this treaty is yet another danger as it will be used as a tool to further erode the Second Amendment.This is how I feel and the evidence is there.I appreciate your usual comments are not insults but more you dislike my tone or how I say it while several others who hold supportive views of the emperor and his ilk use the old tactic of ignore, belittle, marginalize instead of offering a response to my remarks..The style I have in debating etc is confrontational, very and perhaps it works better in person than an online forum but it's how I operate.I will attempt to tone it down slightly and see but feel you often single me out and allow insults to fly my way.

Basically, a lot of people in here are supportive of dear leader and dislike my remarks about him, I get it.I'll attempt to tone it down and see how it works.I assure you, they will continue to act the same.

[mookiemookie]

I believe he only started a thread in GT to express something that was on his mind. I don't think anyone is being forced to view it, agree to it, or respond to it.

Uh, yeah. That's kind of my whole point. I don't see why people dignify rants with a response.

[Tchocky]

I've had just about enough of you, mookie

[Tribesman]

This is how I feel and the evidence is there.I appreciate your usual comments are not insults but more you dislike my tone or how I say it while several others who hold supportive views of the emperor and his ilk use the old tactic of ignore, belittle, marginalize instead of offering a response to my remarks..
Your remarks are rubbish and your "evidence" is trash, it has easily been shown to be so right from page 1
A resident "right winger" also supplied all the relevant evidence which proves you are talking nonsense and that your claims about responses are utterly false
You marginalize yourself by carrying on with the same nonsense and ignoring the evidence provided.
Simple isn't it.
It isn't how you say it, its the nonsense that you say.


Basically, a lot of people in here are supportive of dear leader
Hey Bubbles, it is you who is taking the same stance as the dear leader in this topic:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Well if you are trying to defend anyone, making them feel like an a** doesn't seem like the proper way to go about it.
I'm not trying to defend him. I'm trying to show him that calling people names alienates people he could be convincing and makes others who agree with him look bad.

And "He can believe and say what he wants." Can be said without two commas. I know you like to correct others about that.
Yes it can. It depends on the point you're trying to make. My point was to emphasize them separately.

Lets just drop it.
You want to make your comments and not have them answered? What was that about conforming?

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, you admit you agree with me often but you just don't like the way I say things.
Again you miss the point entirely. You call people names as if it is fact, when it's only your opinion. That's the big difference. What you feel about him personally has nothing to do with debating what he's doing. The latter helps people understand what you're trying to say, the former makes you look like the fringe folks

The Emperor is a piece of garbage
In your opinion. Do you have facts to support that? Is he truly acting like an emperor? Can you show specifics that are more than just opinion? The second phrase, "a piece of gargage", is libel. Of course since this isn't "official" print, it may be slander. Whichever it may be, it is still just your opinion. Stating it as fact once again makes you look like you're incapable of forming a rational argument, so you have to stoop to calling people names.

The object of a debate, outside of my usual Joubert quote, is to show why you're right and the other side is wrong. Name-calling is not debate. It's also not reason or logic. You often accuse the Liberals of using neither, but you need to show that you can actually use them yourself. Much of the time your "arguments" are nothing more than diatribe, which also has nothing to do with reason, logic or debate.

and this treaty is yet another danger as it will be used as a tool to further erode the Second Amendment.This is how I feel and the evidence is there.
That's an actual topic. You need to show facts that support your claim, but at least it's a claim.

the emperor and his ilk
There you fall into the simplistic habit of insult again. Demeaning words don't help your argument at all. They negativize it.

use the old tactic of ignore, belittle, marginalize instead of offering a response to my remarks..
Yet you don't seem to notice that you use the exact same tactics. How does that make you any better than them?

The style I have in debating etc is confrontational, very and perhaps it works better in person than an online forum but it's how I operate.I will attempt to tone it down slightly and see but feel you often single me out and allow insults to fly my way.
It's hard for you to talk about others insulting you when you do it first. No, you don't mention specific people, but you use phrases like "and his ilk", painting all Liberals with a very broad brush. That type of attack is no different than naming names. You may not notice that the people who insult you don't do it to others who believe the same as you do, but argue with them in a more respectful fashion. Well, some do, but you may notice that they do recieve negative attention from me when they do. Most of the negativism that comes your way is based on two things. First, the general superior tone and attacks on people rather than policies. Second is the fact that often you make claims but don't back them up with actual facts. That is also a part of debate.

Basically, a lot of people in here are supportive of dear leader and dislike my remarks about him
Most of the comments against you come from people who are more conservative than liberal. If you bothered to look you would also see that the small handful of Liberals here have actual debates with the Conservatives, and don't treat them the way they do you. This is not because you are more correct than the others, nor is it because you're more feisty. It's because you make a lot of claims that you don't back up well, and it's because you come across as arrogant without anything to support that attitude. Being dismissive and calling names does not make you look intelligent; in fact quite the opposite.

I get it.I'll attempt to tone it down and see how it works.I assure you, they will continue to act the same.
Some will, certainly. That's their loss. Others may surprise you.

We'll see.

[donna52522]

Sailor Steve,

I am a moderator in several groups in other forums.

I consider my job in those forums to keep language decent, as they are all age forums. I do not pick sides (become bias) to what the people say in those forums. I only step in and delete foul things, or when they become offensive to other members. In most forums we give three strikes. Many of the younger members test that and are quickly banned.

Now I don't know what kind of deal you have with Mr. Stevens, but if you wish me to leave just say so. I will go..and I will go quietly. I have no problems with this group or it's founder, in fact I love this site. But what I don't need is to know that every time I post Sailor Steve is going to pick my post apart and try to make me feel like a jerk for expressing my opinion.

D.

[Tchocky]

The only "picking apart" that I can see going on in this thread is a reaction to the first post.

In which case it is entirely merited. Bubblehead is neither especially young nor especially new, and his posting habits go well beyond any sort of "3 strikes" rule - if he were infringing any house rules. Which he isn't doing here and doesn't do.

There's no persecution or I think unfairness here. Neither is there anyone who looks like a jerk who didn't already. I'd say that making a personal jibe at a users grammatical sensitivities, then in the same post declaring that matter closed may come across as prickly. But nobody's a jerk.

Again, it's a discussion forum.

The argument that "nobody is obliged to respond" is sort of meaningless when applied to a discussion forum. The topic was posted to bring out a response. That the response isn't too favourable to Bubblehead1980 is neither here nor there.


Nobody needs a special deal with the site owner (by the way - huh?) in order to see that Bubblehead1980 could use some advice on how to get a point across. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that anybody wants you to leave either - every post you've made here has been responded to. Discussion.

[Cybermat47]

but if you wish me to leave just say so. I will go..and I will go quietly.

Hey, I've never posted in response to you before, but see that thing underneath your avatar? That badge saying that you're the best of Subsim? That, to me, marks you out as an essential member of the community. If you leave, I'm sure that many people will be sad. Don't worry about Steve, that's just what he does. I've never seen him being mean to anybody. He picked apart most of my posts back in he day, and while I thought he was just being mean, it wasn't actually, and I learnt a lot from it.

Happy Hunting ma'am :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Now I don't know what kind of deal you have with Mr. Stevens, but if you wish me to leave just say so.
First, why would I want you to leave? I like you, and have from the start. My deal with Neal is that he tells me when I've gone too far, which is often.

But what I don't need is to know that every time I post Sailor Steve is going to pick my post apart and try to make me feel like a jerk for expressing my opinion.
You posted first to defend Bubblehead1980. That's not only fine, that's commendable. My response to you was purely defensive. That may have been an overreaction on my part, because looking at it again I see that your first post was in response to Mookiemookie, not me. I was wrong there and I apologize.

I was also out of line when I told Bubblehead that if it was up to me I would brig him every time he did that sort of thing. I said he should think himself lucky it's not up to me, but that also applies to me. If I was in charge there would probably be a lot less members.

And no, none of this is in response to anything Neal has said to me. The only thing he's asked me in this regard is why I respond to this kind of thread at all.

Your second response was on the money. Nobody has to read or respond to any post. My personal problem there is that that will never happen. People who disagree will argue, and people who think the post was less than it could have been will say so as well. Yes, my 'job' is to keep things clean and enforce the rules. The problem there is that I've been having this runaround with Bubblehead for far longer than I've been moderating. Sometimes I end up playing referee, warning or even infracting people who post insulting comments that don't even address the topic, but I do go after some of them more than others, not because I want to pick on them, but because I truly believe they could be better than that.

My real problem is that I like to talk to people, and sometimes I find it hard just to ignore them.

My response to your "forced conformity" comment was purely defensive. I'm not trying to make anybody conform to anything but the rules. At least I like to think that's the case. On the other hand when I see that somebody is what I think of as borderline trolling, I feel the need to say something, especially when I don't think he means it that way. I don't think you can have a proper debate when one of the parties is 100% convince he's right. I said long ago that if you think you know everything it's impossible for you to learn anything. Of course it's not my job to enforce proper debate either, but sometimes I truly do believe I can help. Most of the time I'm wrong, but I keep hoping.

So most of my responses to you were me thinking I was defending myself. If that came across to you as an attack, then I apologize. It wasn't meant that way; just the opposite.

Cybermat mentioned your Best Of Subsim badge. As I recall I was the one who nominated you in the first place. In case you're still wondering, that's what I think of you.

[Cybermat47]

This thread seems to be affecting some of the members here in a bad way. I called in an expert to give his opinion...


If I post a thread about a new puppy, or practical jokes, everyone stays calm, because it's something everyone can agree on. But if I post a thread about how Obama is a tyrant...
http://imageshack.us/a/img194/1615/2pbl.jpg
Well then everyone loses their minds!

[CaptainHaplo]

Basically, a lot of people in here are supportive of dear leader and dislike my remarks about him, I get it.I'll attempt to tone it down and see how it works.I assure you, they will continue to act the same.

You see Bubblehead - this is where you have a little considering to do. Those who blindly support the "dear leader" don't care about the truth. No amount of reality is going to change their minds. Yell it from the mountaintops, they will simply cover their ears. The tone you use doesn't matter - to them.

Where it does matter - is to those on the fence. When you have an honest debate, instead of simply spew "dislike" or talking points that can be proven skewed or inaccurate - you turn those people on the fence, away from your side. The moment you resort to stretching the truth when the truth is evident if one merely glances at it - or the moment you start something out with vitriol - you become just one more yelling voice in the sea of yelling voices. Some pro, some con - but all just a big overlapping noise that convinces no one.

On the other hand, if you make a reasoned, fact based argument, you have a good shot at winning the day for your viewpoint. To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh - "Liberals can not win in the arena of ideas". Because of this, they yell and scream and insult and lie (No - not all of them - but the ones that get the media attention). They know they can't win in the arena of ideas or of truth, so they distract and count on volume instead of accuracy. When you resort to the same type of tactics - you end up getting discounted right along with rest.

It is folks (of either political "stripe") that can - either consistently or even occasionally - come to the arena of ideas (and truth) and argue their points and perspectives with reason and dignity - that not only win the day, but often find very common ground with their opponents. In those cases, it is surprising how often real solutions can be created. You also might learn that some on the "other side" are not so bad. For example, Mookie and I disagree on a LOT of things, but I have found that we usually are not nearly as far apart as one might imagine... Volume counts for less than substance to many.....

Or else you can be mistaken for, as Shakespeare once wrote and General Chang quoted like no other Master Thespian could have done:

"..... an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don't be that guy.

[Takeda Shingen]

Here's a helpful flowchart that I've been referring to lately in an attempt to break my old habits of internet discourse. Very useful.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnn7oueAzy1qcy3blo1_400.png

[Ducimus]

Here's a helpful flowchart that I've been referring to lately in an attempt to break my old habits of internet discourse. Very useful.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnn7oueAzy1qcy3blo1_400.png


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of an argument, and I quote from merriam-webster, a "discourse intended to persuade"?

Now, for me at least, the thing is, very seldomly has any discourse with anyone on the internet successfully persuaded me of anything. For me to change my mind about something I have already formed an opinion on, I have to do it myself. Nobody can do this for me. Least of all on internet forums. Frankly, there is always some degree of credibility that is lacking when conversing with a faceless person you have never met, who like everyone else, is using an assumed fictitious name.

(Insert "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" meme here)

I "assume" most people are the same way, if they realize it or not, or admit it or not. So i conclude that the reason for the back and forth, is only self justification. Personally I may argue my point once or twice, out of pride or conviction, but at some point it is best to just let it go because your not going to convince anyone of anything. Beyond that, there's always the ignore list.

[Bubblehead1980]

You see Bubblehead - this is where you have a little considering to do. Those who blindly support the "dear leader" don't care about the truth. No amount of reality is going to change their minds. Yell it from the mountaintops, they will simply cover their ears. The tone you use doesn't matter - to them.

Where it does matter - is to those on the fence. When you have an honest debate, instead of simply spew "dislike" or talking points that can be proven skewed or inaccurate - you turn those people on the fence, away from your side. The moment you resort to stretching the truth when the truth is evident if one merely glances at it - or the moment you start something out with vitriol - you become just one more yelling voice in the sea of yelling voices. Some pro, some con - but all just a big overlapping noise that convinces no one.

On the other hand, if you make a reasoned, fact based argument, you have a good shot at winning the day for your viewpoint. To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh - "Liberals can not win in the arena of ideas". Because of this, they yell and scream and insult and lie (No - not all of them - but the ones that get the media attention). They know they can't win in the arena of ideas or of truth, so they distract and count on volume instead of accuracy. When you resort to the same type of tactics - you end up getting discounted right along with rest.

It is folks (of either political "stripe") that can - either consistently or even occasionally - come to the arena of ideas (and truth) and argue their points and perspectives with reason and dignity - that not only win the day, but often find very common ground with their opponents. In those cases, it is surprising how often real solutions can be created. You also might learn that some on the "other side" are not so bad. For example, Mookie and I disagree on a LOT of things, but I have found that we usually are not nearly as far apart as one might imagine... Volume counts for less than substance to many.....

Or else you can be mistaken for, as Shakespeare once wrote and General Chang quoted like no other Master Thespian could have done:

"..... an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Don't be that guy.

The things I say are true though, that is why it is frustrating, the evidence has been there and is.

People who supported obama act so shocked by his actions, but it was so apparent even in 2008, all people had to do was READ.Onr could easily see the man is not someone who should be president as his entire life he has been opposed to what the US is. Now, watch people who continue to support him despite his failures.This is because don't want to admit they are wrong or are so brainwashed or hung up on certain identity issues(race, class etc) they can't see things objectively.No, I do not give up because I have watched people find the truth since 2008 and move away from him and the great source of evil known as the Democratic Party, I know for over 10 people, I managed to get them to look into things, and they changed their minds.Now, this is online forum so it's a bit more difficult.Definitely debate better in person and this being online forum, suppose I never take it as serious.

People on the fence annoy me as well, how, at this point, can you be on the fence? The crimes of this man are so apparent, so easy to see.I think of my mother(sadly) who just does not pay attention, she gets annoyed about obamacare etc as it affects business but she does not pay attention even as an educated person, she is more concerned with other things. I often see people on the fence as indecisive, wishy washy, unprincipled people who offer nothing to the process but yes, they are one's we must reach.

I can never agree with someone like mookie, everything is about race for him, or class, people like that are just not someone I can agree with.I worry about ALL citizens, regardless of what color they are or how much money because in the end, unless you fall in line with obama and his beliefs, you are the enemy and even then, as the press(his number 1 cheerleader) has found out, there is not loyalty for him, he does not care, he sees himself as above us all, much like an emperor no? That was the point of calling him an emperor, he acts like one, sees himself as one.

[razark]

The things I say are true though, that is why it is frustrating, the evidence has been there and is.
No, you believe they are true. That doesn't make them so. Providing evidence is what you've been asked to do, and failed at. Providing evidence would demonstrate why you believe the things to be true, and possibly convince others.

Repeatedly failing to show evidence and repeatedly bringing in false evidence makes you the butt of jokes, not someone the can be argued with.

[soopaman2]

This could have been a so much more constructive thread if the OP did not taint the thread with rhetoric in the title.

I could care less what lame duck Obama tries to do...

But where where you and your Emporer titles when Bush was pushing through the Patriot act, and calling anyone who opposed him unpatriotic and getting them ostacized?

Leave the partisan nonsense at home. Obama is almost gone, just deal with it until then. Not like congress doesn't try to reverse everything he does anyways.

Good or bad.

What are you scared of? All Obama did was continue the same oppressive right taking away policy the other guys started.

Just yell at the telescreen when Emannuel Goldstein comes on, and you "might" not get hit by a drone.

[Bubblehead1980]

No, you believe they are true. That doesn't make them so. Providing evidence is what you've been asked to do, and failed at. Providing evidence would demonstrate why you believe the things to be true, and possibly convince others.

Repeatedly failing to show evidence and repeatedly bringing in false evidence makes you the butt of jokes, not someone the can be argued with.


Okay. Evidence? Take your pick? Let's go to the base of it, understand who this man is.Barack Hussein Obama II is a marxist at heart.Frank Marshall Davis, a rabid communist was his mentor as a young man, this is documented fact. Obama's mother and grandparents were leftists.Now, he was raised that and his entire adult life, he has clung to this ideology.NOw, in his book "Dreams From My Father" Obama admits to searching out the "politically active black students, the marxists, the chicanos" in order to not be seen as a "sell out" . Some say, oh he was young.Okay, then he attends Reverend Wright's church which preaches "Black Liberation Theology" for 20 plus years until this exposed in 2008.

Actions as president? Refusing to prosecute the black panthers for voter intimidation, calling the Cambridge Police "Stupid" and assuming racism when it was his friend, Henry Louis Gates who was acting disorderly.Jumping on the side of Trayvon Martin, his attacks on business, constantly seeking way sto raise taxes, demonizing financial success, playing class warfare, circumventing the constitution via executive orders , etc. All this goes back to at his core, he is a marxist and sees the US as not a good place from it's core, one that must be changed.People are entitled to believe this garbage but it does disqualify them from being president(perhaps not legally) as it means at his core, he holds views absolutely counter to what is in best interests of america.This is why he is nearly always on the wrong side of issues.Who this man is at his core is what makes him dangerous, he is someone that does not believe in our way of life really, he believes in a powerful government that can right the wrongs as he sees them, even if he is opposed by majority of people.The build up of the DHS etc shows he is prepared for events like what are going on in Egypt. Honestly, I see the trouble coming when his time to leave office comes in, I see him trying to find a way to stay in power.

Now, for him crimes? Benghazi coverup , IRS targeting his opponents, drone strikes on us citizens which are tantamount to summary execution, NSA scandal etc Sure, he is smart enough to maintain plausible deniability but one can simply look into things, know the nature of this man and will know he has a hand in all this.Kind of like in court, can't always prove something but the truth is obvious. All this shows disregard for the constitution and the rule of law.This man, acts like an emperor and not the president a constitutional republic.

Like I said, the aggravation stems from it is so easy to see and has been from the start with obama, even if nothing ever happens, the fact we have such a radical who lied about who he is to get into office should be the wake up call.I get angry when I hear people(it happens often, mostly recently two middle aged white ladies in a olive garden, my girlfriend and I were sitting in booth behind him, could overhear them chatting about how shocked they are etc etc with obama and what he has done etc. Really, took everything I could to not go say something.People like that are why we are, where we are now.They were duped but not because obama was that good, but because they were moronic enough to fall for it.Kind of like people who fall for stupid scams, just makes me shake my head.

[Bubblehead1980]

This could have been a so much more constructive thread if the OP did not taint the thread with rhetoric in the title.

I could care less what lame duck Obama tries to do...

But where where you and your Emporer titles when Bush was pushing through the Patriot act, and calling anyone who opposed him unpatriotic and getting them ostacized?

Leave the partisan nonsense at home. Obama is almost gone, just deal with it until then. Not like congress doesn't try to reverse everything he does anyways.

Good or bad.

What are you scared of? All Obama did was continue the same oppressive right taking away policy the other guys started.

Just yell at the telescreen when Emannuel Goldstein comes on, and you "might" not get hit by a drone.


I was much younger when Bush was elected, when 9/11 happened and was not as aware of things.I supported him and did have a problem with the PATRIOT Act from day one. Funny thing was, Bush was at his core, a good person, an American, who had the best interest at heart.Bush's problem was he was not an intellectual.Stupid? Absolutely not but he is not an intellectual and over his head, which is why he relied on Dick Cheney etc so much, Bush was more of a figurehead and did not act like an emperor so he did not deserve the title.Bush was not a marxist at his core.Essentially George Bush is a good man, but was not really qualified to be President and once there, he relied too much upon his neocon circle, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld etc. Best of intentions but was just out of his league.

No, Obama has taken it much further. Bush was not using drones on American citizens(to my knowledge) which as tantamount to summary executions, a denial of due process. Bush was not trying to take away the second amendment rights of americans.Bush was not fostering class and racial division as obama blatantly has done.Bush did not shove something such as obamacare down our throats. Bush was not a great president, his major mistake was the iraq war and allowing the neocons to influence him .

Your remarks about just sit back and let the lame duck go, dont worry are a bit naive.Obama is dangerous as long as he holds power and I assure you the big political fight will be in few years as his term ends, he will attempt to find a way to stay in office.Some manufacture crisis will occur, esp if the polls are not looking good for democrats. That is a large problem right now, so many americans take it for granted we will just weather the storm, get rid of him via the process and things will be okay.People like obama do not play by the rules, so we cant count on that.Plus, the damage he has done already will probably affect you and I for rest of our lives, his assault on healthcare is the number one thing.The evidence is already there what havoc this monstrosity of law is causing and will continue to cause and should he luck up and get the house back under dem control, we have much to worry about.


This is not partisanship, this is truth.I saw a thing the other day that said "When I was in school studying the holocaust, I always wondering how Hitler got 6 million people to follow blindly without a fight? Then I realized my fellow americans are taking the same path" I am not calling obama hitler, he has not earned that comparison as of yet.I am saying the way people underestimate the threat that he poses, amazes me.

[razark]

Okay. Evidence? Take your pick?
I'd like to. Are you going to post some, or just rant for a bit, throw out assertions, and declare how obvious it is that you are right?

:nope:

[Bubblehead1980]

I'd like to. Are you going to post some, or just rant for a bit, throw out assertions, and declare how obvious it is that you are right?

:nope:

I just offered up a plethora of things that are easily researched and oh so obvious.Benghazi, drone strikes on us citizens etc .Oh I forgot him having the justice department go after journalists via the espionage act, trying to get their sources but they are refusing.This is nothing more than persecuting the press. This is not me making things up, look it up, easy to do.Like I have said a million times, to understand who the man is at his core, read his book Dreams from My Father.

[mookiemookie]

I've had just about enough of you, mookie

Really, now? Do tell. :sunny: Actually, don't. My give a poop factor on who has had enough of me or who hasn't is practically zero.

This is not partisanship, this is truth.

Which is the first thing a partisan would say.

[Stealhead]

Typical GT political "discussion" ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Typical GT political "discussion" ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Or this in certain cases http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw :O: