• 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!

Obama: The US wasn't a great country until 1965

Whovian said:
Your 'context' changes nothing in his words, or their meaning.

FAIL for PB... Again
Click to expand...

I'll assume you missed my post, so I'll ask you directly:

1) Do you think America was great in 1830?
2) Do you think America would be a great country today if we still practiced ownership of slaves?
 
theplaydrive said:
The "true nature of our Commander and Chief" - he's a liberal...with a bit of a conservative tweak. His liberal ideas are not something that he has hidden. People knew about them when he voted for them. If anything, he should have been more open about his more conservative ideas.
Click to expand...

No, he's a closet socialist and his "conservative" ideas are just lip service.
 
whysoserious said:
I have to agree. What a complete lack of reading comprehension.

We would not be great today without those commitments does not equal we were not great before without those commitments. It is a comment on the change in social structure and keeping up with the times. We would also not be great if we still had slavery, but that does not mean the U.S. was not a great country in 1790.

Times change, but reading comprehension will always be important.

*Edit to ask a Socratic Question of any conservative who is misinterpreting Obama's words:

1) Do you think America would be a great country if we still were a slave owning country?
2) Do you think America was a great country before the civil war and the end of slavery?
Click to expand...

You make a good point there, even though I am moving away from your intention. I think people were more caring in the past, more likely to show compassion to their fellow poor-men among them, than they are today. Neighbors came on the run to help others build their homes & barns. Srangers were welcome guests at the dinner table, and often offered work in exchange for a place to stay and eat. This caring for the poorest among us is rare today, Capitalism's philosophy of greed & profit have robbed us our humanity.
 
Whovian said:
that is YOUR interpretation of his words... it is NOT, however, what he said. You're reading into it something that is not there.
Click to expand...

No, Acutally you are reading into it. For your reading to be correct he would have to say: "we not a great country before 1965.' He never says that. So, we either go with what he actually said, which is we are better with them, or we try to understand the context and determine what he is trying to communicate. He is talking about how we tackle problems, how we look after our people and seek to improve life, and that this makes us great. He says nothing about before these programs at all.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, he's a closet socialist and his "conservative" ideas are just lip service.
Click to expand...

Umm...his conservative ideas are in his removal of the public option from healthcare and his keeping tax cuts for the rich, two ACTIONS (i.e. not lip service) that many liberals were pissed about. As for his "socialism" - it doesn't exist.
 
StillBallin75 said:
ouch...that's harsh shintao lol. I'm not sure if I agree entirely, but it does kind of put things in perspective. Hey, why not find a happy middle and allow all poor people to join the military? :p
Click to expand...

You would first have to convince me why America needs a military. Perhaps we could have Army Engineers on US soil instead?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, Acutally you are reading into it. For your reading to be correct he would have to say: "we not a great country before 1965.' He never says that. So, we either go with what he actually said, which is we are better with them, or we try to understand the context and determine what he is trying to communicate. He is talking about how we tackle problems, how we look after our people and seek to improve life, and that this makes us great. He says nothing about before these programs at all.
Click to expand...

We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
Click to expand...

'We would not be a great country without those commitments' means that 'without those commitments, we would not be a great country.' Nothing else.

Anything you 'claim' they mean, other than the exact words, is your OPINION on their meaning... your INTERPRETATION of their meaning... not the words themselves, exactly as stated by the President.
 
whysoserious said:
Really? It's like talking with a wall. Can't answer the questions?
Click to expand...

You're setting up a straw man and have inferred that all changes made in the U.S. directly relate to ending slavery, which is absurd.

You're trying to tie two ideas together, which aren't tied like that.
 
whysoserious said:
Really? It's like talking with a wall. Can't answer the questions?
Click to expand...

They do not matter in this conversation. We're nor discussing what I think of this country at various points in time... we're talking about what the President said... specifically. Your question is off topic.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, he's a closet socialist and his "conservative" ideas are just lip service.
Click to expand...

Lip service? Did he practice socialism when he doled out trillions to Wallstreet, banks, & GM management - instead of dividing the stimulus equally among all Americans? Not sure where you get your ideas, but I am all ears. What did this socialist leader (LOL) give you?
 
Whovian said:
'We would not be a great country without those commitments' means that 'without those commitments, we would not be a great country.' Nothing else.

Anything you 'claim' they mean, other than the exact words, is your OPINION on their meaning... your INTERPRETATION of their meaning... not the words themselves, exactly as stated by the President.
Click to expand...

At the time they came up. Meaning that had we ignored the need, we wouldn't be as great. Again it says nothing about prior to 1965. If you don't understand the exact words, your posting them is meaningless. This is what comprehension is about. The first level of reading is being able to say and understand the words. The second leve is accurately creating meaning from those words. You have to accurately interpret what is actually being said. This is why many people struggle with law so much, as they often can repeat the words, but not accurately make meaning.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
'We would not be a great country without those commitments' means that 'without those commitments, we would not be a great country.' Nothing else.

Anything you 'claim' they mean, other than the exact words, is your OPINION on their meaning... your INTERPRETATION of their meaning... not the words themselves, exactly as stated by the President.
Click to expand...

We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
Click to expand...

We - this means current Americans. In other words, the current United States would not be a great country without those commitments. This statement makes no judgment on past Americans or the past state of the U.S..
 
theplaydrive said:
We - this means current Americans. In other words, the current United States would not be a great country without those commitments. This statement makes no judgment on past Americans or the past state of the U.S..
Click to expand...

Exactly. This should not be so hard to grasp.
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't know - social programs seem to come in handy when the economy tanks and people don't have jobs.
Click to expand...

No they just make the economic even worse and the recovery slower.
 
Whovian said:
They do not matter in this conversation. We're nor discussing what I think of this country at various points in time... we're talking about what the President said... specifically. Your question is off topic.
Click to expand...

Remember that game you played as a kid (called ad lib I belive) where there is a sentence is a few fill in the blanks and you can insert an adjective, an adverb, and a noun, etc. That's all I have done. It is called logic. Let us use some logic and figure this out:

Obama said:
Obama said:
We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
Click to expand...
//With those commitments being social programs

Ok, so without changing any other words than commitments, let us look at how this works out:

Obama said:
We are a better country because of ending slavery. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without ending slavery.
Click to expand...

I just changed a noun, which means I could not have changed the context of the sentence. Do you agree with the second statement?

Harry Guerrilla said:
You're setting up a straw man and have inferred that all changes made in the U.S. directly relate to ending slavery, which is absurd.

You're trying to tie two ideas together, which aren't tied like that.
Click to expand...

What? You make no sense. All I did was replace a noun - "those commitments" with "ending slavery".
 
Whovian said:
Insults? How unlike you..... not.

Really? Please, link to the last 5 times we 'worked' together.
Click to expand...

Insult?

Nah, just observation.

You are the king of the one line diversion.

There, a compliment.

Is "5" some significant number persuasively?

Just seems like 5 is the magic number you guys always want.

Why not 4? Why not 6?

I don't need to "prove" memeherding to limit its effectiveness.

I merely need to mention it.

Like stage magic, once you know the trick it doesn't fool you anymore.

But I'm sure you know this.:2wave:
 
Honestly, what we have here is a headline that wants people to see what the President said in a certain way. What the President said was frankly very poorly worded, so I do not really know what he meant by it. I will say, however, that I think the country has become a greater country after 1965.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You replaced it with a loaded topic not related to the subject at hand.
You created a diversionary tactic.

"Ending slavery" is not = to "those commitments."
Click to expand...

They don't have to be equal. The fallacy that because he said the country would not be great if a policy had not been implemented means that the country was not great before it was implemented is obvious and my comparison only serves to prove it. I am not comparing slavery to social commitments, I am comparing two sentences and how they are interpereted.

Fill in this statement:

"America is great today because of ________. If it were not for the passing of ________ in the year __________, America would not be great today."

I chose slavery. You can chose whatever, but the point is that it is not equal to:

"America is great today because of __________. However, before the passing of _________ in the year __________, America was not great."

Those two statements are not even close to equal, and the fallacy should be plain as day.
 
whysoserious said:
They don't have to be equal. The fallacy that because he said the country would not be great if a policy had not been implemented means that the country was not great before it was implemented is obvious and my comparison only serves to prove it. I am not comparing slavery to social commitments, I am comparing two sentences and how they are interpereted.

Fill in this statement:

"America is great today because of ________. If it were not for the passing of ________ in the year __________, America would not be great today."

I chose slavery. You can chose whatever, but the point is that it is not equal to:

"America is great today because of __________. However, before the passing of _________ in the year __________, America was not great."

Those two statements are not even close to equal, and the fallacy should be plain as day.
Click to expand...

It's kind of an inference, if you said that America is great today because of "X" then before the existence, it is inferred that it was not great.

But I really hate these dumb ass topics that split hairs over nonimportant bull****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom