Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
though, if you want to get technical, telling people to vote someone out of office because "they are a marxist" and other idiocy is pretty much getting people fired based on false accusations... very much like McCarthy.

I would take it one step further as I believe it is subversion, or at the very least slander.

But all the comments made against McCain and Palin during the 2008 election were completely legitimate?

She and He are advocating protection from slander, not advocating it. Both sides in a political fight make comments that are not correct, fair or at times even humanly decent. That does not suggest we allow more, but protect against as much as we can.

By all means post what you consider was unfairly claimed against McCain and Palin, and if wrong, Ill certainly defend them as much as deserved. McCain for one, may be one of the better men to run for the presidency in a very long time. Myself, I think he simply missed his window and was seen as too old for the job. To exacerbate the problem he picked Palin as a running mate, who by many was considered too crazy for the job.

I would have picked McCain over Bush in a heartbeat, and with a different running mate all the better. I have no doubt our country would be in a better place had we been given that choice, but instead it never really was a choice.

That's becuase BUSH soured most americans and the world against current american politics at that time.

It was Bush and company that got Obama elected.

Phatscotty wrote:It remains open to speculation.

In other words, you are manufacturing controversy.

notyou2 wrote:It was Bush and company that got Obama elected.

Wholeheartedly agree.

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It remains open to speculation.

In other words, you are manufacturing controversy.

Speculating....how does Obama get to be a professor without any known published papers?

Are these the wrong kinds of questions? are you curious a bit? maybe not? Just asking. I have those questions and hopefully someone can answer them and I can shut the f*ck up about it. Care to help?

Phatscotty wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It remains open to speculation.

In other words, you are manufacturing controversy.

Speculating....how does Obama get to be a professor without any known published papers?

Oh I am sure you think Bill Ayers had something to do with it.

Phatscotty wrote:Are these the wrong kinds of questions? are you curious a bit? maybe not? Just asking. I have those questions and hopefully someone can answer them and I can shut the f*ck up about it. Care to help?

No, these are leading questions. I am curious to know the discussions taking place within this Administration. That I am not privy to those discussions does not mean they are hiding something. Of course, they do withhold information for good reasons like national security and privacy.

'Speculating' about a manufactured issue like Obama's college transcripts is pointless at best, and generally, petty politics.

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
though, if you want to get technical, telling people to vote someone out of office because "they are a marxist" and other idiocy is pretty much getting people fired based on false accusations... very much like McCarthy.

I would take it one step further as I believe it is subversion, or at the very least slander.

But all the comments made against McCain and Palin during the 2008 election were completely legitimate?

You might believe so, I don't. And, ironically enough, McCain was no real friend to most of those now attacking Obama so heavily. Or haven't you paid attention to the congressional elections?

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It remains open to speculation.

In other words, you are manufacturing controversy.

Speculating....how does Obama get to be a professor without any known published papers?

Oh I am sure you think Bill Ayers had something to do with it.

actually, thats kind of stupid. Why would you be sure that I think Bill Ayers is responsible? you are playing the wrong assumption game here

Phatscotty wrote:Are these the wrong kinds of questions? are you curious a bit? maybe not? Just asking. I have those questions and hopefully someone can answer them and I can shut the f*ck up about it. Care to help?

tobinov wrote:No, these are leading questions. I am curious to know the discussions taking place within this Administration. That I am not privy to those discussions does not mean they are hiding something. Of course, they do withhold information for good reasons like national security and privacy.

'Speculating' about a manufactured issue like Obama's college transcripts is pointless at best, and generally, petty politics.

i dont really think Obamas college papers are national security secrets. Most of the reason I am asking is, look at what kind of answer I get...

Ignoring a very real issue is understandable, but not pointless. I dont care what you call it, I am still asking questions about it, an someone PLEASE get me to shut the f*ck up on this issue? Tobinov is just making me ask more questions.

Why are you so content with not knowing shit about Obama?

Phatty, what grade did Terry Jones get in theology school?

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, what grade did Terry Jones get in theology school?

Who is Terry Jones? and if you are going to play that angle, should you not be honest with it and ask "what grade did Bush get?" Oh but you cant, because EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT GRADES BUSH GOT.

sorry...continue

Google him.

man, I heard Glenn Beck killed a girl in 1990. What's up with that?

I heard it was after she threw his ounce of coke out the car window.

Phatscotty wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Speculating....how does Obama get to be a professor without any known published papers?

Oh I am sure you think Bill Ayers had something to do with it.

actually, thats kind of stupid. Why would you be sure that I think Bill Ayers is responsible? you are playing the wrong assumption game here

It's no more stupid than you implying that Obama has something to hide.
You speculate. I speculate.

Phatscotty wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Are these the wrong kinds of questions? are you curious a bit? maybe not? Just asking. I have those questions and hopefully someone can answer them and I can shut the f*ck up about it. Care to help?

No, these are leading questions. I am curious to know the discussions taking place within this Administration. That I am not privy to those discussions does not mean they are hiding something. Of course, they do withhold information for good reasons like national security and privacy.

'Speculating' about a manufactured issue like Obama's college transcripts is pointless at best, and generally, petty politics.

i dont really think Obamas college papers are national security secrets. Most of the reason I am asking is, look at what kind of answer I get...

Ignoring a very real issue is understandable, but not pointless. I dont care what you call it, I am still asking questions about it, an someone PLEASE get me to shut the f*ck up on this issue? Tobinov is just making me ask more questions.

Why are you so content with not knowing shit about Obama?

No, that is just it - it is not a real issue. This is a manufactured issue and you are asking loaded questions.

The only real issue here is the fallacy of your argument: that because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable.

You dont think there is anything "hiding" in Obama's thesis? I do.

Phatscotty wrote:You dont think there is anything "hiding" in Obama's thesis? I do.

Of course you do.
It's politically convenient for you to "speculate" and presume something is being hidden in your hopes to discredit the man, to disparage his ideas, and to question his intentions.

Of course, your attempt is intellectually dishonest - but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You dont think there is anything "hiding" in Obama's thesis? I do.

Of course you do.
It's politically convenient for you to "speculate" and presume something is being hidden in your hopes to discredit the man, to disparage his ideas, and to question his intentions.

Of course, your attempt is intellectually dishonest - but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

I asked you what you thought. why do you continue to make this about me? oh yeah...

We are straying too far, how about we loop back to the original questions?

#1 why are they sealed?

#2 what do you think his Columbia thesis was?

Phatscotty wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You dont think there is anything "hiding" in Obama's thesis? I do.

Of course you do.
It's politically convenient for you to "speculate" and presume something is being hidden in your hopes to discredit the man, to disparage his ideas, and to question his intentions.

Of course, your attempt is intellectually dishonest - but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

I asked you what you thought. why do you continue to make this about me? oh yeah...

Yes, you asked and I answered.

Why? Because, this really is about you manufacturing an issue and asking loaded questions.

Phatscotty wrote:#1 why are they sealed?

Irrelevant.

Phatscotty wrote:#2 what do you think his Columbia thesis was?

Intellectual discourse.

and why is #1 irrelevant?

Phatscotty wrote:and why is #1 irrelevant?

Covered this:
The fallacy of your argument: that, because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable being hidden.

In other words, that something is "sealed" does not implicate it by default - but you, sir, want to think so.

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and why is #1 irrelevant?

Covered this:
The fallacy of your argument: that, because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable being hidden.

In other words, that something is "sealed" does not implicate it by default - but you, sir, want to think so.

Well, you're just putting words in his mouth. You yourself concluded that there must be something undesirable being hidden. I've yet to see Phatscotty claim that as his justification.

Also, why is it hidden, or so hard to find? Surely, it can't be that bad?

Since Obama is very sensitive to mainstream media criticism, he's probably hiding his thesis because it probably has something they can use against him. To me, whether or not that subject matter is Marxist dogma or "Why I like kittens!;" it's not that important. Obama is playing a defensive move to prevent the media from demonizing him further on weak evidence and to help secure his upcoming election.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and why is #1 irrelevant?

Covered this:
The fallacy of your argument: that, because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable being hidden.

In other words, that something is "sealed" does not implicate it by default - but you, sir, want to think so.

Well, you're just putting words in his mouth. You yourself concluded that there must be something undesirable being hidden. I've yet to see Phatscotty claim that as his justification.

No. False. And he has.

No, I am calling his tactic.
False, the conclusion I presented is what Phatscotty is basing this thread on.
And he has, repeatedly, "speculated" that because the files are sealed, they hide something.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, why is it hidden, or so hard to find? Surely, it can't be that bad?

Since Obama is very sensitive to mainstream media criticism, he's probably hiding his thesis because it probably has something they can use against him. To me, whether or not that subject matter is Marxist dogma or "Why I like kittens!;" it's not that important. Obama is playing a defensive move to prevent the media from demonizing him further on weak evidence and to help secure his upcoming election.

And now you have made the same implication.

If I knocked on your front door, and demanded to be let inside to make sure everything is in order, would you let me in? By not letting me in, can I then deduct that you are hiding something out of order from me?
It's a false deduction predicated on false presumptions:
- that I need to know your order of things
- that I know what order of things should be
- that your refusal suggests disorder

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and why is #1 irrelevant?

Covered this:
The fallacy of your argument: that, because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable being hidden.

In other words, that something is "sealed" does not implicate it by default - but you, sir, want to think so.

no no no, you dodge again! forget about me! forget I exist! forget about what I think or what you think I think!!!!! one...last ...time..

Why is the fact the Obamas college records are sealed not relevant....to you?

tobinov wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, why is it hidden, or so hard to find? Surely, it can't be that bad?

Since Obama is very sensitive to mainstream media criticism, he's probably hiding his thesis because it probably has something they can use against him. To me, whether or not that subject matter is Marxist dogma or "Why I like kittens!;" it's not that important. Obama is playing a defensive move to prevent the media from demonizing him further on weak evidence and to help secure his upcoming election.

And now you have made the same implication.

If I knocked on your front door, and demanded to be let inside to make sure everything is in order, would you let me in? By not letting me in, can I then deduct that you are hiding something out of order from me?
It's a false deduction predicated on false presumptions:
- that I need to know your order of things
- that I know what order of things should be
- that your refusal suggests disorder

Well, what you've suggested is different from mine. You're saying that what he's hiding is "out of order" while I haven't said that. Whatever it is that he's hiding, it can probably be used against him; however, it doesn't have to be "out of order." That hidden thing can be manipulated to their own purposes.

Now, you're just putting words in my own argument. Would you like to run the cycle one more time, or move on?

tobinov wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tobinov wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and why is #1 irrelevant?

Covered this:
The fallacy of your argument: that, because something is withheld, there must be something to hide, and if there is something to hide, it must be something undesirable being hidden.

In other words, that something is "sealed" does not implicate it by default - but you, sir, want to think so.

Well, you're just putting words in his mouth. You yourself concluded that there must be something undesirable being hidden. I've yet to see Phatscotty claim that as his justification.

No. False. And he has.

No, I am calling his tactic.
False, the conclusion I presented is what Phatscotty is basing this thread on.
And he has, repeatedly, "speculated" that because the files are sealed, they hide something.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, why is it hidden, or so hard to find? Surely, it can't be that bad?

Since Obama is very sensitive to mainstream media criticism, he's probably hiding his thesis because it probably has something they can use against him. To me, whether or not that subject matter is Marxist dogma or "Why I like kittens!;" it's not that important. Obama is playing a defensive move to prevent the media from demonizing him further on weak evidence and to help secure his upcoming election.

And now you have made the same implication.

If I knocked on your front door, and demanded to be let inside to make sure everything is in order, would you let me in? By not letting me in, can I then deduct that you are hiding something out of order from me?
It's a false deduction predicated on false presumptions:
- that I need to know your order of things
- that I know what order of things should be
- that your refusal suggests disorder

[Knock Knock]

Did someone order a pizza? 'dis order?