• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating


Run around in circles. You ask a question based on a logical fallacy then claim I'm dodging the question because you made a flawed hypotetical. I understand the english language perfectly clear, enough with the personal attack.

Its obvious you want to continue the partisan hackery as you failed to answer the question I first posed before you started with the fallacies or any of the related questions.

Just to give you an idea of what this means. From the book With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel: "More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education."
 
Last edited:

I've read both sides of this discussion and you are the one guilty of partisan hackery and dodging questions by a continued whining about the Bush presidency. I haven't been entirely happy with a president since Bush I. The current bozo is absolutely the worst and possibly the most dangerous to our way of life and therefore should be the topic of this discussion. "Breaking News" is not a history forum!
 


I'm whining about the bush administration? Really? I asked him a fair question if he felt the same way when our embassy in Iraq was attacked and if it was because of our torture program or not. So once again I asked the same kind of question he asked. His question was based on a logical fallacy meant to bring the subject off topic. Again the laws against torture were broken plain and simple. Rev it's hard to take you seriously when you think beck and Hannity are credible sources. What next worldnetdaily, john birch society and stormfront?
 
Run around in circles. You ask a question based on a logical fallacy...
The point you (willingly) refuse to get is that there is no logical fallacy in my question.
 

You tried to make a point that an individual attack in a war zone during an ongoing seven year conflict was because we got too harsh during an interrogation. Just an absurd assertion. What's happening now is that the democrats are attacking the CIA to deflect from the health care debacle. They've already found information that supports Cheney's contention. It seems to me that any further digging is purely for the purpose of divulging classified information to our enemies, either purposefully or through unbelievable incompetence.

Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Cooper, Blitzer, Ratigan, Mathews, what's the difference. They all have an axe to grind and one must be wary.
 
Hey Low Revs, you forget the rest to your signature...

Social security = SOCIALIST Retirement Security
Public schools = SOCIALIST Public Education
Highways/Buses = SOCIALIST Transportation
Medicare = SOCIALIST Healthcare
Police Departments = SOCIALIST Protection
1940's War Effort = SOCIALIST Nationalism
 

How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?
 
How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?

Publicly funded programs run by the government isn't socialist?

News to me.
 
Publicly funded programs run by the government isn't socialist?
News to me.
Because you apparently aren't aware of the meaning of the term.

"Socialist" programs are those that promote or contain socialist elements, those in which the governmnt owns/controls the means of producing and distributing wealth, usually but not necessarily including a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state.

Thus, my wonderment as to how people got the idea that all government spending is socialist, and how to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is.
 

Social security, Public schools, Highways/Buses, Medicare, Police Departments, 1940's War Effort.

None of those apply? Especially considering your definition reiterates socialism "not necessarily includes a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state."
 
How did people get the idea that all government spending is socialist, and to claim as much somehow negates the argument against that which is?

Generally, it's the argument put forth by the same people who claim conservatives demand 1) no taxes at all and 2) still demand the same breadth of government we have today, and point it out as though it's a contradiction in conservative thought.
 
Clearly.


No. These do not have the components described.

So the government does not oversee the public funding of highways and appropriate the funds to the contractors they deem qualified?

Public schools are not publicly funded whereas the government deems which districts get which funds and for what reasons?

The gov't doesn't appropriate publicly paid funds as they deem necessary to police forces?

By the way, while we fought socialists we were never closer to socialism ourselves. The 1940's War Effort was government mandate that private corporations save "waste" such as metals, dye, and rubber, and must give such waste to the government for use in the war, thus appropriating the wealth of companies to the betterment of the nation.
 
So the government does not oversee the public funding of highways and appropriate the funds to the contractors they deem qualified?

Seeing as they are private contractors, the government does not control the means of production.


You seem to have the idea that any public spending of any kind of "socialist." That's the whole point. It's not.

But I'll grant that nationalizing an industry is indeed a socialist measure.
 
You obviously still havent made it past the idea that not all government spending is socialist.
 

I think the point they are making is that any government program the far right doesn't like is...by definition...Socialist. (like any kind of welfare....except the "Corporate" kind..of course)

Conversely...Anything the far right likes is....Patriotic! (like any war, government spying on its citizens, abuse of power, injecting religious dogma into government policy, any policy proposed by a Yale grad,etc)

It's really very simple...........Like the rest of their "Thinking" always is.:lol:
 
Last edited:
I think the point they are making is that any government program the far right doesn't like is...by definition...Socialist.
Anyone that exhibits such a pre-pubescent level of reasoning ability, as illustrated above, is clearly incapable of intelligent discourse.
 
First a trial for Treason & war crimes & then execution upon conviction.
Same for Cheney.

1. Lying us into a war in which over 3,000 American GI's were killed will be a good start for the treason charge

Same punishment for the Dems who authorized the invasion?

2. Torture of prisoners will be a good basis for International War Crimes prosecution.

Bush & Cheney have already admitted to authorizing war crimes, so the only phase to really prove is the treason charge.

Fantasy world.
 
Same punishment for the Dems who authorized the invasion?


Sorry...no. That was based on Neocon lies so they are excused. (like shooting fish in a barrel here...Thanks@!):2wave:
 
Sorry...no. That was based on Neocon lies so they are excused. (like shooting fish in a barrel here...Thanks@!):2wave:

What lies? You mean these lies?

 
What lies? You mean these lies?

The Neocon lies that led to the Iraq fiasco are to many to list here & have been covered ad infinitum in other threads.
I suggest you research them at your leisure.
 
Sorry...no. That was based on Neocon lies so they are excused.
Now, now, don't lie.
What you MEAN to say is that you excuse the Democrats because they are Democrats.
 
Now, now, don't lie.
What you MEAN to say is that you excuse the Democrats because they are Democrats.

No, what I think it means, if true, is that Democrats are en masse gullible morons who shouldn't be trusted with planning a birthday party, much less the country.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…