Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

JJHusker1 said:
If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed. Thinking that the ability to print your own money and then proposing that we do that very thing is so stupid that it's frightening. I see absolutely no validity in any of the points you are trying to make. It's as if I have brought a gun to a knife fight and you showed up with a fluffy pillow as your offensive weapon. Sorry but I can waste my time much more efficiently. I appreciate some resistance but I am getting none.
Click to expand...
This isn't an argument, it's simply a way to try and marginalize another argument. Saying "I see absolutely no validity, and we're screwed if anyone else agrees with you" doesn't prove anything one way or another. That is, other then you not being able to actually explain why the economy doesn't work the way he argued it does. He went point for point with your wall of text, even with your hatred of quotes (that would've make it actually readable), and you come back with "I don't believe you. So you're wrong and I am wasting my time" Weak, super freaking weak. We know you got time, not time to quote, but apparently time to type out just as much or more then the post you originally replied to resulting in the wall of text you got there.

Simply not believing something doesn't mean it's not right. Ask the anti-evolutionists.

Edit: And way to hijack a thread about a much more important subject then bail on the argument you started.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJHusker1 said:
If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed. Thinking that the ability to print your own money and then proposing that we do that very thing is so stupid that it's frightening. I see absolutely no validity in any of the points you are trying to make. It's as if I have brought a gun to a knife fight and you showed up with a fluffy pillow as your offensive weapon. Sorry but I can waste my time much more efficiently. I appreciate some resistance but I am getting none.
Click to expand...
Really? Do you care to actually attempt to refute anything I've written? Or are you gonna pull some chickensh#t crap and not actually back up anything you say?

 
I guess I will apologize for hijacking this thread. That wasn't my intent. I saw some comments I wanted to respond to and it went out of control. I cannot continue a debate when the concepts introduced make absolutely no sense to me. If that means I lose, fine. I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate or proposing that we don't have to live within our means because we have the ability to keep printing money. For me that is like saying the Huskers wear red and then somebody claims otherwise and asks me to prove it. Really, I give up. Sorry this got off track.

 
JJHusker1 said:
<snip> I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate . . . <snip>
Click to expand...
I would be dumbfounded as well if I was trying to counter factual statements with empty hyperbole. Quite dumbfounded.

At least you are up front about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
<snip> I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate . . . <snip>
Click to expand...
I would be dumbfounded as well if I was trying to counter factual statements with empty hyperbole. Quite dumbfounded.

At least you are up front about it.
Click to expand...
So you were dumbfounded as well when it was pointed out to you that 42% is in fact less than 50% and that neither one represents an overwhelming majority? I guess I missed the part where you were "up front" in acknowledging that. Rather, it seems you interjected some empty hyperbole of your own "Excellent attempt at spinning your mistake as my own." rather than making any honest admissions. It's ok, I expect it. I understand people can have differing opinions but amazed that when obvious numbers are presented that refute their claims, they resort to twisting words, confusing a simple issue, and they still stick to their original story when it is painfully obvious the opposing point of view has been proven correct. Or maybe it is just that you spend countless hours scouring the net for any old poll that will support your weak a$$ claims of Obama's performance being seen as acceptable by a clear majority. I can do that too. I conducted a poll just yesterday on Obama's job performance. The results were shocking to even me. Seems 100% of the 12 people I spoke to think he is a totally ineffective leader and every single person rated him as "strongly disapprove". Now help me with the math- does that mean an overwhelming majority approve of his job performance? I thought that's the way you would see it.

 
JJHusker1 said:
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
<snip> I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate . . . <snip>
Click to expand...
I would be dumbfounded as well if I was trying to counter factual statements with empty hyperbole. Quite dumbfounded.

At least you are up front about it.
Click to expand...
So you were dumbfounded as well when it was pointed out to you that 42% is in fact less than 50% and that neither one represents an overwhelming majority?
Click to expand...
What? I can't even get past your first sentence. I know that you had to go back and edit your post after stopping to read what I had said . . . but now you are doubling down on your mistake? Give it up man . . . you're down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
<snip> I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate . . . <snip>
Click to expand...
I would be dumbfounded as well if I was trying to counter factual statements with empty hyperbole. Quite dumbfounded.

At least you are up front about it.
Click to expand...
So you were dumbfounded as well when it was pointed out to you that 42% is in fact less than 50% and that neither one represents an overwhelming majority?
Click to expand...
What? I can't even get past your first sentence. I know that you had to go back and edit your post after stopping to read what I had said . . . but now you are doubling down on your mistake? Give it up man . . . you're down.
Click to expand...
OK carlfense, since it is the Holiday season and you're a fellow Husker fan, and because you seem to place so much emphasis on an added comment edit that was made about 3 minutes after my original comment, I will give you the absolute best concession statement I can muster on this subject; Even though Rasmussen and Gallup polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing, carlfense found a CNN poll that claims about 50% of the people approve of the job he is doing and that causes carlfense to think that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with me. I suppose this might be half way plausible if I place myself in the 28% category who "strongly disapprove" and someone is diluted enough to then claim that the other 72% are totally opposed to me even though a similar Gallup poll states that 50% of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. That's all I got.

edit- (only 1 minute later this time) Merry Christmas. Or, if you are one of the people who prefers "Happy Holidays" there's that too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matthew_m_g said:
JJHusker1 said:
If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed.
Click to expand...
Can it truly be considered a 'view' when the ramblings do not even hint at a modicum of understanding in Macro or Micro economics?
Click to expand...
Please point out where I am factually incorrect. Or if I need to clarify something. I see a lot of LOL THATS STUPID replies with absolutely no substance behind them.

JJHusker1 said:
I guess I will apologize for hijacking this thread. That wasn't my intent. I saw some comments I wanted to respond to and it went out of control. I cannot continue a debate when the concepts introduced make absolutely no sense to me. If that means I lose, fine. I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate or proposing that we don't have to live within our means because we have the ability to keep printing money. For me that is like saying the Huskers wear red and then somebody claims otherwise and asks me to prove it. Really, I give up. Sorry this got off track.
Click to expand...
Obama is moderate if you turn off fox news for a day. Seriously, get some freaking perspective.

You are not making much of an effort to understand what I'm saying. I understand where you're coming from on many of the points you make, because I used to believe they were true as well. When I first read that "federal taxes don't fund anything", I thought "that's stupid" and it must have been nonsense. But I kept reading anyway, and when it finally clicked, I couldn't believe how f'ing simple it is.

The reason I said that you need to prove that deficit spending causes inflation, is that I understand it's intuitive and it makes sense. Each additional dollar that is created dilutes the value of the rest of the dollars. It's a claim that should be easy to quantify, by finding correlations between higher deficit spending and higher than average inflation, right? Well, good luck finding that data, because it doesn't exist. It is not factually correct. As I mentioned earlier, if you did something ridiculous like writing a everyone a check for a million dollars, then you may be able to make a case, but at our current spending levels, inflation is NOT an issue at all.

I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating that we start creating several trillion dollars or anything ridiculous. It's just that terms like "living within our means" doesn't really apply to an entity that can create money at will and doesn't need to be paid back. The deficit is merely a reflection of the money supply.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Even though Rasmussen and Gallup polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing, carlfense found a CNN poll that claims about 50% of the people approve of the job he is doing and that causes carlfense to think that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with me.
Click to expand...
No. You're really not very good at this, are you? I'll be gentle.

1. You said (hint: the quotation marks indicate that this is a quotation): "But you would have to waterboard me to get me to say that there could be any worse of a choice for President than Obama and I would just as soon die as utter that to save my life." (Remember this quote. It's important. I realize that you'd like to change the argument without admitting that you are wrong but I'm not going to let you do that.)

2. I said (again, quotation marks): "Rest easy knowing that America disagrees with you."

3. I gave you the (admittedly ridiculous) assumption that everyone who "strongly disapproves" of Obama believes as you do that anyone would be a better president than Obama.

4. Roughly 30% of people polled strongly disapprove of Obama. Yes, it's a ridiculous assumption that everyone of those people would rather have ANYONE than Obama as president but I am giving you the strongest possible argument for your BS.

5. Somehow, you try to argue that 100-30 = less than 50%.

6. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Arguing with 'baggers is like banging my head against the wall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally something we can agree on. Arguing with liberals is like banging my head against a wall. Silly me, I thought the discussion was about what percentage of Americans approve or disapprove of the job he is doing. Little did I know the linchpin for your whole point of view was predicated on my over dramatic waterboarding statement. But whatever, unfortunately I fully understand that you will never ever give one inch from your position on the far left end of the spectrum. Let me guess, you're a college Professor or otherwise garner your income from tax revenues? I'm just spitballin here.

 
JJHusker1 said:
. . . predicated on my over dramatic waterboarding statement.
Click to expand...
. . . and there is the excuse that we were all waiting for!

Apparently all I had to do was spell it out for you in excruciating detail and you figured it out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
Man! JJ, I don't think you get how far right of center the 'far left wackos' in the United States are.
Click to expand...
You might possibly be correct. I will admit that I am rather tainted. It has been my experience in online forums that these types of discussions and the people in them typically break out into far right - far left affairs. I often and sometimes mistakenly throw parties with opposing views into my despised left wing liberal category. I will say that I usually get it right but not always. It is my mistake for rushing to judgement on peoples political views when I really have not been exposed to those people enough.

It is apparent that I am not the only one with this particular problem. Your statement leads me to believe that you feel the left is actually the center. And carls statement about Mao & Stalin leads me to believe to he has no understanding of where I am on the spectrum. Most people feel their views are centrist. I am honest enough to admit that mine are right of center but they are nowhere near as far right as carl sees them. I do not care about the social issues, which alone moves me out of the far right camp IMO. I am a fiscal conservative and I don't want the government infringing on my rights. I have taken multiple online polls that tell me I am actually a Libertarian. I still seem to identify better with right of center but what do I know. I don't like democrats or republicans. I think our system is broke. I see things in the vein of left liberal secular progressive or right conservative Christian. I think this country is much the same way evidenced by the fact that there seems to be no middle ground on anything anymore. That is why I am leery when people who are clearly left of me claim to be centrist and claim that I am some far right whacko. I know I'm not so (in Axels words) we get what we got here today.

 
Back
Top