Philosophical-responders

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Flanders, Jul 17, 2012.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I cannot believe Hussein said this country succeeded because of the parasite class. That’s exactly what he said in Roanoke, Virginia:

    It took more than one idiot to formulate Hussein’s defense of the parasite class; one brain cannot come up with something that stupid. There is a lot of spin in his speech to be sure, but Hussein is surrounded by philosophical-responders as well as spinmeisters. Philosophical-responders are people who sit around figuring out ways to justify the parasite class with moral garbage so the moron in chief does not sound like a moron when he says it. They really blew it in Roanoke.

    First off, the federal government does have responsibilities commensurate with its authority enumerated in the Constitution. Building and maintaining a system of roads and highways is only one such responsibility. Governments have been building roads since the first government. Hussein and his parasites are cashing in on the responsibilities and labors of legitimate government functions.

    Notice that Hussein’s philosophical response did not —— cannot —— justify countless unnecessary bureaucracies, or even bloated bureaucracies, nor did he justify giving the parasite class the authority to punish everyone who does not behave, speak, and believe as they are told.

    In this excerpt Hussein strings two sentences together in order to justify the parasite class’ very foundation:


    Can you see how those two sentences had to come from diseased minds? Only a diseased mind would conclude the parasite class “. . . allowed you to thrive.” To believe that political philosophy you have to erase the 18th, the 19th, and much of the 20th centuries from America’s history. And, once again, the parasite class is glorified while no mention is made of an education system whose primary duty is to brainwash children.

    Hussein than wraps himself in military service in order to justify UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal involvement in higher education:


    The GI Bill is a benefit earned for service to the country. It is not a welfare program that says every ADULT, including illegal immigrants, can go to college and somebody else will pay for it. Hussein shames every veteran that ever used the GI Bill by lumping them with those who did nothing to earn higher education. He shames veterans twice because his primary goal is to send more tax dollars to the parasites who work in higher education.

    NOTE: I recall Democrats criticizing Eisenhower for being in the military all of his life. The implication was that Ike was a parasite who did not know what it was to feed himself. I don’t recall the details but it was something along those lines. Apparently, men and women who now serve their country are suddenly noble because they go to college with parasites. In keeping with his theme Hussein meant veterans could NOT go to college if it wasn’t for the parasites. In other words, the parasites were there first —— the GI Bill was an afterthought.

    This next bit makes perfect sense to morons:


    Bill Clinton did what he did because of a Republican Congress. And tax dollar millionaires are the only millionaires the governments creates. The Clintons and the Obamas are four such creations. The Clintons came to town wearing dirty underwear and are now multimillionaires. Hillary’s snout is still in the public trough.

    Michelle Obama was well on her way to millionaire status with her more-than $300,000 a year job in the University of Chicago Hospital. A job that was created for her and eliminated after she left.

    Every speech Hussein ever gave insults the intelligence of American voters. Here’s a shining example:


    Were that true they could voluntarily give their money to the government. Give something back my ass. The truth is: Tax dollar millionaires love taxes because tax dollars end up in their pockets.

    Finally, there are so many lies and distortions in Hussein’s Roanoke comments it is not possible to deal with all of them; so I’ll cut to the chase. Hussein gave hundreds and hundreds of billions to bankers, labor unions, and “green energy” companies run by his friends. Questions: How many tax dollar millionaires did he create? How many tax dollar millionaires did he turn into tax dollar BILLIONAIRES?
     
  2. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Clarice Feldman’s piece is the most comprehensive dissection of Hussein’s Roanoke speech I’ve seen to date:

    I want to add my long-held belief. Every civilization, every empire, every culture in history was brought down by parasites. As far as I know, American parasites are the first ones in all of history who claimed credit for building the very thing they are destroying.
     
  3. PabloHoney

    PabloHoney New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice false advertising in the thread title. There's nothing philosophical about using lots of logical fallacies.
     
  4. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To PabloHoney: Try to be specific.
     
  5. PabloHoney

    PabloHoney New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ad hominems and red herrings galore. Hussein being used as a pejorative is most likely enough cause for people not to take you or your argument seriously.
     
  6. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To PabloHoney: Your reply is hardly specific.

    My conclusions in the OP are quite logical.

    Note that my OP was not a response in a debate.


    ad hominem (adjective)

    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

    To PabloHoney: My opinions in the OP were based on Hussein’s own words. Show me one red herring that is not your opinion.

    To PabloHoney: Interesting. I call Hussein by his name and you find it pejorative. Dare I suggest you are questioning my motives?

    pejorative (adjective)

    1. Tending to make or become worse.

    2. Disparaging; belittling.

    noun
    A disparaging or belittling word or expression.

    pejoratively (adverb)

    Incidentally, there is no way under the sun that I could make Hussein the man worse than he is.
     
  7. PabloHoney

    PabloHoney New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This next bit makes perfect sense to morons:

    That would be an ad hominem.

    The GI Bill is a benefit earned for service to the country. It is not a welfare program that says every ADULT, including illegal immigrants, can go to college and somebody else will pay for it. Hussein shames every veteran that ever used the GI Bill by lumping them with those who did nothing to earn higher education. He shames veterans twice because his primary goal is to send more tax dollars to the parasites who work in higher education.

    That contains a strawman.

    As far as calling President Obama by his middle name, most rational people realize what is going on there. Trying to cast him into some Islamic light.


    My point is not to really argue your points, but rather show you if you want meaningful discourse with people, this is clearly not the way to go about it.
     
  8. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To PabloHoney: No it isn’t. It’s an opinion.

    To PabloHoney: No it doesn’t. The first two sentences are fact. The final two sentence are my interpretation of those facts.

    To PabloHoney: Like the definition of ad hominem says:

    Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

    You taking it upon yourself to speak for “most rational people” sounds like a double ad hominem to me.

    To PabloHoney: Anyone who responds to one of my messages because they disagree is debating.

    To PabloHoney: There’s your mistake. I don’t want meaningful discourse with liberals. I say what I have to say. Everybody else is free to do the same.

    To PabloHoney: Should I ever need your advice on what to say and how to say it I’ll ask for it.

    Finally, for your further edification. I don’t post messages for liberals. Should a lib respond I decide whether or not to engage in a debate.
     

Share This Page