|
|
On October 25 2012 07:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 06:59 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 06:50 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 06:45 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra.
The Porkulus.
Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union.
Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious.
Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents.
Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples. Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media. I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious. And that credible source is? You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point. Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap. Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about. The source was my uncle, who is a college professor and someone I have been discussing politics with for years. He wouldn't have ever made such a statement if he didn't have proof if he didn't hear it from a credible source. So you believe it because your uncle is a credible source to you, therefore it has meaning to you. However unfortunately you are not my uncle, nor, to the best of my knowledge, a college professor, nor have we been discussing politics for years. While he as a source is credible to you, you as a source are not credible to us and therefore your anecdotal contribution has no meaning until you marry my aunt. The way sources work is you find one that can be agreed by all to have value and then share it. You have not done this.
You're right, you have no reason to view my uncle as a credible source. I'll try to ask him for a source the next time I see him.
|
On October 25 2012 07:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 06:59 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 06:50 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 06:45 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra.
The Porkulus.
Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union.
Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious.
Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents.
Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples. Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media. I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious. And that credible source is? You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point. Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap. Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about. The source was my uncle, who is a college professor and someone I have been discussing politics with for years. He wouldn't have ever made such a statement if he didn't have proof if he didn't hear it from a credible source. So you believe it because your uncle is a credible source to you, therefore it has meaning to you. However unfortunately you are not my uncle, nor, to the best of my knowledge, a college professor, nor have we been discussing politics for years. While he as a source is credible to you, you as a source are not credible to us and therefore your anecdotal contribution has no meaning until you marry my aunt. The way sources work is you find one that can be agreed by all to have value and then share it. You have not done this.
Thank you for taking the time to post. I feel like this thread has been off the leash a bit lately and its nice to know that mods are paying attention to it ^_^
|
Storys about distant uncles should always be doubted.
(though i have to say i actually believe this story, his uncle might have had it wrong still though)
(meant this jokingly but the discussion was so heated that i added the next line, just to be sure it was not taken that serious)
@ below: i think quiet a few religious people deep down are atheist or at least have severe doubts.
They just never give in to thoose doubts and dont seriously think about it.
They continue with their religion more out of tradition and the social contacts it brings, then actually truly believing in a god.
Dont think obama is an atheist btw, nor do i realy care.
He is still member of the church and prays and such right?
|
On October 25 2012 07:11 Jormundr wrote:
Obama is a christian
Personally I think he is an atheist, but I have no real proof of that. I don't mean that as an insult, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, I am one as well.
|
I think he is clearly an atheist. Luckily for him the average person can't even comprehend a president being that so the worst he gets is being labeled as a Muslim.
|
On October 25 2012 07:12 Rassy wrote:
Storys about distant uncles should always be doubted.
(though i have to say i actually believe this story, his uncle might have had it wrong still though)
He's not really that distant to me though, I see him several times a month. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, though.
|
I think the President is a believing Christian, projecting your hopes onto him without any evidence doesn't mean he's a secret atheist. It would be breathtakingly cynical, dishonest - above all, dishonest to himself, which is a kind of dishonesty Obama doesn't engage in - and too risky for him to claim he's a Christian while actually being atheist. He's not the kind of person who would be able to keep that a secret.
Swazi, Obama would no doubt like to institute much stricter gun control. But that issue is nearly dead. We won. They lost. Maybe in 20 or 30 years it will come back, but even a liberal-majority court is not going to be able to turn the clock back to the time that never was when Americans couldn't get guns.
|
On October 25 2012 07:13 Swazi Spring wrote:Personally I think he is an atheist, but I have no real proof of that. I don't mean that as an insult, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, I am one as well.
Penn Jillette did a good interveiw about why both of those options should bother you. It is a worthwhile watch for sure.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Risky for him to claim he's a christian? That's a funny thing to say...
He is the first president to ever mention non believers in his inaugural address, he was not religious before interest in running for public office, and his 2 parents were not religious. There is certainly credibility towards believing he's an atheist.
|
On October 25 2012 07:28 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:13 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 07:11 Jormundr wrote:
Obama is a christian Personally I think he is an atheist, but I have no real proof of that. I don't mean that as an insult, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, I am one as well. Penn Jillette did a good interveiw about why both of those options should bother you. It is a worthwhile watch for sure. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE
"Both of those options." That he's an atheist or a Christian? Sorry, I'm just confused....
Oh. I forgot that Obama listened to Rev. Wright all those years. Yeah, Penn's right, lol. Both possibilities are quite unsettling.
|
On October 25 2012 07:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Swazi, Obama would no doubt like to institute much stricter gun control. But that issue is nearly dead. We won. They lost. Maybe in 20 or 30 years it will come back, but even a liberal-majority court is not going to be able to turn the clock back to the time that never was when Americans couldn't get guns.
I agree with you that it's mostly a dead issue now, but I think we should remain vigilant so they don't try to sneak a quick one past us. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," and I believe those words were every bit as true back then as they are today. There are still hurdles we need to overcome though, such as spreading open carry and the right to carry on campus, and we have faced some opposition from remaining gun control holdouts in those areas.
Do I think Obama and even a good chunk of the Democratic Party would like to implement gun control? Absolutely, but you're right, they probably won't, especially since anyone who tries it will lose any chance of getting re-elected, and at the end of the day, that's all most politicians care about.
For instance, four Democrats are right now trying to sneak gun control provisions into a completely unrelated bill, hoping it will go under the radar: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/democrats-offer-bill-ban-online-ammo-sales-following-182636084.html
|
On October 25 2012 07:30 DannyJ wrote:
Risky for him to claim he's a christian? That's a funny thing to say...
He is the first president to ever mention non believers in his opening address, he was not religious before interest in running for public office, and his 2 parents were not religious. There is certainly credibility to believing he's an atheist.
Obama claims he's a Christian. He secretly isn't. It comes out, which it inevitably would. Obama would be done. The public doesn't like atheists - and he lied about being one! What a scandal. Matt Drudge might have a heart attack from the excitement.
|
Why would it inevitably come out that he's an atheist?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
This may be the first time I decided not to read ten pages worth of posts in this thread. It's getting a little ridiculous.
|
|
|
On October 25 2012 07:35 DannyJ wrote:
Why would it inevitably come out that he's an atheist?
Do you think he - or anyone - could keep a secret like that through 15 years of campaigning for public office?
|
On October 25 2012 07:28 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:13 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 07:11 Jormundr wrote:
Obama is a christian Personally I think he is an atheist, but I have no real proof of that. I don't mean that as an insult, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, I am one as well. Penn Jillette did a good interveiw about why both of those options should bother you. It is a worthwhile watch for sure. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE
Interesting video, I'm watching it now, thanks for sharing.
|
In recent history (post-Goldwater era, post Red Scare), what American president hasn't been very openly Christian? No one cares about president's religious affiliation way back in the day. A non-Christian president has 0 chance of election atm in the United States.
|
On October 25 2012 07:52 Risen wrote:
In recent history (post-Goldwater era, post Red Scare), what American president hasn't been very openly Christian? No one cares about president's religious affiliation way back in the day. A non-Christian president has 0 chance of election atm in the United States.
It was a big deal in 1960 because Kennedy was Catholic, and in the first half of the 19th century charging that your opponent was a bad Christian or no Christian at all was a well-used smear. But back then they really knew how to talk shit on opposing candidates, not like today... which is funny because we supposedly live in a very uncivil era of politics. Let's just say that every presidential candidate from Adams to Buchanan would get banned from TL pretty quick if they posted the way they campaigned.
|
An ATHEIST? A rational, scientifically minded person... scary shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
