Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Obama Nation
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 171 (478509)
08-16-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
08-15-2008 9:48 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
The mainstream media which is heavily pro-Obama
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The mainstream media has given the most negative coverage to Obama.
According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the break for negative/positive statements for Obama is 72/28 while the negative/positive for McCain is 57/43.
quote:
The bottom line is what in Corsi's book, THE OBAMA NATION has been heavily lawyered from liabel. It is accurate.
Incorrect. Media Matters has put out a 41-page document of corrections:
Unfit for Publication
quote:
I might add that Floyd Brown, political activist who has circulated adds revealing the fact that Obama was a Muslim through age 7 etc. He is also under attack for these adds, which, btw, are also accurate.
Incorrect. See the refutation in the publication.
quote:
In the eyes of the Muslim world, Obama is a Muslim.
Incorrect. Obama has never been a Muslim.
quote:
That's how Islam works. Once a Muslim = a Muslim to death as per Haddiths, Sunnas and the Koran.
Then you have a problem as Obama has never been a Muslim.
Of course, we have another problem:
Why do you care if he is?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 9:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 08-17-2008 10:53 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 171 (478578)
08-18-2008 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
08-17-2008 10:53 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
The alleged refutation is no refutation by the biased publication.
Read: It contradicts what I say. Ergo, it must be "biased."
quote:
Islam recognizes the religion of the father as the religion for his children.
So? This isn't about what other people think. This is about what Obama thinks. By your logic, all of those Jews who were killed in the Holocaust are now actually Mormon because the Mormons, in practice with their own religion, had them post-humously baptised which means they recognize them as Mormon.
quote:
The publication says it was for convenience. Baloney!
Read: It contradicts me. Ergo, it cannot be true.
Nevermind that his first grade teacher says it was for convenience. What does she know? It isn't as if she were with the school that took the information. It isn't like she was with him at six years old. She's just some random person with absolutely no connection to Obama at all, right?
quote:
It was his religion up through age 7.
And you know this why? I mean, why should he, his parents, and his teachers know what his religion was?
quote:
He practiced some of Islam while in school.
Except he didn't. But why should we trust him and his teachers? What do they know?
quote:
If he was a Christian he would have been listed as one.
Why? His father was quite lapsed (he ate bacon, for crying out loud) and his mother was at best a spiritualist, not a member of any organized religion.
quote:
He was enrolled as Muslim in both Muslim and Catholic schools.
You realize that you've just contradicted yourself. If he enrolled in a Catholic school, surely he must be a Catholic, right? Oh, you mean there's a difference between the school you go to and your actual religion?
Ah, you say, but he said he was a Muslim! Yeah...he was in a country that had just overthrown the communists and had gone into a state of religious overexpression. So, they put his father's religion down, even though he's not that much of a religious person, since that's the common practice.
And your proof that he was a Muslim in spite of the statements of his teachers is what, precisely?
quote:
Because he's claiming he's never been one when he knows better.
So you're saying he's lying? You're saying his teachers are lying? Eveyrbody who is actually attached to Obama is lying about him? Only the people who don't have any actual connection to him are telling the truth? It's all a conspiracy?
quote:
He was born a Muslim and given a Muslim name.
No, he wasn't. "Barack" is an Arabic name, not a Muslim one.
quote:
Why is he disclaiming ever being a Muslim?
Perhaps because it isn't true? Perhaps because there are bigots in the world who can't handle the idea of a non-Christian president?
quote:
Because most terrorists on the planet are Muslims
Incorrect.
quote:
and it wouldn't bode well for his bid for the highest office on the planet.
Indeed. There are bigots everywhere.
quote:
Both his father and step father were Muslims, the latter the more devout as I understand it.
Completely backwards. His stepfather was about as lapsed as you can get.
quote:
Evidently his mother favored Muslim husbands as she married two of them.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
quote:
Obama's so called Christian church at Chicago is cozy with the Nation of Islam here in America, awarding the highest honor to Muslim Louis Farrakhan.
Whom Obama denounced.
quote:
There's a reason Obama favored that church. Go figure.
Lots of reasons. The one you've given has no connection to reality.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 08-17-2008 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 171 (478834)
08-21-2008 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
08-20-2008 8:51 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Soaking the productive rich and the productive middle working class to enrich the poor
Huh? The tax code has soaked the middle and lower classes to enrich the upper class. That's why the income gap has been widening...to its largest since the Great Depression.
"Trickle-down" or "supply side" economics...what George Bush, Sr. famously called "voodoo economics" when running against Reagan until he became veep...has never worked. At the time it was suggested, fewer than 12 of the entire 18,000 member American Economic Society thought it was sound fiscal policy. And sure enough, it failed. The economy was in recovery under Carter after the economic collapse of the early 70s under Nixon/Ford. But when Reagan/Bush came in, they got this "cutting taxes raises revenue" hallucination passed and ran up the largest debt the nation had ever seen, more than all previous administrations combined.
Here's a good writeup for why the Laffer Curve is bogus:
Why Voodoo Economics Don't Work - The Quick and Dirty Version
Money flows up, not down. Capitalism is driven primarily by spending, not investment. This doesn't mean you don't encourage investment. It means that you must pay attention to spending more. Giving money to those who don't spend accelerates the process of money flowing up. The market will have the money flow to those companies that have the products people wish to spend their money on. That is what should be the primary driver of investment: Spending.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2008 8:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Fosdick, posted 08-21-2008 2:22 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 171 (479043)
08-23-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
08-20-2008 10:03 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Obama is no idiot. Like Hitler
....whoa! "Hitler"? You're comparing Obama to Hitler?
Godwin's Law. You automatically lose. You clearly know so little about the Holocaust and even even less about your own argument that you seem to think that Hitler is the best analogy for your argument.
And on an even more practical note, if your mind goes to Hitler when thinking of Obama, then there is no possible way to show you wrong. It doesn't matter what evidence is shown to you, you will reject it.
Prove us wrong: What would it take? What would it take for you to say that you were wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2008 10:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 171 (479044)
08-23-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Fosdick
08-21-2008 2:22 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Investment can be seen as advanced spending.
This is going off-topic. If you want to discuss it elsewhere, start a new thread.
You didn't read the source, did you? Investment is only secondary. Investing in a business is required, but it is inefficient: If the business fails, that money that was invested didn't contribute to the economy. And that assumes that the investment goes toward the creation of new productivity in the economy rather than in non-production areas.
Note, this does not mean that there should be no economic incentives for investment. However, the greater incentive should be on consumers as it is a more efficient means of stimulating the economy. That's why the Bush tax cuts haven't done anything to help the economy but actually made things worse: It didn't go to the people who would consume but rather to the people who would invest. It's why the economic gap between the rich and the poor in this country as become the greatest it has ever been since the Great Depression.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Fosdick, posted 08-21-2008 2:22 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Fosdick, posted 08-24-2008 11:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024