Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)

In this thread you can bring up any political issues and I will argue it factually and logically from the Republican side. One thing I can not promise is that I will be politically correct (PC).

So is there any takers? Name your issue (Iraq, minimum wage, abortion, whatever) and I will make a case for it...

Unions

Well, you got me on unions, this is something I don't know that much about, nevertheless I will still argue it.

Unions in the States are a joke. They are in my pockets. They do whatever I tell them to do. Union membership has been declining.

When was the last decent sized strike? I think it was back then when Ronnie was the prez and he kicked the ass of the airline traffic controllers.

So right now unions are not a problem corporation-wise, they are bought and sold square...

Next topic?

The Harley-Davidson manufacturers are striking right now.

Republicans have tried to bust the unions for years, and as a result of damaging legislation, such as establishing "right to work" states (no unions allowed), unions have diminished. Sending our manufacturing jobs to other nations is a part of this deliberate strategy to benefit multinational corporations while neglecting the American worker.

Single women killing babies.

The Harley-Davidson manufacturers are striking right now.

All 200 of them? :eek: And the POWs won't have a hog to ride on? Disgrace!!!

Republicans have tried to bust the unions for years,

We haven't just tried, we busted them and have them by the balls.

Walmart the nation biggest employer succesfully fights off any unionization attempt, so the slaves can work for 5$ an hour... Long live the ruling class, I mean us!!!

Ok Illegal Immigration.



GO

Single women killing babies.

I am not aware of the problem, but we are against it, unless those are gay/atheist/democrat babies...In that case it is social Darwinism..

Next....

Are you actually going by what you think an intelligent Conservative should say or are you going by the media driven stereotypes.


If so then I totally call the aging hippie liberal.

Ok Illegal Immigration.



GOWelcome them in and deport rightwingers.

Ok Illegal Immigration.
GO

Finally something juicy! Thanks.

Honestly, we (big corporations) LOVE illegal immigration, that's why nothing is being done about it. We could stop it in 5 mins, just by following Germany's example, when not the immigrant but the business employing them is fined so harshly, that they can not/dare not efford to do it.

Why do we love illegal immigrants? They are:
-dirt cheap
-non-unionized
-have no legal rights or representation
-basicly they are modern day slaves
-they are good for the economy, because they also spend money here
-they increase the number of people here, what wouldn't happen by natural birth

So we just love them, but it wouldn't be PC to tell you, so guys, this is a secret between me and you. OK?

Next...

*ahem*

Man, we should totally let those people in. they have every right to get our benefits and not have to pay for it. Let's make the people who worked their asses off to become wealthy have to give large sums of money to the government so that these poor immigrants can have a helping hand paying for the things they DON'T PAY FOR.

Are you actually going by what you think an intelligent Conservative should say

I am saying what a big fatcat would tell you when he is drunk and honest...Please notice, I am not the government, although I have influence on the government. I am big business so my problems and interest are not always the same as the administration's...

Next...

Ok then I get to be the Liberal who's brain is still recovering from eating the Brown acid back in his Haight Ashbury days.


The War.


GO

The War.


Which war? We LOVE wars, period. It is good business. Building up the military is actually one of the best businesses. And we have to use the stockpile, otherwise there would be new orders, agreed?

I take it you refer to the Iraq war. That is easy. Here you have to follow the line of reasoning.

1. USA gets 60% of its oil from outside and this will INCREASE in the future.
2. Iraq has the 2nd biggest oilreserviors on Earth.
3. Iraq was also a danger to Israel (not to the US), my strongest lobby, and you have to agree, I have to do what my influence wants me to do.
4. Also oil is peaking right now, so in the future the ME oilreserve area is the big PRIZE. Whoever controls it, controls everybody.

Now, this is not just getting access to it, but also DENYING access to my competitors, meaning China or whomever wants to rule the world. We do, nobody else should. Clear?

You wouldn't want the Chinese taking over Iraq with some kind of false WMD casus beli, would you? It is better us then them or anybody else.

Of course we had to cook up some stupid story what the average American would eat up, and WMD seemed just fine. After all, we sold a shitload of it to Saddam, who the hell thought he got ride of them?? That is a honest mistake...

Then we switched the goal to the Iraqi freedom. This sounds as good as any...

But the real reason is oil, and I bet you don't want to pay 3-4$ a gallon for your gas, do you?

We miscalculated the locals a bit, because we don't know psycology too much. After all nobody likes occupiers. And boy, we going to stay there until the last drop of oil, I promise you...

Next topic...

Ok then I get to be the Liberal who's brain is still recovering from eating the Brown acid back in his Haight Ashbury days.


The War.


GOYou're almost ready to suit up yourself and join the Iraq civil war! Being a rightwing cheerleader Bushie lover I'm assuming you are enlisting.

Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)

In this thread you can bring up any political issues and I will argue it factually and logically from the Republican side. One thing I can not promise is that I will be politically correct (PC).

So is there any takers? Name your issue (Iraq, minimum wage, abortion, whatever) and I will make a case for it...Logical Republican.:confused: Oxymoron.

Honestly, we (big corporations) LOVE illegal immigration, that's why nothing is being done about it. We could stop it in 5 mins, just by following Germany's example, when not the immigrant but the business employing them is fined so harshly, that they can not/dare not efford to do it.

Why do we love illegal immigrants? They are:
-dirt cheap
-non-unionized
-have no legal rights or representation
-basicly they are modern day slaves
-they are good for the economy, because they also spend money here
-they increase the number of people here, what wouldn't happen by natural birth

So we just love them, but it wouldn't be PC to tell you, so guys, this is a secret between me and you. OK?

You are half right about this. It's true the corporate fat cats love illegals for the reasons you mentioned. The other half of the equation is labor unions and Democrats in general. They love illegals because they hope to unionize them and turn them into good little Democrat voters.

So we have an unholy union of the left and big corporate fatcats preventing effective action on illegal immigration.

Were you aware that when Reagan signed the amnesty bill in the eighties, he was promised (by the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS) that a law would be passed creating a million dollar fine against corporations for each violation of immigration laws. Reagan agreed with you, that going after the employers would stem the tide of illegals. But the Democratic congress reniged on the deal and never passed the million dollar fine. Who's in bed with corporations? Democrats and Republicans.

Logical Republican.:confused: Oxymoron.

Indeed. Especially considering that his arguments aren't that logical anyway.

Maybe that's the point! :eek:

Syzygys: Isolationism.

GO!

And when you're done with that: Same-sex marriage.

I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument,...
...something I don't know that much about, nevertheless I will still argue it.
Okay. Make your case for such leftie "logic".

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This whole thread idea is as absurd as having Alan Alda play the evil right winger on the West Wing.

labor unions and Democrats in general. They love illegals because they hope to unionize them and turn them into good little Democrat voters.

You are wrong because:

1. You can't unionize an illegal immigrant.
2. See my post about unions. They are in my pocket.Their power has been failing.
3. Dems are with me on this one, thus nothing is being done.

Long live the American one party system!!!

Indeed. Especially considering that his arguments aren't that logical anyway.


Really? Please feel free to point out any illogicality. I am big fatcat corporation, and I act in MY best interest. Screw the people....

Syzygys: Isolationism.


We don't like it, because we like globalization. Also at this time and pace it is naive to think a country like America could be isolated. We are way too much involved just pretty much everywhere, our interest is global.

Read again what I wrote about the war and oil, that also explains it...

Also monetarily we are depending on the Japanese and Chinese buying our bonds. By isolating the country, we would get stuck with nobody financing our standard of living...

Okay. Make your case for such leftie "logic".



Honeybun, you missed the operative word. It was THAT. I said I didn't know THAT much. I didn't say I knew nothing.And nobody argued my post, so I assume what I knew was sufficient...

Are we clear now??? Not to mention I could still argue a case even if I knew nothing about it, just based on the other side's input. :)

And when you're done with that: Same-sex marriage.

Before we discuss abortion or same-sex marriage, I have to explain about subjective/objective issues and the nature of politics.

Some issues in politics are not objective, there is no clear right or wrong. The winner is the right one. Global warming is an objective topic (not the cause of it, but the fact itself).

Moral issues are usually subjective. Your stand depends on your morals, traditions, religious beliefs,etc. So although the sides can argue until they die who is right or wrong, at the end the side is right who is winning POLITICALLY the debate. Screw the arguments and let's bring in the cavalry!!! Is that understandable??

Now on same-sex marriage we are against it because of the beliefs of our base. That's about it, end of story...

This whole thread idea is as absurd...

Please feel free to point out any factual or logical mistakes I have done so far or if I missrepresented the Republican side....

Otherwise enjoy the show and the truth...

Next topic?

I am brand new to this forum and, sadly, this is the first thread I read through. The initial post grabbed my attention. Each subsequent post by the the original author, however, grew less and less interesting...until I was kicking myself for following the link to page 2. Why on Earth am I at the last post of this thread? Why?

It makes very little sense to me why folks keep feeding you topics. It could have been good. It could have been funny. It was not. It is lame.

Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)


i just hate those patronizing jackasses.

i just hate those patronizing jackasses.

I just hate people bitching, but not providing an ARGUMENT. Thus my patronizing was justified...Sadly...:bugeye:

Each subsequent post by the the original author, however, grew less and less interesting...

Ecxuse me,but when did I say you are going to laugh yourself to death??
Interesting? Maybe not if you don't care what's going on in today's world.
Educative? Most certainly...


It makes very little sense to me why folks keep feeding you topics.

Hey, I am not against DEBATING any of these topics, but so far the rightwing side has the sourgrapes, the leftwing side knows I am RIGHT.... :D

Next topic???

P.S.: One liner bitching will be ignored from now on. That is basicly ackowledging you lost. If you feel you have an argument, I BEG you to present it and in a intelligent manner. You will be treated as you come across...

Syzygys, I don't know were you get the Idea that the so called right wingers don't have logical answers, to me the left wingers on this site wouldn't recognize logic if it hit them in the face and pissed down their back, the political correctness in which they view the world precludes any logic in their thought process.

I just hate people bitching, but not providing an ARGUMENT. Thus my patronizing was justified...Sadly...:bugeye:


im glad you understood my point. i only used your "argument" and switched it to show you how silly it was. you are full of stereotypes.

I am brand new to this forum and,

Just out of curiosity, did you google "logical Republican" and this was the first hit coming up? :)


Syzygys, I don't know were you get the Idea that the so called right wingers don't have logical answers,

But they do. I AM expressing them. They are so coy about it, I don't know why...

Come on Righties, I am on your side, just like Stephen Colbert is a Republican!! :D

So anyody care to provide an argument? If not let's move on to the next topic....

Syzygys, I don't know were you get the Idea that the so called right wingers don't have logical answers, to me the left wingers on this site wouldn't recognize logic if it hit them in the face and pissed down their back, the political correctness in which they view the world precludes any logic in their thought process.

for further evidence, I really think you should read Ann Coulters book. Forget all the media driven "evil far right extremists who hates black people gays blah blah blah" And just read how illogical and downright crazy things get when Liberals are holding the reigns.

Hehe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22find+a+logical+republican%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Hehe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22find+a+logical+republican%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

HiHi (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22find+a+logical+democrat%22&btnG=Search)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22find+a+logical+Liberal%22

Your move sam :D

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22find+a+logical+Liberal%22 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22find+a+logical+Liberal%22)

Your move sam :D

Touche!:p

you too, spock!

Really? Please feel free to point out any illogicality. I am big fatcat corporation, and I act in MY best interest. Screw the people....

Case in point.

But alrighty. I'll point out your ill logic.

Well, you got me on unions, this is something I don't know that much about, nevertheless I will still argue it.

Ditto.

Unions in the States are a joke. They are in my pockets. They do whatever I tell them to do.

Unions are a check against unchecked capitalism, where nothing stops a capitalist from exploiting his workers. It's great to be all for capitalism, but you can't have pure capitalism, because your workers have rights.

Union membership has been declining.

How do you know this?

When was the last decent sized strike? I think it was back then when Ronnie was the prez and he kicked the ass of the airline traffic controllers.

Have you been paying attention?

I am not aware of the problem, but we are against it, unless those are gay/atheist/democrat babies...In that case it is social Darwinism..

So you're okay with some murders, if it's the right people?

Finally something juicy! Thanks.

Honestly, we (big corporations) LOVE illegal immigration, that's why nothing is being done about it. We could stop it in 5 mins, just by following Germany's example, when not the immigrant but the business employing them is fined so harshly, that they can not/dare not efford to do it.

Why do we love illegal immigrants? They are:
-dirt cheap
-non-unionized
-have no legal rights or representation
-basicly they are modern day slaves
-they are good for the economy, because they also spend money here
-they increase the number of people here, what wouldn't happen by natural birth

So we just love them, but it wouldn't be PC to tell you, so guys, this is a secret between me and you. OK?

I've been waiting for someone to say that from a conservative point of view! :D

I'm not decided on this issue. But in your case, I'll argue the other viewpoint, which may or may not be logical:

You need to pay immigrants the same money you pay other people, because they're people too. They're not slaves ready to be exploited by you.

Also, it's not smart to let the immigrants in so willingly. Once they come here and get employed by you, they'll stay. And if they stay, and you aren't paying them enough, they'll need welfare to survive, and all the welfare money that could be used on people who were here first is being used on the immigrants. And how is that good for us?

I am saying what a big fatcat would tell you when he is drunk and honest...Please notice, I am not the government, although I have influence on the government. I am big business so my problems and interest are not always the same as the administration's...

You're doing a pretty good job of representing a Big Business fatcat.

Which war? We LOVE wars, period. It is good business. Building up the military is actually one of the best businesses. And we have to use the stockpile, otherwise there would be new orders, agreed?

War is unnecessary cavemen brutality. Ever heard of civilization? Of diplomacy? Of not killing people?

I take it you refer to the Iraq war. That is easy. Here you have to follow the line of reasoning.

1. USA gets 60% of its oil from outside and this will INCREASE in the future.
2. Iraq has the 2nd biggest oilreserviors on Earth.
3. Iraq was also a danger to Israel (not to the US), my strongest lobby, and you have to agree, I have to do what my influence wants me to do.
4. Also oil is peaking right now, so in the future the ME oilreserve area is the big PRIZE. Whoever controls it, controls everybody.

So you plan on continuing our addiction to oil, when it's slowly but surely destroying our global climate?

Growing a lot of corn to produce ethanol, an alternative to gasoline, is also a profitable and economically good thing to do. And it won't harm the Earth in the process.

Now, this is not just getting access to it, but also DENYING access to my competitors, meaning China or whomever wants to rule the world. We do, nobody else should. Clear?

Such nationalist arrogance. :rolleyes:

You wouldn't want the Chinese taking over Iraq with some kind of false WMD casus beli, would you? It is better us then them or anybody else.

So we're stopping people from fucking up the place by getting the blood on our hands instead?

Of course we had to cook up some stupid story what the average American would eat up, and WMD seemed just fine. After all, we sold a shitload of it to Saddam, who the hell thought he got ride of them?? That is a honest mistake...

Yeah, serves you right.

Then we switched the goal to the Iraqi freedom. This sounds as good as any...

How Orwellian.

But the real reason is oil, and I bet you don't want to pay 3-4$ a gallon for your gas, do you?

You're right, I don't wanna pay money for gas. I want to buy ethanol.

We miscalculated the locals a bit, because we don't know psycology too much.

What do you know?

After all nobody likes occupiers. And boy, we going to stay there until the last drop of oil, I promise you...

Don't be surprised when a civil war erupts.

Oh wait...

We don't like it, because we like globalization. Also at this time and pace it is naive to think a country like America could be isolated. We are way too much involved just pretty much everywhere, our interest is global.

I suppose.

Read again what I wrote about the war and oil, that also explains it...

Yeah. Bad globalism.

Also monetarily we are depending on the Japanese and Chinese buying our bonds. By isolating the country, we would get stuck with nobody financing our standard of living...

What about sustaining ourselves? It would be good for the economy.

Before we discuss abortion or same-sex marriage, I have to explain about subjective/objective issues and the nature of politics.

Some issues in politics are not objective, there is no clear right or wrong. The winner is the right one. Global warming is an objective topic (not the cause of it, but the fact itself).

Moral issues are usually subjective. Your stand depends on your morals, traditions, religious beliefs,etc.

I guess this makes sense. Liberals value liberty, equality, and justice, while conservatives instead value what it was like in the "good ol' days", when these principles only had a lopsided reign.

Yeah, I follow ya.

But, the cause of global warming is in fact objective. It's either one cause (or a set of them), or the other. It's not up for opinion.

So although the sides can argue until they die who is right or wrong, at the end the side is right who is winning POLITICALLY the debate. Screw the arguments and let's bring in the cavalry!!! Is that understandable??

Sure, I guess. Well, liberals are slowly winning this particular battle for civil rights. So I guess liberals are right here.

Now on same-sex marriage we are against it because of the beliefs of our base. That's about it, end of story...

So you don't care?

i just hate those patronizing jackasses.

Oh, me too.

Man, this is going to be long...

I'll point out your ill logic.

I bet you won't. :)

How do you know this?

It is a FACT. Check it out. Last year union membership dropped to an all time low.Just because I said I am not an expert on unions, I do know something... :)

I have to break up your post, because in the quote I only see your lines, and I can't always tell what we are refering to. Can you post in smaller parts
in the future? Thanks...

Have you been paying attention?

Sure. How many big strikes were in the last 20 years? How come only 13% (I think) of the workforce is unionized?

So you're okay with some murders, if it's the right people?

Correct. Most people actually think the same, except they don't like to say so...

You need to pay immigrants the same money you pay other people, because they're people too. They're not slaves ready to be exploited by you.

That was a figure of speech. Nevertheless, they have basicly no rights whatsever, thus pretty much anything can be done against them. They can be fired at will, no healthcare to be provided, etc.

they'll need welfare to survive, and all the welfare money that could be used on people who were here first is being used on the immigrants. And how is that good for us?

You mistake different interests. What is good for ME, big corporation, doesn't necesserily good for the government or for the people general.

Since I get the extra profit from less cost and the government has to pay for the welfare, why would I care? And I definiatelly don't care about the people...

Got it?

You need to pay immigrants the same money you pay other people, because they're people too. They're not slaves ready to be exploited by you.




Now wait a second...

1800's Black Slavery had plenty of rebellions. Nat Turner took out something like 25 white people and had 50 something slaves following him before he was hung, off the top of my head. Blacks, while they may have been enslaved, often tried to escape to the north, where they would be treated as real people and paid for their work.

If illegal immigrants aren't slaves, they sure are acting like it. They do the cotton picking of our day. No one wanted to pick it in the 1800's and no one wants to clean septic tanks, build decks, and other disgusting, or physically exhausting jobs. They take the shit wages, thank you, and go on their way. If they wanted more rights they'd revolt or gather together or something.

And, ironically, the only time in recent memory they all had a mass gathering was to PROTEST being sent out of their "plantation." So apparently they like it here. I have no problem paying Illegals shit wages because they get free benefits here. Regular immigrants, are a whole nother story though.

If you don't want half literate illegals with an 8th grade education and limited skills to be treated like slaves, how about informing them to stop acting like it. As immoral as it is, paying illegals low wages is nothing but smart business. Why shouldn't a struggling business look for a way to cut costs? If they immigrant be willing, then what the hell. And you probably say things like "he doesn't know we have minimmum wage and has no idea he's being exploited" Well whos fault is that? Who came here with no idea of the was business and government works? We didn't go to mexico in giant ships and round them up by the hundreds. They came here, and they were LOOKING for work. Theres a big difference between that and being shackled up to work for nothing.

War is unnecessary cavemen brutality. Ever heard of civilization? Of diplomacy? Of not killing people?

I am not following you. I CARE about interest and profits, I don't care about morality...

So you plan on continuing our addiction to oil, when it's slowly but surely destroying our global climate?

Yeap, after all, this is an oiladministration. Come on, the energyplan of the country was made up by oilbusiness executives in a secret meeting!!!

How is that for democracy, by the way??? :)


And it won't harm the Earth in the process.

What is the quarterly earnings of ethanol companies? I might have to look into those...

So we're stopping people from fucking up the place by getting the blood on our hands instead?

1. We are stopping others of taking over the place.
2. I most certainly don't care about sacrifice, as long as others have to do it...
3. Did you know that annually we lose more people to GLUTTONY than in Iraq? (1500 people die of gastrobypass surgery a year as compared to 1000 soldiers in Iraq)

What about sustaining ourselves? It would be good for the economy.

Too late. The last year when the US was energy independent was 1949!!!!!

Thanks for the feedback, we actually agreed on most things...

Syzygys, why aren't you doing this from a liberal view point? as most liberals don't provide anything but politically correct argument in support of their view point, there is no logic in political correctness, only feel good, if we were logical about energy independence we would be drilling our own resources right know, but it is politically incorrect to do so because of the environmental lobby, the technology that has been developed today for drilling is the safest it has ever been, and spills are a minor occurrence any more, and drilling fields do not have to be spread out allover the landscape any more, slant drilling, and then there is the nuclear energy political correctness, if we were logical about new nuclear plants we would reap a two fold benefit, the air pollution would be reduced and again oil consumption would be reduced, show me anything were the Liberals use logic in their thought process?

Man, this is going to be long...

Haha. Sorry.

It is a FACT. Check it out. Last year union membership dropped to an all time low.Just because I said I am not an expert on unions, I do know something... :)

Well now you've piqued my curiosity. Do you have any sources?

I have to break up your post, because in the quote I only see your lines, and I can't always tell what we are refering to. Can you post in smaller parts
in the future? Thanks...

Habit of mine, now that we have a button to click to quote several posts. Sorry. I won't do it when I respond to you. :o

Sure. How many big strikes were in the last 20 years? How come only 13% (I think) of the workforce is unionized?

However many people are in unions and how many strikes there have been doesn't matter. This may simply mean that the unions are working as an effective check against the moralistic flaws of capitalism. These checks must be preserved.

Correct. Most people actually think the same, except they don't like to say so...

So that gives you the right to do the same? You wouldn't jump off a bridge, I hope...

That was a figure of speech. Nevertheless, they have basicly no rights whatsever, thus pretty much anything can be done against them. They can be fired at will, no healthcare to be provided, etc.

All men are created equal. And not anything can be done to them, because they are undeniably people. I wonder what the authors of the Declaration of Independence would've thought about your way of thinking.

You mistake different interests. What is good for ME, big corporation, doesn't necesserily good for the government or for the people general.

You have a responsibility to not do anything that is bad for society.

Since I get the extra profit from less cost and the government has to pay for the welfare, why would I care? And I definiatelly don't care about the people...

Got it?

Who are they getting the money from in order to pay welfare? Your profits may very well go towards an increase in taxes needed to pay welfare for all the immigrants you're paying poorly.

I am not following you. I CARE about interest and profits, I don't care about morality...

Thus is your folly.

What is the quarterly earnings of ethanol companies? I might have to look into those...

I'm not sure. But I bet they'd be a lot higher if we relied on ethanol instead of oil for gasoline.

1. We are stopping others of taking over the place.

And now the blood is on our hands.

2. I most certainly don't care about sacrifice, as long as others have to do it...

You may have to sacrifice in ways you aren't thinking about currently.

3. Did you know that annually we lose more people to GLUTTONY than in Iraq? (1500 people die of gastrobypass surgery a year as compared to 1000 soldiers in Iraq)

How can someone rationalize death like this?

It would make more sense if we were somehow okay with how many people die of gastrobypass surgery, and didn't care at all about reducing those numbers. It would also make more sense if these deaths were, furthermore, intentional, and we were okay with it.

Too late. The last year when the US was energy independent was 1949!!!!!

It's never too late to boost our economy by relying on domestically produced goods.

Thanks for the feedback, we actually agreed on most things...

Good to hear. :)

Syzygys, why aren't you doing this from a liberal view point?

I might do so after I am done with this. But right now I am having too much fun. There is one major difference though. Liberals have no political representation right now, since both parties are pro-business/corporation/rich people, with very slight real differences....

The liberal media bias is also a myth, done by us, big fatcats.... :)

Well now you've piqued my curiosity. Do you have any sources?

Of course I do. But since in the future you can do it yourself, I typed "low union membership" into Google:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/25/union-membership-drops-to-historic-low/

"The number of wage and salary workers who were union members dropped to 12 percent of the work force last year,” the AP reports, “the lowest percentage since the government started tracking that number over two decades ago.” Workers represented by unions earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers, are 62 percent more likely to have medical insurance through their jobs, and are four-and-a-half times as likely to have guaranteed pensions. "

Now you understand why we don't like unions. It is cheaper to pay off their leadership then giving raise to the workers...

However many people are in unions and how many strikes there have been doesn't matter.


Well, no. Unions get their strength from numbers. And their activities can be measured by either the number of strikes (lots of unhappy people) or the numbers (lots of happy people) You have to start to read alternative resources if you want to get the correct pictures on everything.

So that gives you the right to do the same?

Nope, but I am with the majority's view on that one...

All men are created equal.

In your dream and in a perfect world yes, otherwise no. Please tell me if the children of princess Diana are equal to a child born with HIV in black Africa, whose both parents are dead due to AIDS?

I am guessing you are rather young and idealistic. You will grow out of both...

I wonder what the authors of the Declaration of Independence would've thought about your way of thinking.

They would agree with me, because they were just like me. They were rich, white, protestants, racist, sexist and they cared about independence because of BUSINESS. No taxation without representation, right?

You have a responsibility to not do anything that is bad for society.

OK, here we are in a political/history class not in church. So let's keep idealistic moralizing to a minimium, and by minimum, I mean zero.... :cool:

Who are they getting the money from in order to pay welfare?

From you middleclass workers. Corporations and rich people don't like to pay taxes and they have the brains and the means to avoid them...

But I bet they'd be a lot higher if we relied on ethanol instead of oil for gasoline.

OK, this is a secret again, so let's keep it between you and me.

Of course we could follow Brazil's example and switch to ethanol. But that would be bad for ME, big oilbusiness. And I am not stupid, I am not going to screw myself so just the people can be happy. The government is in my pocket. Now you could make a good argument that what is bad for the country, it is going to be bad for everybody in the long run.
Probably so. But my oilguys are rich thus their point of breaking is much higher then the average Americans. Right now it is a conflict of interest, and the American public is losing. As long as the people or the government can make us be interested in alternative resources, we won't try to switch.

Hey, after all we successfully killed the electric car!!

And now the blood is on our hands.

Again, we are not interested in morals, just in profits...

Man, anytime I think of war, I get a hard on. First we make a shitload of profit by bombing them back to the stoneage, then once we won, we make another disgusting profit (hey, $200 hammer anyone?) by rebuilding the same country....I just LOVE government orders...They sign the bills without looking at them....

I have just ran into this. Education on both illegal immigrants in the meatpacking industry and the unions' eroding power:

http://counterpunch.org/kutalik02022007.html

Here is the funky stuff:

"Since the late 1990s, however, immigrant workers in the industry have at times been more willing than union officials to fight for better conditions in the plants."

By the way, next topic?

Of course I do. But since in the future you can do it yourself, I typed "low union membership" into Google:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/25/union-membership-drops-to-historic-low/

"The number of wage and salary workers who were union members dropped to 12 percent of the work force last year,” the AP reports, “the lowest percentage since the government started tracking that number over two decades ago.” Workers represented by unions earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers, are 62 percent more likely to have medical insurance through their jobs, and are four-and-a-half times as likely to have guaranteed pensions. "

Now you understand why we don't like unions. It is cheaper to pay off their leadership then giving raise to the workers...

You don't like unions because they prevent you from doing whatever the fuck you want. The low numbers probably means something, but I'm sure it doesn't mean they're utterly useless.

Well, no. Unions get their strength from numbers. And their activities can be measured by either the number of strikes (lots of unhappy people) or the numbers (lots of happy people) You have to start to read alternative resources if you want to get the correct pictures on everything.

Unions probably have low numbers because things are working. They're effectively acting as a check against the less moral aspects of capitalism. Therefore, they shouldn't be abolished just because you don't like giving them what they rightfully deserve.

In your dream and in a perfect world yes, otherwise no. Please tell me if the children of princess Diana are equal to a child born with HIV in black Africa, whose both parents are dead due to AIDS?

In human rights, they are.

I am guessing you are rather young and idealistic. You will grow out of both...

You wish.

They would agree with me, because they were just like me. They were rich, white, protestants, racist, sexist and they cared about independence because of BUSINESS. No taxation without representation, right?

Yeah. That stuff they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is just hot air, right?

OK, here we are in a political/history class not in church. So let's keep idealistic moralizing to a minimium, and by minimum, I mean zero.... :cool:

You wish to be immoral and get away with it. As long as your greed is satiated. Very interesting. This says a lot about your character.

From you middleclass workers. Corporations and rich people don't like to pay taxes and they have the brains and the means to avoid them...

Whatever the middle class pays in taxes doesn't get paid on your goods and services. Think about that.

OK, this is a secret again, so let's keep it between you and me.

Of course we could follow Brazil's example and switch to ethanol. But that would be bad for ME, big oilbusiness. And I am not stupid, I am not going to screw myself so just the people can be happy. The government is in my pocket. Now you could make a good argument that what is bad for the country, it is going to be bad for everybody in the long run.
Probably so. But my oilguys are rich thus their point of breaking is much higher then the average Americans. Right now it is a conflict of interest, and the American public is losing. As long as the people or the government can make us be interested in alternative resources, we won't try to switch.

Hey, after all we successfully killed the electric car!!

You can switch from being an oil company to an ethanol company. That's where the money will go, and you love money.

Again, we are not interested in morals, just in profits...

That much is obvious. Your greed is getting the best of you.

Man, anytime I think of war, I get a hard on. First we make a shitload of profit by bombing them back to the stoneage, then once we won, we make another disgusting profit (hey, $200 hammer anyone?) by rebuilding the same country....I just LOVE government orders...They sign the bills without looking at them....

I just love it when people show their true nature. :p

By the way, you're good. :eek:

Honeybun, you missed the operative word. It was THAT.
So, let's follow leftie logic according to Syzygys...

THAT is a logical argument, in and of itself, just as is is; whatever is is when it needs to be the situationally appropriate is.

THAT is that which is THAT when operatively not to be missed.

THAT is so is.

That is logic for lefties. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

So, let's follow leftie logic according to Syzygys...

THAT is a logical argument, in and of itself, just as is is; whatever is is when it needs to be the situationally appropriate is.

THAT is that which is THAT when operatively not to be missed.

THAT is so is.

That is logic for lefties. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

LOL

So,

Sweetheart, my Argu-meter failed to detect any argument in your post. Is it broken or there was really none in it? :eek:

Why don't you come back when you are ready? Until that, enjoy the Super Bowl....

You don't like unions because they prevent you from doing whatever the fuck you want.

You got it right, kiddo. I am just like a spoiled teenager, in a way... :cool:

Unions probably have low numbers because things are working.

OK, the dreamfest has to stop right here. Read the link I provided earlier. That explains just how ineffective the meatpacking unions were. The average salasry went down from $20 an hour to $10 in the last 30 years, and we didn't even account for inflation.

Yeah. That stuff they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is just hot air, right?

This is a little offtopic, but if you think about the every man created equal stuff. That's why women and blacks were treated equal right after the Declaration. Oh, sorry, they weren't, my bad...


You wish to be immoral and get away with it.

I am getting away with it. My hero is Dick Cheney. Come on, the guy shot his friend, and the friend had to apologize for it??? He keeps lying continuously, and W had to say he is just an optimist? He is my moral compass... :p

You can switch from being an oil company to an ethanol company.

In theory, it is not so bad idea. In reality it costs a lot of money. Until we still have oil I am not switching anywhere. Maybe in 30 years, or if I am forced....

Next topic?

Sweetheart, my Argu-meter failed to detect...
In Physics, it is said that "A good emitter is a good absorber."

Your meter tells us something quite different. :D

All we have to do is just set up a meeting ya know! We can like build a fire, and like hug and stuff. We can just set up a meeting with Iran and North Korea. We can sit down and talk and everything will be great! I we need to be helping Iran with energy man. You know save the environment. We should be feeding the koreans. Its not their fault the US is threating them with its huge Military complex. There is no proof of Nukes. They are just scared. We need to reach out to them. We could feed all the people of the earth you know. We need to just get rid of the military! All that money wasted that could be used for food and medicine for the world! All our military does is cause death and destruction of poor innocent minorities. The rich of this country hate the poor! You see it everywhere! I mean if we didnt have a Navy to protect the corporate globalization enities of the rich then we could have true peace and let everyone help each other out. We live in a world of fear because of the neocons force us into war and make boogie men out of everyone! The Russians are peacefull. The Chinese love everyone. The North Koreans would never invade the south! Its only because we are building these huge death bombs that they are forced to build armies to protect themselves from the rich white people of America! I pray my brother in love that we just all sit down and make peace. There is no need for an American military! Once we get rid of the military and start taxing the rich at a 99% rate then we can have universal healthcare for all mankind. All people should have houses. All people should have highpaying Union jobs. Everyone with a highschool education should make at least $100,000 a year. Even if they are janitors. A janitor should make the same amount of money as a CEO. they say that CEOs and business owners create jobs so they should get more money- Ridiculous! Its the worker who allows them to have those companies! Without workers there would be no CEOs! Its time for workers around the world to throw off the chains of slavery and stand up for their rights to make a minimum of $100,000 a year! Tacobell can afford to pay workers $100,000 a year. They say they cannot afford it but we know that its not true. Lies spread by accountants so that the rich can avoid paying taxes and keep us enslaved! Rise up! Protest! Take our nation back and if we take the first steps to peace then all the world will follow!

Wow, I just lost brain cells. Last time I think like a Liberal.

And you say conservatives lack logic LOL

Man, whatever you are drinking, please cut back on it!!!

Hey, I am on your side. Providing useful logical arguments, just in case you ever have to talk to a liberal, although you really shouldn't... :)

So no new topics? Well, I hope my Republican friends learnt the lesson, that yes, it IS possible to argue logically for your case, it just won't be very popular, because people can't handle the truth...

That's why they have religion, but hey I am getting offtopic...

mutt
i have always lied

So no new topics? Well, I hope my Republican friends learnt the lesson, that yes, it IS possible to argue logically for your case, it just won't be very popular, because people can't handle the truth...

That's why they have religion, but hey I am getting offtopic...

Ditto.

It's interesting that you should mention that people can't handle the truth. That's probably why there aren't more liberals around.

It's interesting that you should mention that people can't handle the truth. That's probably why there aren't more liberals around.
Such arrogance. This thread is annoying. State your own opinions. Attempt to use some logic there. Don't attempt to state mine. If you see illogic in my posts/opinions, point it out. Don't create straw men and take bows as you destroy them.

All we have to do is just set up a meeting ya know! We can like build a fire, and like hug and stuff. We can just set up a meeting with Iran and North Korea. We can sit down and talk and everything will be great! I we need to be helping Iran with energy man. You know save the environment. We should be feeding the koreans. Its not their fault the US is threating them with its huge Military complex. There is no proof of Nukes. They are just scared. We need to reach out to them. We could feed all the people of the earth you know. We need to just get rid of the military! All that money wasted that could be used for food and medicine for the world! All our military does is cause death and destruction of poor innocent minorities. The rich of this country hate the poor! You see it everywhere! I mean if we didnt have a Navy to protect the corporate globalization enities of the rich then we could have true peace and let everyone help each other out. We live in a world of fear because of the neocons force us into war and make boogie men out of everyone! The Russians are peacefull. The Chinese love everyone. The North Koreans would never invade the south! Its only because we are building these huge death bombs that they are forced to build armies to protect themselves from the rich white people of America! I pray my brother in love that we just all sit down and make peace. There is no need for an American military! Once we get rid of the military and start taxing the rich at a 99% rate then we can have universal healthcare for all mankind. All people should have houses. All people should have highpaying Union jobs. Everyone with a highschool education should make at least $100,000 a year. Even if they are janitors. A janitor should make the same amount of money as a CEO. they say that CEOs and business owners create jobs so they should get more money- Ridiculous! Its the worker who allows them to have those companies! Without workers there would be no CEOs! Its time for workers around the world to throw off the chains of slavery and stand up for their rights to make a minimum of $100,000 a year! Tacobell can afford to pay workers $100,000 a year. They say they cannot afford it but we know that its not true. Lies spread by accountants so that the rich can avoid paying taxes and keep us enslaved! Rise up! Protest! Take our nation back and if we take the first steps to peace then all the world will follow!Diplomacy takes skill and brains. It's a uniquely human art employed over our history on this planet. Republicans don't have skill or neither are they cerebral, just reactionary.
All the current world problems could be solved or greatly diminished by diplomacy. You shouldn't be so frightened of the rest of the world. If the USA were being invaded then of course one doesn't negotiate, as Iraqis are expected to do, you fight to the last man. In imperial wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc Man can use his skills, his brains and his courage and other elements that make us different than baboons, and end conflicts. Military might is always something championed by the weakest of minds, you are no exception.

Diplomacy takes skill and brains. It's a uniquely human art employed over our history on this planet. Republicans don't have skill or neither are they cerebral, just reactionary.
All the current world problems could be solved or greatly diminished by diplomacy.
You disprove you're own hypothesis.

Instead of artfully engaging Republicans in skillfully brainy conversational give-and-take, your prefered method of diplomatically relating to people of differing self-interests is to insult and ridicule them for not being as skillful and brainy as you.

I'm not seeing anything uniquely artful in your approach, or your analysis.

If you see illogic in my posts/opinions, point it out.

I would and will, but you haven't posted anything valuable in this thread.

For G-man: I can't see your posts because you are on Ignore, but I am sure they are dumb... :)

By the way Madanthony is heading into that direction too...

I would and will, but you haven't posted anything valuable in this thread.That's because I'm offended by this thread. I just pop in to bitch about it when I see it's bubbled up near the top of the list. I'm not that easy to offend, but something about this thread just pisses me off.
For G-man: I can't see your posts because you are on Ignore, but I am sure they are dumb... :)

By the way Madanthony is heading into that direction too...
Oh no!:eek:

That's because I'm offended by this thread.

Why don't you pick an issue, and we can try to debate about it? I think I dealt with 4 different topics, but you can pick a new one.

Of course you can be affraid of being proved wrong and illogical, but that is a chance that everbody has to take who tries to argue with me.... :)

Seriously, what is so offending about this thread? At least it is honest, not like most politicans or media....

Also, I did help you guys a lot providing good arguments against liberals. I never said they are going to be moral ones.... :eek:

Healthcare?

OK, finally something good. Healthcare.

First let's think about this: Why the USA is the only one among the Western industrialized countries without universal healthcare? Surely, one of the richest country could efford it...
Well, we the rulers/corporations love to fuck the people in the ass, straight and square. Big pharma has one of the highest profitratio (close to 20%) among all businesses. Imagine the government trying to regulate them or making let's say the AIDS coctail cheaper!! Now why would we give government subsidized or free healthcare to people when we don't have to?

Since this is a pretty big and complicated issue, here is an article from Fox News non-less:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188822,00.html

Hey here is a juicy tidbit from somewhere else:

"private insurance companies whose highest-paid CEO (at United Health) gets $122.7 million dollars a year - enough to cover the health care costs of roughly 34,000 American citizens."

Good analysis on the topic:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110705O.shtml

"America's health care system spends more, for worse results, than that of any other advanced country."

" Taiwan, which moved 10 years ago from a U.S.-style system to a Canadian-style single-payer system, offers an object lesson in the economic advantages of universal coverage. In 1995 less than 60 percent of Taiwan's residents had health insurance; by 2001 the number was 97 percent. Yet according to a careful study published in Health Affairs two years ago, this huge expansion in coverage came virtually free: it led to little if any increase in overall health care spending beyond normal growth due to rising population and incomes."

Draw your own conclusions...

P.S.: People are sheep, if you don't believe me, just check this out what we can get away with:

"The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607N.shtml

Here is a comparison with the Brits. In spite of spending half of what they spend here in the US, the Brits are healthier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200631.html

"The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607N.shtml

In the run-up to the invasion in 2003, the Pentagon's projected estimate of the total cost of the war was $50bn. A White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired by President Bush when he suggested that the total cost would be $200bn.

How silly of Lindsey!

Because health care in the US is incredibly expensive and no one wants to more taxes (except for the poor wouldnt have to pay the taxes). As far as Brits spending half as much- was that per person or the total amount of healthcare costs?

Yes Sweden has universal health care- its income tax is also 50%. No thank you.

Because health care in the US is incredibly expensive

Correct and now tell me why and tell me why do we still get such a shitty healthcare for so much money??

Correct and now tell me why and tell me why do we still get such a shitty healthcare for so much money??
People deserve the healthcare they can pay for, not the health care they want others to pay for.

People who can't afford their own healthcare can't afford mine. So why would they think I'd be willing to pay for mine and their's, too?

So many small-d Darwinists, it's embarassing.

Here is a comparison with the Brits. In spite of spending half of what they spend here in the US, the Brits are healthier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200631.html
I could have sworn I already replied to this post?:confused:

Anyway, from your own link:
Both said it might explain better health for low-income citizens, but can't account for better health of Britain's more affluent residents.

Marmot cautioned against looking for explanations in the two countries' health-care systems.
The article states that Brits have better health than Americans at all income levels. Clearly wealthy Americans are not lacking for healthcare. So why the difference?

Futhermore, our government can barely afford the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security systems we already have. You want to add to that burden?

On a personal note, as a healthcare provider, I would prefer not to be forced to become a defacto government employee.

I'm already a Medicare provider. I'm half thinking about dropping out of it because the paperwork is such a pain in the ass. I have been meaning to become a medicaid provider, but there is a thirty page application that I must fill out first. In triplicate. I've never quite made my way thru it.

With private pay patients, you see the patient, take the payment, and put it in the bank. With insurance companies, especially government funded ones, you see the patient. Fill out a multi-page form, mail it in, wait, recieve a denial. Spend time on the phone. Send in paperwork again, repeat ad nauseam. It sucks.

I'm a big fan of medical saving accounts. The patient puts pre-tax money in an account to cover the majority of his medical expenses and also carries a high deductable policy for catestrophic events. I have one myself, and I love when patients have one. Instead of a nightmare of paperwork, we just run their credit cards.

See, here is how illogical Republicans try to debate:

But a leaked letter obtained today by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) office reveals that conservatives have formulated a strategy to avoid talking about the central question of the debate.

In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: “The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.” Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate “the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”

------------

They could have just used my arguments, would have worked better...

Here is how you block unions forming. Good job, Dick!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/cheney-bush-labor/

P.S.: Nothing personal, we just don't like unions...

Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)

In this thread you can bring up any political issues and I will argue it factually and logically from the Republican side. One thing I can not promise is that I will be politically correct (PC).

So is there any takers? Name your issue (Iraq, minimum wage, abortion, whatever) and I will make a case for it...

Why are there so many anti-Americans in the world? Tell me Mr Republican

PS: Great thread btw

Why are there so many anti-Americans in the world?

Well, beside being the only superpower, America is also an empire. That means 2 things:

1. Most people don't like empires because an empire act (surprize!!!) on its OWN interest, and that is usually against most people's (not belonging to the empire) interest.

2. Usually an empire is so big (specially in today's shrinking world) that even if you try to be outside of its interest sphere, you simply can't. And anytime when the empire sneezes, you catch a cold....Now, nobody likes to catch a cold... :)

So it is really not anti-Americanism, but anti-globalism, anti-empire and anti-war. Oh yes, also anti-bullshit.... :bugeye:

P.S.: Who liked the British empire beside the brits, or the Sovietunion beside the Russians??? Hell, most people inside the Sovietunion hated the Russian influence...

Hey, I will explain peak oil for the sake of my fellow Republicans, quoting my personal hero, Richard Cheney, when he actually told the truth.

In short, the US government doesn't acknowledge OFFICIALLY the fact of peak oil, because that would immediatelly rise the question of what to do about it (beside invading other countries). And the common sense solution (switching to other energy sources) wouldn't be good for te real power players (big oil) of this country.

Now let's see the truth, straight from Dick's mouth:

"In a speech to the Institute of Petroleum in November 1999 he (Cheney) shed light on our front-page revelation - that in the wake of the occupation of Iraq, Western companies are to be let loose on its vast, and previously state-owned, oil reserves. Perhaps even more importantly he flagged up an impending crisis that the world urgently needs to grasp - that supplies of oil may be about to shrink alarmingly.

The "basic, fundamental building block of the world economy" was, he warned, in danger of becoming extremely scarce.

Estimates suggested that production from existing reserves would soon decline sharply, by 3 per cent a year, even as world demand for oil grew by 2 per cent. That meant that the world would soon need to be producing "an additional 50 million barrels a day", more than half as much again as the 82 million now being wrested from the ground.

"So where is this oil going to come from?" he asked. His answer: the Middle East was "where the prize ultimately lies". The problem was that "governments and national oil companies" controlled almost all of the "assets", and "even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow".

Lest there be any doubt about what was at stake, the man who was to become one of the most powerful proponents of the invasion of Iraq went on: "Oil is unique because it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear ... The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality."

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0107-24.htm

The full text of his speech:

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

Also very good with maps and charts:

http://prorev.com/bushwaroil.htm

Mr. Logical Republican, me being a U.S. soldier, what is your viewpoint on the united states involvement in iraq. Do you agree or disagree and why?

See post #15, already explained the Iraq war...

On a personal note specially for you:

I as a big corporate fatcat would like to thank your sacrifice for my special interest aka profits. It is amazing to me that even today people are signing up for patriotic reasons to fight in Iraq. If it was 2003 when we bullshitted the public with WMDs, that could be more understandable, but today???

Anyway, thanks again, and I promise you, if you get hurt, we will forget about you very fast in a Walter Reed way. After all, there is no good money in rehabilitation...

P.S.: If you wanted to earn good money, you should have signed up for our Blackwater securities company and you would have earned 5-10 times as much with possible less risk, as a private contr...., I mean mercenary...

See post #15, already explained the Iraq war...I did (and agree). It is clear you were at best a cynical logical Republican. - I bet you are not a sexy redhead either!:bawl:

Quack, quack... It is a North American duck...It is sexy if you have a shotgun...

I can still gladly explain any political issues from the view of the power players...

Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)

In this thread you can bring up any political issues and I will argue it factually and logically from the Republican side. One thing I can not promise is that I will be politically correct (PC).

So is there any takers? Name your issue (Iraq, minimum wage, abortion, whatever) and I will make a case for it...

Torture.

Torture? It is a tool for extracting information from unwilling patients.

Some argue it is not effective because the client might say anything that stops the torture, some argue that you do get good info. I guess the truth is in between...

I am not interested in the moral of torture, because I am interested in power and money and sexy redheads....

Next question?

Finally something juicy! Thanks.

Honestly, we (big corporations) LOVE illegal immigration, that's why nothing is being done about it. We could stop it in 5 mins, just by following Germany's example, when not the immigrant but the business employing them is fined so harshly, that they can not/dare not efford to do it.

Why do we love illegal immigrants? They are:
-dirt cheap
-non-unionized
-have no legal rights or representation
-basicly they are modern day slaves
-they are good for the economy, because they also spend money here
-they increase the number of people here, what wouldn't happen by natural birth

So we just love them, but it wouldn't be PC to tell you, so guys, this is a secret between me and you. OK?

Next...
I'm not sure I'm convinced by this, why do Republicans complain the most about immigration if they "secretly" like it?

I'm not sure I'm convinced by this, why do Republicans complain the most about immigration if they "secretly" like it?

Because people can't handle the truth? :bugeye:

You answered your question by the way. It is only a secret if they don't tell you, or even if they complain about it. (aka blowing smokes)

Didn't they also complain about WMDs in Iraq? ;)

Because people can't handle the truth? :bugeye:

You answered your question by the way. It is only a secret if they don't tell you, or even if they complain about it. (aka blowing smokes)

Didn't they also complain about WMDs in Iraq? ;)

No, I dont get why they would "pretend" to care about immigration, after all what good does complaining about it do other than to risk bringing in anti-immigration laws that cut it drastically?

They complained about WMD because they wanted people to believe invading Iraq was necessary to "protect" the US, and thus support the war.

No, I dont get why they would "pretend" to care about immigration, after all what good does complaining about it do other than to risk bringing in anti-immigration laws that cut it drastically?

Ok, there are 2 kinds:

1. One legitimly complains because they see the problems what illegal immigration causes. Like Lou Dobbs. I guess they are not getting the #2's points and profits.

2. The one who is perfectly happy with the current situation for reasons explained in the original post. Now 2 things could happen:

a/ Cut down seriously on ill. im. Then they obviously lose their slaves and all the advantages coming with it, like no rights, retirements, etc.
b/ Legalize it. The result the same, they have to pay more for labor.

Group #1 is either too powerless or clueless to do something about it, group #2 is happy with the status quo. Thus the complaining keeps going on and nothing happens in the maintime...


They complained about WMD because they wanted people to believe invading Iraq was necessary to "protect" the US, and thus support the war.

The same here. They complain about it so people believe that it is bad for them(lawmakers). It is bad for the people, not for the corporations...

Torture? It is a tool for extracting information from unwilling patients.

Some argue it is not effective because the client might say anything that stops the torture, some argue that you do get good info. I guess the truth is in between...

I am not interested in the moral of torture, because I am interested in power and money and sexy redheads....

Next question?

Some say torture has no place in a democracy where people should be protected from the government.

Some say torture has no place in a democracy where people should be protected from the government.

1. I don't really see the excusiveness of torture and democracy. What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended? Also we are talking about torturing the other side... :)

2. When was the US a democracy?

1. I don't really see the excusiveness of torture and democracy. What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended? Also we are talking about torturing the other side... :)


Once you start using methods that are not part of a enlightened democracy you are no democracy anymore. Hence 'What if democracy needs torture to survive/deffended?' is an impossibility.

We are getting offtopic here, but please provide any definition of democracy, where the question of torture is included or addressed.It is really irrelevant to the definition of democracy.

And again, a democracy can torture other countries' citizens, it won't get any less democracy. Just do a democratic poll on: Should a terrorist be tortured if we know he knows the location of a nuke in a big city? The majority will agree with the method>>>democratic decission...

Or here is a better one: Should a child's proven kidnapper be tortured to tell the location of the child, knowing if he doesn't tell, the kid will die in the hiding place?

Or here is a better one: Should a child's proven kidnapper be tortured to tell the location of the child, knowing if he doesn't tell, the kid will die in the hiding place?

no. It's against human rights to torture people.

no. It's against human rights to torture people.

someone should report the japanese police....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XLIlARgTz4

This is my last one for you, because we are way offtopic. I am happy to debate torture with you, in a different thread. I will of course, win...

no. It's against human rights to torture people.

1. So kidnapper lives, innocent child, dies. Congratulations. I thought death by exceptional cruelty (starving to death and thirst) was also against human rights, but I wouldn't know...

2. There are no objective human rights. They were made up by a bunch of people. Every human deserves as much rights as they can fight for...

Torture only knows losers.

Unbending rules are pointless. There are always situations where ANYTHING might be an acceptable necessity. They are rare, but they do exist.

A known terrorist has information that can unlock the secret to a plot to nuke a city.

Fine, tortue may be necessary. I doubt such occasions come up regularly, but when they do, it pays to have flexible rules that can be maneuvered around an enemy that may otherwise use the unbending ones against a peaceful population. To claim ad hominem that "enlightened nations don't torture" is idiotic. It's like saying, "only enlightened people never kill" which negates the necessity of killing in self defense. There is always the possibility of an extreme situation that can justify extreme measures.

People love unbending rules-- especially extremists (ultra conservatives and ultra liberals) because they force others to be just like them, and extremists want nothing more than conformity to their ideals. Unbending rules are also the recourse of a lazy mind because it relieves said adhearant of the necessity to think out a strategy... and more imporatantly the requirement to take responsibility for his/her actions. It wasn't MY fault, the rules said to do it! People love to be blameless, and unbending rules create the aura of blamelessness... innocence. Unbending rules are a weakness and deny the adhearant the ability (and the responsibility) to act according to the situation at hand. An unbending rule invariably continues until an extreme situation arrises where far too many people are put at risk to the unthinking rule and you get one of two things-- anarchy or (hopefully) an informed re-evaluation of said policy.

Sly quips or witty rejoinders prove nothing. At the end of the day, I will take the sound judgement of a human mind in extreme situations to any unbending rule any day. Who decides what a sound judgement is? We do. It's not a perfect situation, it never can be... but it's preferable to the abandonment of who we are to an unbending and unthinking dogma.

~String

Hey, String! Welcome to Sciforums! Finally somebody who could give me a run for my money, but won't, because we will agree on pretty much everything... :)

Great minds think alike!

Hey, String! Welcome to Sciforums! Finally somebody who could give me a run for my money, but won't, because we will agree on pretty much everything... :)

Great minds think alike!

LOL. Thanks. I love this place. I've been peruzing numerous fora for a year now trying to find a good one [stretches out legs and belches]... yup... I'll stick around for a while.

~String

Unbending rules are pointless. There are always situations where ANYTHING might be an acceptable necessity. They are rare, but they do exist.

Terrorists wouldn't be interested in nuking a city if it belonged to a country that didn't bend the rules.

Fine, tortue may be necessary. I doubt such occasions come up regularly, but when they do, it pays to have flexible rules that can be maneuvered around an enemy that may otherwise use the unbending ones against a peaceful population. To claim ad hominem that "enlightened nations don't torture" is idiotic. It's like saying, "only enlightened people never kill" which negates the necessity of killing in self defense.
Thats all very good, except the "enemy" is often portrayed as torturers, abusers of human rights etc. Hence "they" are 'evil' and "we" are 'good'. When you find yourself employing the same tactics they use, what does that say? Are you standing up for "civilisation" any more? Or simply self preservation at any cost?

And I'm not sure torture is an efficient way to get the truth. The victim is likely to say whatever the think they need to do to stop it - even if its to lie. And how do you know you even have the right guy? Is it acceptable to risk torturing an innocent person in case he's guilty?

Again, torture and democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.... One has nothing to do with the other...

Hell, a democracy could use torture just as part of punishment...

Again, torture and democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.... One has nothing to do with the other...

Hell, a democracy could use torture just as part of punishment...
I didn't even mention democracy.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (of the United Nations) proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 5 (Universal declaration of human rights).

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I was refering to Spurious. Since I already said what was there to be said on the topic, let's keep moving on, there is nothing to see here people...

Why? Because you can't come up with a logical position?

Terrorists wouldn't be interested in nuking a city if it belonged to a country that didn't bend the rules.

Oh sure. The world would be a perfect utopian society IF ONLY The USA would stop breaking the rules. (one short, unproven quip deserves another)

IT's not like Islam doesn't call for worldwide expansion, after all!

Thats all very good, except the "enemy" is often portrayed as torturers, abusers of human rights etc. Hence "they" are 'evil' and "we" are 'good'. When you find yourself employing the same tactics they use, what does that say? Are you standing up for "civilisation" any more? Or simply self preservation at any cost?

And I'm not sure torture is an efficient way to get the truth. The victim is likely to say whatever the think they need to do to stop it - even if its to lie. And how do you know you even have the right guy? Is it acceptable to risk torturing an innocent person in case he's guilty?

It's perfectly efficient. The lasting cry of the liberal is that "torture doesn't work". Torture works when it's confined to verifiable situations. Your imagination has you thining that it's people being electricuted at random to extract information. One of two tortures are prefered-- water boarding (which the Bush-hating ABC newscasters already showed in preventing several terrorist attacks on the US) and neuro-stimulators (trick the nerves into believing they are being burned, when they arent).

Look. This isn't an arguement for an all out bloodbath. People are so obsessed with an all encompassing, unbending rule. That's moronic. And to claim that the bad guys would just turn around and be rosie-eyed good guys if ONLY "we" would stop slamming the door, is sophomoric logic at it's pinnacle.

Am I defending the Bush admin. No. I'm not a Bush fan (note: I'm a gay agnostic man, the Republicans haven't been exactly kind to us). What I am saying is that we live in a world that loves to outmaneuver free countries because of their rules preventing them from taking measures to defend themselves. Thankfully I live in a country that has enough common sense to see otherwise.

Again, we're back to unbending rules. Why is it so important to have a rule with no acceptions? All the rules YOU live by have exceptions. Don't steal right? But if you kid were starving to death, you bet you'd steal. Don't kill, right? Well, if a guy threatened to rape and kill your wife/daughter, you'd better kill the bastard. Don't lock people in metal cages, right? Well, we do it as a punnishment for people who commit crimes (prison). There are always exceptions to rules.

We live every moment of our lives on the precipice, between good or bad. IT's natural to attempt to create some form of a firewall against the bad-- those are rules of law. The problem is that the rule of law invariably leaves out extraordinary situations which require extraordinary measures. You can NEVER write enough laws to encompass all situations (see: EU Constitution). Therefore, when a situation arrises that requires the circumventing of a law, you are forced to make an exception.

NOT, for simple lazieness or pleasure. You make the exception to the law because NOT making the exception to the law holds greater hazards than just blindly following it. Blind obedience to laws is what Europe has begun to do. Spouting, "the law must be obeyed... the law is the law." Upholding their blamelessness... their innocence to the world and it's people-- "Look, the people of Europe did the GOOD thing, we upheald the law!" How proud an accomplishment that must be. Wow... you blindly followed your new religion-- the law. Blind obedience to a dogma-- now what could be MORE descriptive of Europe! First it was Catholicism, then subplanted by Socialism, Fascism and Communism... now it's blind obedience to a faceless, unthinking law. I will always prefer the judgement of individual minds, even bad ones, to that of an unbending dogma.

The law, however, is nothing but a guideline, to be followed at the best of times. What happens when events occur that threaten all or part of your socity, but to thwart them reuquires you to break the law. Do you allow people to pass into annihilation simply because of some mindless obedience to a law? The law serves the people, not the other way around. When people beging to live and die at the service of a law, that's the beginning of the end, to freedom and to individuality (see-- Nazism, Communism). Yes, they too tortured people-- but they did so as a MATTER of social justice. These senarios aren't a matter of social justics-- they are rare examples of a need to ensure the safety of a nation from attack by an enemy force.

How do we decide? How can there be examples! WE NEED ANOTHER LAW! Ahhh, the battle cry of the extremist. Fixed laws are a recorse for lazy minds-- we don't want to have to actually THINK out each situation and take responsibility for each situation. We'd rather refer to a fixed law and regurgitate it on cue. It's the law... it must be followed! How usefull that must be, instead of having to take the bull by the balls and make the REAL tough decisions. How lazy we people are. A law, a rule... a dogma can be followed to one's own destruction. And often has.

Let me give you an example of SOMETHING we are going to see in our lives: viral and or nano technology leaking to a third world country. What do you do if you discover Iran or North Korea is developing self replicating nanites** or a horrific desease that has the potential to wipe out millions or billions? Don't fool yourself into thinking that they aren't working on such technologies. North Korea certainly is. What happens if you find out that they are nearing the end of their research, but don't know the exact locations of where they are doing the research. Nuclear weapons may be the only answer. What's the alternative? Talks? HA! Threats? No, the alternative is the demise of humanity.

You see, there are ALWAYS exceptions when survival comes into play. Survival is the basist goal of any nation. All else is a house of cards in comparison. I for one, like living and I hold my country to the obligation of ensuring it against any and all threats.

~String

__________________________________________________ __
**Prince Charles, Emperor Akihito, Bill Gates and other world and industrial leaders are already warning that THIS senario is the most eminent threat to our survival in the next century. They have met several times to discuss the implications of the possibility of a "grey goo" formed of self replicating nanites gettind freed in the environment. The result-- annihilation.

Why? Because you can't come up with a logical position?


Oh boy... You asked me to discuss torture, I did. Then you object on the base of democracy. I pointed out that torture itself is irrelevant to the definition of democracy (also pointed out that the US is not really a democracy so your objection wouldn't apply anyway). Then you come with human rights, which again is rather irrelevant to the discussion.

But just to statisfy your need for a closure here it is from a power player:

Torture is right when I am doing it to you, and wrong when you want to torture my soldiers.

There you have it. Happy? Was it logical enough? :)

P.S.: It was based on the "The might is just" rule of life...

Torture is right when I am doing it to you, and wrong when you want to torture my soldiers.
Thats what I'm getting at. Of course when 'they' do it its wrong, when 'we' do it, its right.....

Blind obedience to laws is what Europe has begun to do. Spouting, "the law must be obeyed... the law is the law." Upholding their blamelessness... their innocence to the world and it's people-- "Look, the people of Europe did the GOOD thing, we upheald the law!" How proud an accomplishment that must be. Wow... you blindly followed your new religion-- the law.
Where on earth did you get this idea?

I make stuff up.

No really. It seems to me (from reading up on european political trends) that there is a desire to replace all common sense with legislation. It's a sad trend that seems to be catching on here in the USA.

~String

I make stuff up.

No really. It seems to me (from reading up on european political trends) that there is a desire to replace all common sense with legislation. It's a sad trend that seems to be catching on here in the USA.

~String

catching on? we invented that shit!

Oh sure. The world would be a perfect utopian society IF ONLY The USA would stop breaking the rules. (one short, unproven quip deserves another)

Exactly.


IT's not like Islam doesn't call for worldwide expansion, after all!

Indeed, it doesn't.

Torture is right when I am doing it to you, and wrong when you want to torture my soldiers.

Where is the logic in that?

I am going to challenge MYSELF that I can keep answering the upcoming question on torture with my QUOTES...

Where is the logic in that?

I already said that:


P.S.: It was based on the "The might is just" rule of life...

Dr. Spock still sees no logic. 'The might is just' as a rule of life isn't a logical position.

I haven't seen a logical argument supporting that 'The might is just' is a rule of life. I have seen no logical support that says there are rules of life.

I make stuff up.

No really. It seems to me (from reading up on european political trends) that there is a desire to replace all common sense with legislation. It's a sad trend that seems to be catching on here in the USA.

~String

Common sense is really reliable. That's why we dispensed of it in science. :itold:

I will explain gun control in view of the VT shootings:

First the data:

"The National Rifle Association last year spent $US5.1 million ($6 million) supporting some political candidates and attacking others. The independent Political Moneyline website reported that 85 per cent of that expenditure went to Republican Party candidates.
“The gun lobby in this country is very aggressive,” said Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel died in the Columbine massacre. “They really punish people who don’t vote their way.”"

So on one side we have a very powerful lobby and pro-gun people who actually vote, and on the other side the people who would be for gun control, but they don't tend to vote.

Thus for ANY politican it is a high risk and very low reward to take on the NRA and to advocate gun control, even if the majority of the people were for it...

Thus nothing ever changes. Congress let the ban on assault rifles expire back in 2004...

Raping the Dead.

Hey, I thought I would explain the "liberal" media. Of course there is no such a thing, I invented it for boogie man purposes.

In both war and sport, you should always PRIZE your enemy/opponent. Why? To play it safe: if you win, you won against a strong opponent, if you lose, you lost to a stronger and worthy enemy. Who wants to lose to a weak adversary???

Also, just like there was NEVER a missile- or a submarine gap (I invented those too) in history, it was good to bitch about it and build up an even BIGGER arsenal of those weapon systems. History later showed the truth, but who cared for it by then??? I LOVED when the Russians actually managed to put up the first Sputnik! They had an advantage!! (perfect boogie man). I never got such a big government orders than back then...

So what is the deal with the media? Of course ALL major media outlets are in my hands, which is major corporations. We are NEVER liberal. But crying wolf helps us in 2 ways:

1. People actually believe that there is democracy and freedom of expression.
2. We can bitch about it continuously and build an even bigger and more conservative network...

There is such a thing as a beautiful world. Oh yes, and stupid, easily misled people too... :)

Hey, I thought I would explain the "liberal" media. Of course there is no such a thing, I invented it for boogie man purposes.

In both war and sport, you should always PRIZE your enemy/opponent. Why? To play it safe: if you win, you won against a strong opponent, if you lose, you lost to a stronger and worthy enemy. Who wants to lose to a weak adversary???

Also, just like there was NEVER a missile- or a submarine gap (I invented those too) in history, it was good to bitch about it and build up an even BIGGER arsenal of those weapon systems. History later showed the truth, but who cared for it by then??? I LOVED when the Russian actually managed to put up the first Sputnik! They had an advantage!! (perfect boogie man). I never got such a big government orders than back then...
So what is the deal with the media? Of course ALL major media outlets are in my hands, which is major corporations. We are NEVER liberal. But crying wolf helps us in 2 ways:
1. People actually believe that there is democracy and freedom of expression.
2. We can bitch about it continiously and build an even bigger and more conservative network...
There is such a thing as a beautiful world. Oh yes, and stupid, easily misslead people too... :)Just thought you would like to know, this post qualifies for posting in my thread "How DUMB can US Voters Be?"

Well, as dumb as they are, they are actually not responsible for electing Bush, let's give them credit.

OK, I will explain the last 2 elections:

1. The majority of people actually voted for Gore, but I had the Supreme court in my pocket and we just wanted it more badly than the Dems, also we have better lawyers so we won. The Florida trick wasn't well managed. Damn....

2. This time we played it safe with the Diebold machines. Thus the majority of people actually voted for Kerry, but we made the voting machines and the rest is history...Memo for the future: only close elections can be stolen, because of the slight discrepancy. Otherwise it would be too obvious, although I tend to think that it doesn't matter anyway...(exit polls are actually ACCURATE, but in America nobody understands basic math)

Would you ever support a Democrat?

Sure. There is NO difference. Haven't I already explained the one party system? Check how many Dem candidates are actually against the war. (Hint: Kucinich)

Nobody is saying: I am going to withdraw the troops no matter what. They always say: I am going to withdraw them as soon as X...

Where X is an unrealistic goal, or when oil runs out in Iraq.

P.S.: I wouldn't just support a Democrat, but we always do. Most corporations fund BOTH parties. Just to play it safe. We call it insurance money, not that we don't get a good return on that investment...

Well, as dumb as they are, they are actually not responsible for electing Bush, let's give them credit.
OK, I will explain the last 2 elections:
1. The majority of people actually voted for Gore, but I had the Supreme court in my pocket and we just wanted it more badly than the Dems, also we have better lawyers so we won. The Florida trick wasn't well managed. Damn....
2. This time we played it safe with the Diebold machines. Thus the majority of people actually voted for Kerry, but we made the voting machines and the rest is history...Memo for the future: only close elections can be stolen, because of the slight discrepancy. Otherwise it would be too obvious, although I tend to think that it doesn't matter anyway...(exit polls are actually ACCURATE, but in America nobody understands basic math)Nice try, but I do not allow consective posts by same person in my thread. :D

Hey, if we are at it, I will explain the NEXT election:

As candidates go, we are rather screwed, let's face it. This is the first election for decades when there is no shoe-in candidate as a VIP or reelection. Thus it is a free for all and anybody can run.

Well, we are not happy with the choices we have. McCain is just too uncontrolable and not very electable due to his sticking to W. Rudy is too far on the left to our base. Romney would be good, but why he has to believe in false gods??? So there is not a good, god-fearing Christian fellow...

We would like to run Florida Bush, but his name is tainted and poisonous, so he might get to be the VIP. The rest of the candidates are fillers.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be such a bad idea actually losing the election. The shit is going to hit the fan soon, and why not let to have the blame for it? The main goals behind electing Bush (taxcuts and Iraq invasion) are already achieved, so this is a win-win situation really. We either got our guy (most likely Romney) elected or the "other side" of us wins, gets blamed for even longer staying in Iraq, inflation and the rest, and in 4 years Florida Bush will be ready to take over...

Since I am getting tired of rightwingers here not being able to construct a logical argument, I would like to help them out. (ain't I nice?)

In this thread you can bring up any political issues and I will argue it factually and logically from the Republican side. One thing I can not promise is that I will be politically correct (PC).

So is there any takers? Name your issue (Iraq, minimum wage, abortion, whatever) and I will make a case for it...

How come Republicans don't reach out to Black Voters?

Hehe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22find+a+logical+republican%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Priceless!!! :p

Sodium Pentothal, no torture needed.

How come Republicans don't reach out to Black Voters?

What is the point?

Sam, google "logical republican" and you will get this thread as first hit! :)

So I am the #1 logical Republican! Feel free to ask anything.... :p

Also, Gany, would you stop posting huge quotes from others, specially when they are offtopic? Thanks...

What is the point?

Sam, google "logical republican" and you will get this thread as first hit! :)

So I am the #1 logical Republican! Feel free to ask anything.... :p

Also, Gany, would you stop posting huge quotes from others, specially when they are offtopic? Thanks...

Yessa Massa!

How come Republicans don't reach out to Black Voters?What is the point?

Aren't Republicans "tough on crime"? There could be an angle there to get votes. Sure, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, but then again most of it is against other blacks (80%? or there abouts?). Those victims must be just as pissed off about high rates of crime as anyone else, or more so. :shrug:

. Sure, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime

Depends on the crime. Are we talking all crime, or just "street" crimes? More people are effected everyday from corporate crimminals then they're by "street" crimminals.

Traditionally, the Dems get the black votes, and it looks like the Reps and everybody else takes this for granted, so much so that the Reps never really tried to get the black vote.
My reasoning for this is these:

1. It is relative easy to disenfranchise the black voter, because there are so many in prison, and they don't sign up when they move, etc.

2. I think black people vote less than other groups.

3. It looks like the Reps are going for the Latino vote now. With this immigration law they sure got their hearts. Also Latinos outnumber blacks since last year.

Depends on the crime. Are we talking all crime, or just "street" crimes? More people are effected everyday from corporate crimminals then they're by "street" crimminals.

True, but if Syzygys represents the corporates, I'm sure he'd rather have less attention paid to corporate crime.

1. It is relative easy to disenfranchise the black voter, because there are so many in prison, and they don't sign up when they move, etc.

Blacks are arrested at a higher rate then whites, for committing the same crimes. Here's proof.

The disproportionate rates at which black drug offenders are sent to prison originate in ra