American Politics (2 Viewers)

[murphyad]

There we go: making an assumption. Never assume: it makes an ass of u and me (get it?). But due to you driving us off topic, I have since forgotten what we were debating. Great one :|

Hilarious. I fail to see how I am in any way assuming anything other than the necessity of evidence for a proper empirical debate, and quite rightfully so since this is a logical truism.

Don't blame me for your intellectual shortcomings please. May I point out that you have failed thus far to respond to my arguments over Obama on the previous page. Thus, between you and me it was actually myself who was the last to mention the actual topic, rather than driving us away from it. By refusing to address my points on Obama and instead focusing on my treatment of your analogies, it was in fact you who has driven us off topic.

Anyway, I'm over this and I need to go to bed. Unfortunately I doubt that you and your tag-team forum buddy epic man will learn how to rise beyond your pathetic, one-track primary school arguments while I am gone.

 

[Iheartgays]

Hilarious. I fail to see how I am any way assuming anything other than the necessity of evidence for a proper empirical debate, and quite rightfully so since this is a logical truism.

Anyway, I'm over this and I need to go to bed. Unfortunately I doubt that you and your tag-team forum buddy epic man will learn how to rise beyond your pathetic, one-track primary school arguments while I am gone.

Who is the hilarious one now? Have fun dreaming your Stalinistic dreams my good friend, and let us continue this debate another day. As for epic man, we argue all the time. For example, I will now say 'dogs are better than cats,' a statement which I am sure he will refute.

 

[epic man]

cats are better than dogs

 

[Old Hickory]

Restating your original argument with minor elaboration is generally not good practise tbh.


"Unfortunately, the days of such things have passed into history now that Bush II is out of office. The Prez should not be taking responsibility for every decision made in the US; it is a representative democracy, after all. The President has to rely on Congress to pass legislation and cannot (and should not) ram laws down their throats if they quote unquote "fuck up"."

I rarely post on this forum, infact until I created this membership just a few moments ago I have never posted. Yet I feel compelled to write a few words in response to your so-called 'debating style', which is unfortunately laden with a condescending tone (yet you quote smart-sounding latin phrases claiming that others are engaging in personal attacks- riddle me that batman?)

But moreover you fail to enter into genuine debate. It would seem you are far too quick to criticise one individual as a fascist (Bush II), yet you rush to the defence of the man who occupies the same office, yet for some reason is unable to exert the said dictatorial style of leadership which you attribute to his predeccessor (or maybe I misunderstood?).

I deny you as an authority on American government. Representative democracy sounds like a nice title, sure. But look at electoral process- it is individual centred. Obama became synonymous with change, and so was voted int office. Yet as soon as the onus for change is upon him, all of a sudden his leadership is "congress centred", a decidedly different tune than was hummed in the election campaign.

As an expat American I take exception to your narrow assertions.

But again, maybe I got it all wrong.

Riddle me that; MurphyAd

 

[SashatheMan]

Anyone hear the heckler when Obama was doing his speech on Wednesday?
One of the congressman said "you lied".

If someone said that in Australian political system what would happen?

 

[murphyad]

I rarely post on this forum, infact until I created this membership just a few moments ago I have never posted. Yet I feel compelled to write a few words in response to your so-called 'debating style', which is unfortunately laden with a condescending tone (yet you quote smart-sounding latin phrases claiming that others are engaging in personal attacks- riddle me that batman?)

I would desribe my debating style as 'merit where merit is due'. I do not believe that arguing a point by calling your opponent a "mindless idiot" and Stalinist (without justification) warrants any such merit, hence my condescending tone; in short, they have forfeited their rights to my geniality imo. If you take exception to my debating style, surely you must realise that being told to suck someone's genitalia is an even worse way to present an argument and that my responses were comparatively benign and, at the very least, slightly more articulate than that. Furthermore, I would suggest that a condescending tone is not as directly personal as being called a "mindless idiot," and I personally believe that I was adequately able to justify this tone in light on the ignorance of my opponents, which is more than they could manage. Anyway, back to the more pressing issue of Obama and his presidency (thanks for bringing up topical points btw ).

But moreover you fail to enter into genuine debate. It would seem you are far too quick to criticise one individual as a fascist (Bush II), yet you rush to the defence of the man who occupies the same office, yet for some reason is unable to exert the said dictatorial style of leadership which you attribute to his predeccessor (or maybe I misunderstood?).

Perhaps you did misunderstand or perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I don't support Bush's actions as a so-called 'unilateral executive' and I don't support Bush's 'dictatorial style'. The reason I rush to defend Obama is because he does not exhibit this style; I think it is undemocratic and an overreach of authority within the bounds of the constitution. I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here but I think I have answered as best I can.

I deny you as an authority on American government. Representative democracy sounds like a nice title, sure. But look at electoral process- it is individual centred. Obama became synonymous with change, and so was voted int office. Yet as soon as the onus for change is upon him, all of a sudden his leadership is "congress centred", a decidedly different tune than was hummed in the election campaign.

'Representative democracy' is an entirely justified title. I agree it is true that Presidential elections are individually-centred (because only individual candidates are running) but the system itself is not because it also emphasises other elected Congressional representatives, as I'm sure you know. The constitution stipulates the boundaries of presidential office, and so it is a given that any presidential campaign will enunciate it's message within the prism of those constitutional limitations, just as Obama's campaign did. Perhaps the issue lies with those who expected Obama to be a Superman who would save American democracy from itself, but this was never an attitude expressed by Obama during his campaign; he showed support for America's democratic institutions throughout and it was obvious that he would operate wholly within the constitutional and congressional boundaries laid out for him.

As an expat American I take exception to your narrow assertions.

Not meaning to sound rude, but this is a fallacious appeal to your own authority if you think that it somehow enhances your argument.

 

[epic man]

I would desribe my debating style as 'merit where merit is due'. I do not believe that arguing a point by calling your opponent a "mindless idiot" and Stalinist (without justification) warrants any such merit, hence my condescending tone; in short, they have forfeited their rights to my geniality imo. If you take exception to my debating style, surely you must realise that being told to suck someone's genitalia is an even worse way to present an argument and that my responses were comparatively benign and, at the very least, slightly more articulate than that. Furthermore, I would suggest that a condescending tone is not as directly personal as being called a "mindless idiot," and I personally believe that I was adequately able to justify this tone in light on the ignorance of my opponents, which is more than they could manage. Anyway, back to the more pressing issue of Obama and his presidency (thanks for bringing up topical points btw ).



Perhaps you did misunderstand or perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I don't support Bush's actions as a so-called 'unilateral executive' and I don't support Bush's 'dictatorial style'. The reason I rush to defend Obama is because he does not exhibit this style; I think it is undemocratic and an overreach of authority within the bounds of the constitution. I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here but I think I have answered as best I can.




'Representative democracy' is an entirely justified title. I agree it is true that Presidential elections are individually-centred (because only individual candidates are running) but the system itself is not because it also emphasises other elected Congressional representatives, as I'm sure you know. The constitution stipulates the boundaries of presidential office, and so it is a given that any presidential campaign will enunciate it's message within the prism of those constitutional limitations, just as Obama's campaign did. Perhaps the issue lies with those who expected Obama to be a Superman who would save American democracy from itself, but this was never an attitude expressed by Obama during his campaign; he showed support for America's democratic institutions throughout and it was obvious that he would operate wholly within the constitutional and congressional boundaries laid out for him.





Not meaning to sound rude, but this is a fallacious appeal to your own authority if you think that it somehow enhances your argument.

Trolled nub

 

[murphyad]

Trolled nub

Goddamn you all to hell! Goddamn you! Aaaarrrggghhhhhlv.bfjdkslvburoshfrula

EDIT: I think I was beginning to figure it out.........oh well shame on me I guess

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Trolled nub

At least he doesn't go to Newcastle High.

 

[epic man]

At least he doesn't go to Newcastle High.

Haha yup

 

[Iheartgays]

Haha yup

ROFL do you think she knows? And I still love you MurphyAids.

 

[0bs3n3]

"In the past, generally the more liberal the national Republican candidate, the more likely they were to lose the general election."

I think this holds some water.

Discuss.

 

[Anonymous-]

"In the past, generally the more liberal the national Republican candidate, the more likely they were to lose the general election."

I think this holds some water.

Discuss.

well thats because the dumb red neck hicks turn up to vote for a Bush/Palin whereas they stay inside their homes and talk about how the nigger ruined America if a centre right candidate was running.

 

[0bs3n3]

well thats because the dumb red neck hicks turn up to vote for a Bush/Palin whereas they stay inside their homes and talk about how the nigger ruined America if a centre right candidate was running.

Well, I think it's probably because if you have a more moderate GOP candidate why would you vote for them when you could just go for the 'authentic' candidate (eg. Dem)?

Same thing works here. Turnbull had bad ratings because he was Labor-lite. He was a Labor man's leader but why would anyone vote for him when they could just vote Labor?

 

[Sayangliss]

Well, I think it's probably because if you have a more moderate GOP candidate why would you vote for them when you could just go for the 'authentic' candidate (eg. Dem)?

Same thing works here. Turnbull had bad ratings because he was Labor-lite. He was a Labor man's leader but why would anyone vote for him when they could just vote Labor?

The appeal of certain, distinctive policies (which didn't really exist under Turnbull but would've done him some good if it did).

Palin was a revolting candidate. Why anyone would want to vote for her regardless of her authenticity in political fractures is beyond my understanding.

 

[Senator111]

Palin is a scary candidate.

Predictions/Hopes for the GOP's 2012 ticket?

I am hoping for a Mitch Daniels/Mitt Romney ticket - don't know what Mitch Daniels has done for Indiana? Look him up, fantastic person!

Although he has said he doesnt wnat to run - BLAST!

Your predictions?

 

[0bs3n3]

Palin is a scary candidate.

Predictions/Hopes for the GOP's 2012 ticket?

I am hoping for a Mitch Daniels/Mitt Romney ticket - don't know what Mitch Daniels has done for Indiana? Look him up, fantastic person!

Although he has said he doesnt wnat to run - BLAST!

Your predictions?

Bobby Jindall! I'm pretty sure he said he won't run though because he's got obligations as Gov'nr of Louisiana (I think). But I really hope he does run someday because he seems like a really genuine candidate. Also he is quite young so the party will probably want to groom him for later I guess.

But realistically, I expect Palin to run. Not sure if Romney will run (any recent news?). Sarah has a tonne of grassroots support though so it would be an upset if she didn't run.

I honestly hope this race (2012) isn't as abhorrent as the last (I'm talking about both parties/candidates lol).

 

[Sayangliss]

Nah. If Palin wants to run, her party might not necessarily want her to, primarily due to that tonne of grassroots support she has. If Obama does well in his first term, it's going to be fairly hard for the second term to be wrought away from him. If Palin loses, she probably won't run for 2016 and I think strategically, they might want to save her for 2016.

If Mitt Romney does run, and he is pinpointed as the frontrunner for 2012, he is a sacrificial lamb.

I honestly hope this race (2012) isn't as abhorrent as the last (I'm talking about both parties/candidates lol).

Well, there shouldn't be a democratic election. So no Obama/Hilary rematch.

 

[SylviaB]

RON PAUL

o

 

[0bs3n3]

Nah. If Palin wants to run, her party might not necessarily want her to, primarily due to that tonne of grassroots support she has. If Obama does well in his first term, it's going to be fairly hard for the second term to be wrought away from him. If Palin loses, she probably won't run for 2016 and I think strategically, they might want to save her for 2016.

Obama doesn't seem to be doing that well so far. I believe in one interview he even said he's prepared to be a one term President.

However if the Republicans are beat in 2012 I want Jindall to run in 2016 over Palin.