Yes, yes. Any school with famous liberals who graduated are now completely invalid as educational institutions. That's how you get around that one. Harvard Law is a crap school. So here are the conservative graduates who also don't have a valid degree according to you:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Justice Antonin Scalia
George W. Bush
William Bennett
Henry Paulson
Bill Frist
Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens
Mitt Romney
Alan Keyes
Lou Dobbs
Bill O'Reilly

Man... too bad they must all be idiots... and they clearly don't have a grasp on being "American".

Do you ever stop and think before you say things like that?

You don't get to invalidate someone's academic achievement because you politically disagree with them... Well, you can, but it just makes you look incredibly stupid. There's something horribly wrong with people who look down on someone's intelligence despite graduating from one of the elite colleges in the US because they disagree with them. Ridiculous...

Sarah Palin can really galvanize and lead, eh?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/palin-unfavorable-rating-reaches-new-high/

What, are all polls now liberally biased, too?!

And nice try attempting to make this about how well Obama has done as President. That wasn't the debate. You said Palin is just as smart, if not smarter, than Obama. She's not. Period. You can't even sanely argue that she is. She's of average to above average intelligence overall, but sorely lacks knowledge of the economy, foreign policy, and other crucial topics needed to be a good president. Plain and simple. Your political leanings shouldn't cloud that assessment. There are plenty of right wingers who also can accept Palin just isn't smart, and Obama is.

Bonus: The only person who brought up Al Gore is you. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is you saying idiotic things flying in the face of simple facts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Did you seriously just say Obama's intellect is comparable to Palin's?!
Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist who sat in a hate-Whitey church for 20-plus years. His Earness is endlessly promoted by His media lackeys, so a fair comparison is not possible.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Look, gaffes aside, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD magna cum laude. Palin took six years to get a bachelor's degree in communications bouncing around from school to school to get it!
You might have had a point when Harvard wasn't a politically-correct degree mill. Speaking of kollij, we will never see Obama's kollij papers to know his genius even then. Community organizer? Do you even need higher education to become a rabble-rousing 'activist'?
Dude, if the conservative/libertarian ideology concluded the world is flat, would you spout that crap, too?! In fact, your beloved Ron Paul wouldn't tell Obama he's not smart enough to be president.
I don't need any labels to denounce His Earness. I merely observe the results of his incompetence (or genius, for those promoting the one-world illuminati worldview). His results are indefensible by any metric you care to name.
Just ridiculous. I get you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean you should ignore basic fact. And I'm sorry, but she's simply not smart enough to be president. This has nothing to do with her ideology. Plenty of conservative politicians are out there who have the intellectual capacity to be president, but she's not one of them.
Due to an unfortunate media-created outbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome, your observation cannot be quantified. Anyone here think Joe Biden is smart enough to operate a doorknob much less be President?
BONUS NO. 2 -- "Who are these people?" -- mid-90s Vice President and supergenius Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin during a tour of Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson.

>> ^vairetube:
you guys are just now noticing that all QM does is try to cause agitation?
Dunno why he's not banned in the first place other than he's not really deserving of the infamy.
But feel free to ban him so he can join the ranks of the liveleak trolls.
Such types of comments couldnt make the situation any clearer... he's not going to stop, and maybe he can't. Maybe it's an obsession to have his paranoia proven wrong.
He does seem to be obsessed with the following notion:
“The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong.”
But he's forgetting a key characteristic from that scenario is missing in reality -- no one is trying here - they are just flat out succeeding. His fantasy of Validation will occur with his banning. Give him, and every other person tired of his bullshit, an early Christmas present. Win win.


^My god, apparently someone's taken quite a liking to the new and improved linking system.

you guys are just now noticing that all QM does is try to cause agitation?

Dunno why he's not banned in the first place other than he's not really deserving of the infamy.

But feel free to ban him so he can join the ranks of the liveleak trolls.

Such types of comments couldnt make the situation any clearer... he's not going to stop, and maybe he can't. Maybe it's an obsession to have his paranoia proven wrong.

He does seem to be obsessed with the following notion:

“The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong.”

But he's forgetting a key characteristic from that scenario is missing in reality -- no one is trying here - they are just flat out succeeding. His fantasy of Validation will occur with his banning. Give him, and every other person tired of his bullshit, an early Christmas present. Win win.

I'll close with this one, it's late and as I said earlier I don't plan to offer you another day, I was surprised that you got this one but I was bored and it has been fun in a weird sort of way. Guess I was in the mood. You have fun with it if you can find a partner for it though.

To the point though. Remember the point I started this thread with? I'll remind you so you don't have to look back again. "Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate? You're jumping through hoops trying to disprove accusations about Obama because he claims you need to meet a burden of proof that he's not guilty of those things but he's yet to offer any proof that Alan Keyes isn't batshit insane."

If you didn't understand that I had no intention of letting you set the terms of the debate I'm sorry, but that was clear from the start. You say what you think matters, I say what I think matters, and if it goes like politics generally does in this nation we'll both probably ignore the other and declare victory. Yeah for process, right?

Personally I see your "shot down" as a cry that you want the services, but not the tax, you want the privilege but not the burden of supporting it, you want it here, now and today and by the way none of it's your fault because you were just born here and somehow you think that was a point which answered something [edit to clarify:other than that you don't want to pay for it. Where's it come from then?]. To paraphrase you here, doing something like that then trying to claim victory for it while an effective way to protect your ego, is a rather uninteresting way to debate.

Lots of others weren't happy the last few years, now you're not happy along with a whole new group of others. These things happen, you'll get used to it and it doesn't last forever. Politics always seems to go in cycles.

If you'd like to claim victory now would be a good time, have fun

You're forced by law only if you live here, you could always move. US expats are all over the world enjoying various other forms of government, some involve zero tax or very low tax. If you're paying taxes here there's one of two reasons. You've decided to stay and enjoy the benefits but want to complain about the cost anyway, or you're too young to move and need to blame your parents instead. Go ahead and blame them, I'll wait.

All done? Ok. If you want tips on tax havens check the following page for starters on what to look for, it describes what it calls "no or nominal taxes" nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

You are in a democracy and the citizens did vote for change, I happen to have some real questions about the man as well but just because some have questions, or worse real fears, that doesn't make our concerns any more important than the rest of the nations. Democracy, elections, results matter and all of that good stuff. Try again next time if you want a different type of change.

To the meat of it, yes, this does answer my question but not in the way that you intend I don't think. I'll quote it again so we don't get confused on what part.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Can you personally think of any ways to build schools, roads, or fund law enforcement which don't involve physical violence or forced taxation? If you can't, does that settle the question?


I'll ask you the exact same question. You happen to live in a democracy. A democracy that has decided that it wants the police, wants the roads, wants the schools. Not just this nation but civilized nations for as long as history records have built roads for public use and trade. Don't like it? Go somewhere where the majority don't want those things. Unless of course you can figure out a way to provide those things without taxes. Socialism is being used mostly as an empty buzzword to scare people who don't understand what it means. We've always been socialist, and capitalist, and a couple of other things besides. So have most other nations at least in modern times. Just in various aspects of our lives or economy. The debate is simply in degree. If you or Keyes object to programs name them and offer the reasons, don't toss empty buzzwords. Specifics I might even agree with. You never know.

Change enough minds to win the next election and with someone who agrees with you, change your address, or adapt.

>> ^imstellar28:
As far as I can tell in this thread, 5/8 of Keyes claims have been confirmed by other posters, and 3/8 have not been addressed by any posters. Funny how the world flips ass over kettle when evidence is required.
Most people hear loud, extreme words like COMMUNIST......INFANTICIDE.....NOT A CITIZEN...and assume insanity. The human mind has the capacity to filter emotion, and it is extremely useful in situations such as this...


Nonsense. Sorry to be slow answering, had to take care of something else, but it's still nonsense. A couple such as Thinker gave you some points but even at that it's a big so what on some of them and he outright shot down others which you just mentioned such as infanticide. "because it was already law" isn't exactly because I like to kill babies. It's a bit closer to there is already a law on the books for that. Most didn't even agree with you on that much. Your math isn't any better than your claims that others need "evidence" while with you already rejected by the courts assertions should do.

On the so what parts, let's take the socialism thing for example. Did you go to a public school? Socialist. Does your driveway connect to a toll road you pay for each time you want to go somewhere and does all the other roads between home and destination, or do you share that burden with your fellow citizens and share the cost? Socialist. How about security, planning on hiring private guards to replace those socialist cops you aren't wanting anymore? Your own private army instead of this socialized and shared one we've got now?

As I pointed out already it's nonsense for the most part. Some more than others though. I liked this one in particular. "Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy".

Let me ask you something here. Company, nation, whatever else. If they AREN'T bankrupt how are they supposed to solve a problem that they DON'T have? Of course a bankrupt country can solve a bankrupt economy, they are the only ones who can. If they aren't bankrupt they don't tend to have that problem to fix and yes, I'm pretty sure it's happened and nations have come back from it.

It's been fun and I do wish I'd been here a day or two earlier, but this one is done I'd think. Overplaying a joke just ruins it.

>> ^imstellar28:
^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.


His point is that under strict definition pretty much anything is socialism. And you're the one insisting on this strict definition being used. It's a problem of langauge and arguing semantics at the surface of a debate is meaningless.

And it's funny that pennypacker brings up:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...saying that it isn't REALLY 'socialism' because the government is not completely 100% the owner of the business itself

The system "capitalists" endorse is certainly greater than 0% socialised. What you've been using for years is much greater than 0%. Does that make it socialism and the people behind it socialist?

Clearly a false dichotomy.

It's more of a spectrum from one side to the other... but still reality is much more complex than that - the two concepts are only even rough opposites. Debating in these simple terms of calling stuff/people socialist with shallow context is meaningless.

>> ^imstellar28:
^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.


So... you are claiming that freddy mac funded houses are nationalized ?

Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol... lovers.

>> ^imstellar28:
A + B. One example of Nationalization is the government buying stock in a company.

I read the WP page, the whole thing, not a cherry picked excerpt, and double checked my dictionaries. Nationalization means controlling ownership, not simply investment.

Holding common stock is not ownership in the sense of control. As a share holder of common (non-voting) stock in a company the only power I have is to contribute to the modification of the share price by selling or holding the stock.

If I got a Freddy Mac loan to buy a house would my house be "Nationalized", it has clearly been paid for by a Gov administered monopoly, they clearly have a right of ownership, as they can foreclose if I don't make my payments, but I have control, as long as I make the payments. If you think all such houses, or any stock buy, are nationalization, then I must conclude that you don't use the word in other than rhetorical terms.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker has a position, which while absurd, at least claims that the gov has practical control of the industries in question, which would make them nationalized, if it were true.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^drattus:
Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate?
I'm not setting the terms of the debate...that was the list of points Keyes made in the video....did you watch it?


Of course I watched it, and personally I think he's batshit insane too. And the fact that you insist that it is a list worth considering is your terms, them going by it would be accepting it. Not a thing wrong with your taking the position of course but I'm surprised they let you do it so easily.

Personally most of it seems irrelevant to me. As I already mentioned the Surpreme Court was already asked to look at this, they considered and rejected the citizenship issue. There is no higher appeal and unless you've got new evidence of some sort there's not a lot of point in rehashing that one certainly. Much of the rest was already answered by others but if they were willing to prove stuff it doesn't seem to me they should have had to prove it seems you should at least make an effort to prove Alan Keyes isn't insane. They answered your questions even though they didn't have to and you never answered that one, just demanded that they prove it. That's the same thing I'd have said in return to you I'd think, though it was an interesting debate to read. Just based on a logical fallacy they didn't go along with so easily some time back. You don't generally have to prove a negative. The burden is on the accusation or the claim, not the defense. For both Obama and Keyes.

>> ^drattus:
Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate?

I'm not setting the terms of the debate...that was the list of points Keyes made in the video....did you watch it?

>> ^Throbbin:
imstellar28 is INSANE!
And no claim can be made against it!

Actually I have over two decades of evidence against it. Its here in my apartment. Behind all the cats. Wrapped in tin-foil. You wanna come see?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker When the GOVERNMENT buys stock in a company, that is nationalization.

Again, please check a dictionary. Nationalization implies control, not simple investment. While the government is increasing regulation as a condition of investment, they do not have day-to-day control, do not operate, run, or otherwise finance or insure these industries.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the inescapable fact is that when the government tells a company "If you want $800 billion in bailout money then you're going to do things how WE tell you..." then that is nationalization.

By this "logic" all regulation is nationalization, by which you stretch the definition to a useless absurdity.

If forbidding employers to sell their employees into slavery is nationalization (since it is regulation on private industry) then all laws are acts of nationalization. You can say that "regulation = nationalization" is your personal extra special definition, but since you have decided to use a word in common usage I suggest you stick to the common meaning.

You and those like you are parsing semantics... Playing a little word game to make what Barry-Boy is doing sound less onerous by saying that it isn't REALLY 'socialism'


Allow me to be clear. I would be overjoyed if the president was doing anything even vaguely socialist, but, unfortunately, he is not ( maybe when he really takes on health care *cross fingers*) . I know what socialism is, and this dumping public money into private hands shit that they are doing right now isn't even close.

Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate? You're jumping through hoops trying to disprove accusations about Obama because he claims you need to meet a burden of proof that he's not guilty of those things but he's yet to offer any proof that Alan Keyes isn't batshit insane. Or that he doesn't orally pleasure dogs in his spare time for that matter. Any wild accusation can be flung at people and negatives are generally difficult to impossible to prove. That's why the burden is generally one of guilt rather than innocence.

The matter of Obama's citizenship has been to the Supreme Court, they reviewed it and decided it didn't have enough merit to discuss. End of story. When the liberals wanted to protest Bush after '00 what they found was that once an election is certified there's no going back. You can try to impeach them but certified and sworn that's your elected official, even if they did commit a crime to get there. Prove the crime and convict or impeach if you think you've got a case. Welcome to the same situation the libs sat through over the last eight years. They didn't like it a lot either.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Obama's administration has partly nationalized the car industry. They are openly discussing partial nationalization of the banking industry.

Buying common stock in companies is not nationalization, any more than the government hiring people constitutes "nationalizing" their labor. Conflating the two shows either a lack of understanding or an attempt to mislead.