Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street.

McCain's father is a nazi.

Prove me wrong.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

McCain's father is a nazi.

Prove me wrong.

No,according to everyone attacking my posts,you have to prove youre right

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by -Davo

McCain's father is a nazi.

Godwin's Rule. Kill the thread.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Godwin's Rule. Kill the thread.

Might as well....again

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by -Davo

McCain's father is a nazi.

Prove me wrong.

This is getting ridiculous.

If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.

McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.

[03cavPA]

From the old usenet days......

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-godw...-analogies.htm

......... Often, an example of Godwin's Rule accompanies hyperbole. The idea is to invalidate the opposition by comparing it to the Nazi Party. However, this can backfire, and usually does. Unless the comparison is valid, the person who brought up Nazis or Hitler is considered to be the loser. In a rational discussion or debate on or off the Internet, resorting to a Nazi comparison is generally a strong indicator that you have run out of material to discuss or support your claims.

Many Internet communities have taken Godwin's Rule to mean that when Nazis enter a conversation, the discussion is over. In some cases, someone may invoke Godwin's Rule to end a conversation before it gets worse. However, sometimes a discussion should continue, even though Godwin's Rule has been illustrated by a Nazi reference. Individual members of the discussion decide whether or not a conversation will be carried or ended with an instance of Godwin's Rule. ........

Hey, there were no claims this was a rational discussion, were there?



I think Davo was just funnin', though. If not, ....

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

This is getting ridiculous.

If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.

McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street

Originally Posted by BNaylor

This is getting ridiculous.

If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.

McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.

I had my suspicion that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't think you would take it this far.

The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.

The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.

Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

I had my suspicion that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't think you would take it this far.

The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.

The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.

Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

OK,so then your logic is that in your claim he is a Nazi,you have to prove your right. Either way,your warped logic is showing

[-Davo]

And just to prove a point:

He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.

I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ending&spell=1

He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ba...a_Abortion.htm

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.

Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:

"Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected.

We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.

I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.

Sincerely,

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.c...on-on-gun.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...hts%3F&spell=1

I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.

Peace

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

OK,so then your logic is that in your claim he is a Nazi,you have to prove your right. Either way,your warped logic is showing

Read it again.


I clearly stated, and my exact words

The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof

in response to BN's crazy idea that if someone disagrees with you max, it is their responsibility to prove you wrong, not that you have to supply sources for your claims, I pointed out the fallacy in that with a rhetoric example. He then responded with a direct contradiction of his own words, did you not read that part?

You have taken what I have said not just out of context, but used it against me in an attempt to sway others reading that a hypocrisy that does not exist, that is called a STRAW MAN. Do not do it again, you will not win.

If I were to claim his father was a Nazi, yes I would have to back it up, but it was a RHETORIC, it was not to be taken as a legitimate stance of position.

Fail move along.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

And just to prove a point:



I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ending&spell=1



This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ba...a_Abortion.htm



This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.

Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:


http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.c...on-on-gun.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...hts%3F&spell=1

I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.

Peace

CHECK AGAIN!->> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html On Gun Laws,etc->CHECK THESE LINKS OUT-> http://www.morebans.org/obama.html and http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html ---Income Redistribution: Barack decides who pays
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers.
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-

“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

[blazee]

"I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people."

That just proves the man is ignorant, (along with the ones that passed it in the first place) and knows nothing about guns. That was a stupid law. It did nothing to prevent the manufacture, sale, or ownership of dangerous guns. It targeted guns based on their accessories, things that could easily be dropped and not make the gun any less lethal. Take Norinco for example, all they did was cut the ears off the bayonet mount, and were legal to sell again. This had no effect on the performance of the gun. I know that not everyone here is familiar with firearms, and since this is a car site I'll put it this way. It would be like congress wanting to stop speeding, so they pass a law banning cars with chrome wheels, spoilers, decals, and racing stripes.

[drunken monkey]

and i think that is also part of the issue with the sort of things the OP is copying. Those articles/blog posts by and large, only present the basic gist of something that may be true in general but without talking about the specifics, doesn't present the true nature.

eg. Obama wants to raise your taxes (yes so that the majority of people pay less taxes)

It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

and i think that is also part of the issue with the sort of things the OP is copying. Those articles/blog posts by and large, only present the basic gist of something that may be true in general but without talking about the specifics, doesn't present the true nature.

It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.

Here are the specifics on his position concerning the issue of gun control which really hasn't changed regardless of his flip flip on some issues or what he wants you to believe so there is basis in fact and truth to the OP's first post as far as the gun control issue. See link below. This is a well relied upon and fairly accurate non-partisan web site so IMO is it a good source and not biased. The detail is sufficient enough to draw a conclusion on his real position and views in this specific instance.

Obama on Gun Control