Why I might vote for Barack

[insider trading]

Quote from traderNik:

The logical outcome of that line of thinking is that no statement can ever be shown to be racist.

It's statements like that which (rightly, in my mind) set the right's teeth on edge. As a former leftie who is being dragged to the right, it isn't pleasant for me to say it, but that's the kind of relativistic thinking that is undermining the left's credibility. When Reverend Wright said that AIDS was a planned operation, he didn't mean 'planned by blacks'. If your response is 'He never explicitly said it was Whites', you should send a PM to a member here called ZZZzzzzzzz, go down to San Diego, and have a pow-wow. Undoubtedly you and he would find much to discuss.

Of Course Wright didn't mean HIV was planned by blacks,he meant it was planned by the same people that planned and carried out the Tuskegee experiments

He meant it was planned by the same people that force soldiers to take experimental anthrax vaccines even though there is evidence it might be harmful

There are numerous ex CIA officials and covert operation officials that has claimed that all kinds of experimental biological and chemical studies were done on them so i don't believe that Wright was just being racist when he made his aids comments

 

[insider trading]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You're weak connecting the dots.

Besides the fact that Paul and Palin have a serial correlation of about .9 and Paul-Obama -.9 you like the insipid BuyHigh SellLow must not know much about Ron Paul.

Read this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

If the U.S. continues to RAISE FEDERAL TAXES-Alaska is going to secede. Period. Do you think some young guy freezing his ass off making 2k a week as a fisherman or oil worker is going to SERF half his paycheck so his hard earned money can subsidize an unproductive goverment worker in D.C? A place he's never even visited? These Obama/Democrat leftests are in the LAST CENTURY. Big Brother is the last man in government standing. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Even liberal Californians are questioning the whole Federal tax gig. Their state and local governments are broke yet Washington SUCKS every extra penny from them. They've had it. If California taxed at Federal rates they'd be in paradise. Instead the richest state in the nation is on fiscal life support. Obama in turn wants MORE of their money for NATIONAL policies. Good luck making that happen.

Obama is going to have higher tax rates for those that make over 250,000



Most people in Californian or Alaska don't make over 250,000

Whats the cost of Republican supposed lower taxes when you factor in how much the Republicans has devalued the american dollar and raised the country's debt and will continue to do so


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html



B19119. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2006 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) BY FAMILY SIZE - Universe: FAMILIES
Data Set: 2006 American Community Survey
Survey: 2006 American Community Survey, 2006 Puerto Rico Community Survey


California Estimate Margin of Error
Total: 64,563 +/-413
2-person families 60,032 +/-524
3-person families 64,766 +/-854
4-person families 74,801 +/-868
5-person families 64,132 +/-1,356
6-person families 61,348 +/-1,096
7-or-more-person families 68,030 +/-2,050


Alaska Estimate Margin of Error
Total: 69,872 +/-2,371
2-person families 66,125 +/-3,009
3-person families 70,378 +/-7,818
4-person families 71,781 +/-6,553
5-person families 84,085 +/-6,876
6-person families 68,818 +/-12,411
7-or-more-person families 71,250 +/-12,798

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from bigdavediode:
I'd like to see which quote you feel was racist rather than the more general discussion of right/left as defined in someone else's head.

My point is not about this argument. My point has to do with the semiotics of the statement you made.

You said

Anything can be construed as anything by those who want to put in the effort.

I am simply pointing out that the dialectically logical end of that line of reasoning is that no statement can ever be said to be racist because anyone can challenge the conclusion that it's racist simply by saying ‘You can construe that any way you want’, thus excluding the possibility that a particular statement can only be logically interpreted in one way. This is a hallmark of radical left thinking, and a pillar of PC theory, in which all special interest groups must be accommodated. All of this can be found in the PC bible, which is the guidebook for a trek down the road of moral relativism as practiced by the idiotic alcoholic Troll ZZZzzzzzzz.

Hope this is clear to you. I was simply commenting on your response and the form it took. With regard to Reverend Wright, there is plenty of material available on his teachings. You will either look it up, study it and draw your own conclusions, or not.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from traderNik:

My point is not about this argument. My point has to do with the semiotics of the statement you made.

You said

Anything can be construed as anything by those who want to put in the effort.

I am simply pointing out that the dialectically logical end of that line of reasoning is that no statement can ever be said to be racist because anyone can challenge the conclusion that it's racist simply by saying �You can construe that any way you want�, thus excluding the possibility that a particular statement can only be logically interpreted in one way.

On the contrary, you've reversed the statement. I said that any statement can be construed to be racist, not that no statement can be construed to be racist, by someone who wishes to.

Find someone irrational enough and the statement "I like pies" can be twisted into some racist phrase.

This is a hallmark of radical left thinking, and a pillar of PC theory, in which all special interest groups must be accommodated.

Umm... okay. I believe at this point your wheels have left the railroad.

All of this can be found in the PC bible, which is the guidebook for a trek down the road of moral relativism as practiced by the idiotic alcoholic Troll ZZZzzzzzzz.

Hope this is clear to you. I was simply commenting on your response and the form it took. With regard to Reverend Wright, there is plenty of material available on his teachings. You will either look it up, study it and draw your own conclusions, or not.

I looked it up, and there isn't overt racism. Craziness, yes, but not racism.

And you have been unable to supply examples, however your discussion of logic has been an excellent opportunity for those at home to examine both the logical fallacies of hasty generalization, and also argumentum ad ignoratium.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from insider trading:


I Understand Wrights anger,this was a man who was a US Marine who could not eat in the same restaurants as whites.I Understand that generation.Obama was not a part of that generation and there is no record of him speaking the words that Wright spoke or that he agreed with him.Many just understand the anger that pre civil rights Blacks have and move on Just as I know what my ancestors did was wrong and I move on.

Umm, should we be angry about the extreme racism practiced by black voters? What do you think would happen if McCain got 93% of the WHITE vote? The press call them racist?

Well, that is sort of what black voters are doing!!!!!!!!

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from bigdavediode:
On the contrary, you've reversed the statement. I said that any statement can be construed to be racist, not that no statement can be construed to be racist, by someone who wishes to.

You seem to be having some reading comprehension difficulties. If you say that 'any statement can be construed to be racist' (incipient moral relativism) then those of us who do say 'statement x is racist' can always be rebutted by you (the moral relativist) saying 'It's not racist - anything can be construed as racist if you try'. Therefore no statement can ever be said to be racist

Get it now?

I was saying that if we follow your line of reasoning, then

Quote from traderNik:
... no statement can ever be said to be [please note I did not say 'construed to be' here - it is crucial if you're going to follow this discussion] racist because anyone can challenge the conclusion that it's racist simply by saying ‘You can construe that any way you want’, thus excluding the possibility that a particular statement can only be logically interpreted in one way

Ahhh... I've never in 6 years had an actual, legitimate reason to quite myself!! (I may have done it, but not without such a good reason ).

Anyhow, it's inadvisable to get into a battle of wits with me, as both this and the summa/magna howler show. Best just to try to put your arguments in the best way you know how and ignore my posts.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from bigdavediode:
I looked it up, and there isn't overt racism. Craziness, yes, but not racism.

And you have been unable to supply examples, however your discussion of logic has been an excellent opportunity for those at home to examine both the logical fallacies of hasty generalization, and also argumentum ad ignoratium.

I can tell that our brief exchanges are going to be permanently at an end soon, but just to reiterate, I was not making a comment on this Reverend Wright's statements (although if I were to comment on them, I would say that there is strong evidence that some of them are racist). I was making a comment on your intellectually weak statement that 'anything can be construed to be racist if you try hard enough'. Not sure how much more clearly I can put this

 

[Trader666]

Democrats were pushing for the .25% transaction tax... vote for Obama if you you want the unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid dreaming up all kinds of great ideas like this for the "good of the people."

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from traderNik:

I can tell that our brief exchanges are going to be permanently at an end soon,

Verbosity does not adequately replace rationality.

 

[huh]

Quote from John_Wensink:

Well,


Bush is the worst president in history and has been enabled by the republican congress.

I would have to disagree with this. I think there have been much worse presidents in US history, but the house/senate/president combination for the past 8 years has been the worst I've experienced. Most people seem to blame the Iraq war for being the reason why "bush is the worst president in history," but you have to remember this isnt' a dictatorship!....Congress gave him the go ahead including demoncrats!

So if bush is an "idiot" than what do you call a congressman that was convinced to go to war by an "idiot"? So bush is not responsible for all this, every member of our government is responsible for the failures of the last 8 years!

If anything, 2000 - 2006 has showed me just how bad having a single party control the house/senate/and presidency can be which only makes me cringe more to think what would happen with a dem house/senate/presidency considering the economic situation we are in.

With Obama still wanting new spending with a possible trillion dollar deficit next year and McCain still grasping to his retarded tax cuts in the face of massive deficits, the least dangerous avenue seems to be a deadlocked washington with dems holding house and senate while McCain runs the ink dry on his veto pen....(although he even screwed up his chances with this Palin circus).

If only a candidate would grow a pair and say I NEED to raise your taxes not for more socialist spending but because taking a HELOC loan on the USA every year from CHINA IS NOT GOING TO END WELL!......Unfortunately we seem to be a nation of subprime borrowers who spend and spend on what we can't afford.....would never accept a candidate who tells the truth.