[MrTotality]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Name one prominent politician who openly admits to being a flaming Liberal. And/or a member of the ACLU.

Don't be deceived by their posturing around election time.

from a party perspective most dems acknowledge their liberal leanings. The ACLU is another issue

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Still waiting for an answer...

I smell an upcoming attempt at poisoning the well and appeal to authority.

Dr. John, why do you hate America so much? I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

My Grandpappy taught me something important as a wee child:

"Skunk smells his own hole first".

As far as me "hating America" you have now also joined the ranks of the irrelevent. Disappointing.

Now, what again is it exactly you do for a living?

Cool, you accuse people of irrelevent arguments but then ask what their job is. Funny stuff.

Nice "I know you are but what am I?" quote too.


Anyway, you haven't asnwered my question:

Why do you hate America so much?

[MrTotality]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Give us an example please. Sorry, but your statement has absolutely no basis in reality. I now believe you have lost touch with reality. ALL (statistically speaking) Democrats run for cover in the middle during elections, then head back off the table to the Left once in office.

DOnt try to seem witty, it doesnt work for you.

Now, if you have watched any recent debate as an example you would see my reference. However, you sir make very large blanket assumption statements that seem to have no verifiable proof. Please dont quote me another neocon website, unless of course you want to see me chuckle

[Rufio]

It would be easier if you'd use the quote function instead of "bolding" your responses so that I have to manually include them in my response.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

The RESULT is pedophilia. Climb down from the Ivory Tower.

I would argue that the result of the show "To Catch a Predator" is pedophiles learning how to evade traps more easily. That's really beside the point. I disagree with the ACLU's stance on this issue personally, but I can understand their position. They defend EVERYONE'S freedom of speech no matter what they have to say.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

A less recent case of a man infected with an untreatable form of TB, refusing to wear a mask in public. This occured a few weeks before the most recent case. What if your wife was infected by himn, and your child was therefore born with terrible deformities. Did your wife have a "right" to be free of disease? How about your child's right to a life? There's your buddies at the ACLU for ya!

Do you mean this?

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Arizona Sues County Officials Over Inhumane Confinement of TB Patient



I see no mention of the ACLU talking about his "right" to walk around in public without a mask. It looks more like their issue is with his quarantine not meeting the required accomodations.

Here's another source:


NPR : Arizona TB Patient Jailed as a Public Health Menace


The only thing I see is that the ACLU is pushing for his quarantine conditions to be improved.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Name one lie Rush Limbaugh has told. Just one.

The biggest one in my mind would be denying the Native American genocide:


"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of Genocide?"



It's pretty hard to top outright denial of a greater genocide than the Holocaust. I don't have the time to go on and on, but here are some websites detailing Limbaugh's many lies and distortions:

Rush Limbaugh's Lies

The Way Things Aren't:

Limbaugh Lies about Iraq, Sadam, Ossama and Al Queda ties

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Michael Moore creates horrible lies of movies to make money for himself by selling out his country. That is what earned him a seat next to Jimmy Carter ("Mr. Irrevelent") at the Dem Nat Convention. Did you know 35% of all Democrats think George Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. Umm..the attack, not the date on the calendar for you Bush-Haters. LOL. What does that say about the effectiveness of the Democratic propaganda machine, supported by a largely Liberal media who refuses to check facts?

The same "liberal media" that distorted Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez's anti-militaristic speeches into statements of war against America? I can't get my head around how right-wing nuts think that the majority of the American media is biased against America itself. I don't care WHAT country you go to. The majority of the media in that country is going to be skewed in favor of that country's leaders compared to other countries. There are endless examples proving this.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

And how about the Democrats creating recruitment slogans for Al Queda? Want some examples? Please?

What about your precious Reagan and Bush Sr. recruting the ACTUAL Mujaihadein (sp?) including Osama Bin Laden who later made up Al Qaeda during the end of the Cold War? You can thank them for giving Osama's people weapons and training.


Your rants about Democrats are really quite comical. What you say about Democrats applies to all politicians.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Oh, yes, if it's on youtube, it just HAS to be true!

Did you actually WATCH the video? There is a clip of O' Reilly caliming ON AIR that Glick stated that Bush was behind 9/11. As you can see if you watch the actual tape where Glick is on, he stated no such thing. What he said was the FACT that Bush's administration trained Osama and his guerrillas in the 80's. Glick cited actual facts, and O' Reilly outright LIED about Glick's position right afterward.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

"Ignoring facts"? How about "living in the real world". Your pie-in-the-sky views would lead us to ruin. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't think we owe it to ourselves to destroy ourselves.

Killing mass numbers of people in countries that can't defend themselves to expand world power IS the path toward self destruction. Eventually there will be more world powers. The United States isn't exactly making friends by trying to horde world power.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

What is troubling is an individual claiming to be "intellectual"

When did I claim to be an intellectual?

Originally Posted by Dr. John

who does not possess the good manners to be gracious while in another man's home. Calling a physician such as me "delusional" says nothing about me. Guess who it does speak volumes of?

Um, what? That's your argument? "I'm a physician so I can't possibly scew facts." You could be a rocket scientist but it won't change the morality of completely writing off genocide as you've done in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

You seem to have no appreciation whatsoever for this great country you live in.

I have appreciation of US domestic policy, however that doesn't mean that I'm going to fall for whatever BS justifications I hear for genocidal foreign policy. I do my best to remain objective when I'm looking at the motives of world leaders. I don't go out of my way to find ways to justify one leader or another's actions. I use a little thing called the empirical method.

It's a logical failing to only question the motives and integrity of foreign leaders but not your own. The only logical position is to go in with NO preconceived notions about the morality of one leader or another, and from that look at their actions compared to what they say. This applies every bit as much to US Presidents as it does the president of Iran.


You are using an "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Is that REALLY your interpretation of Ward Churchill's situation? Really? Man, you sure need to learn a bit of what you speak.

How about falsifying documentation to get his degree and position? That SHOULD get him fired from any institution. And he is not qualified to obtain, much less maintain, a post in his department after that. ESPECIALLY as Chair. He is totally unqualified in that field.

Did you read the actual petitions to remove him from his position?


http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/...chill_hor.html

Bill Owens





This is the first site I found that had the full transcript of the requests asking for him to resign. He was asked to resign because of his position, not because he was "unqualified." The issue about his ethnicity and plagiarism really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Originally Posted by Dr. John

And do you REALLY think a publically supported professor, in an American educational institution, should be allowed to make public statements such as that "all the victims of 9/11 deserved to die"? Is that REALLY what you think?

Er, when did Ward Churchill EVER say that? I've read the article he is criticized for and he says NOTHING of the sort. In fact, he's repeatedly reinforced his actual position. The actual message of his essays is this:


*The World Trade Center and Pentagon were essentially military targets, being symbols of US power

*The United States leaders constantly attack similar targets in other countries that they KNOW are filled with innocent people, and the victims are called "collateral damage." Churchill argues that, using the West's own standards, the victims of 9/11 would be considered collateral damage in a military strike. He was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy

*He has several times stated that there WERE plenty of innocent people there who did NOT deserve to die; however he made the point that the same can be said of the endless victims of similar US attacks on other countries

*He rejected the idea that the attacks were unprovoked, citing the large number of Middle Easterners killed by US foreign policy the past 50 years. As he put it, the number of people who died on 9/11 are less than 1% of the children who were killed by the embargo on Iraq alone, notwithstanding the countless other attacks.

(I'm not sure of the validity of this. I've seen reports ranging from 1.3 million people dead from the embargo to 2 million. Ward claims it's around 1.5 million, over a million of which were children)



Do you have a source for the claim that he stated everyone in the WTC deserved to die? I would really be interested in seeing it. It could provide yet another example of lies from those who you believe have never lied.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Just curious: what do you two gents do for a living, Good Sirs?

Red herring and an attempt at an attack on character. For the record I'm still in college. I plan to become a lawyer. Regardless, I could be a 5 year old using the public library's computer and it still wouldn't make any difference to this debate. Bringing up what you do for a living is a logical fallacy and a sad debate tactic at that. This is the third time you've done it in this thread.

[Rufio]

I'm not offended, but it sounds a lot like "I'm a physician! What are you losers? How dare you disagree with someone in my position?" It just comes off as an attempt to create an aura of superiority, is all. If that's not how you meant it then I apologize, but I can't fathom why else it would be brought up in the middle of a political debate.

[MrTotality]

Originally Posted by Rufio

I'm not offended, but it sounds a lot like "I'm a physician! What are you losers? How dare you disagree with someone in my position?" It just comes off as an attempt to create an aura of superiority, is all. If that's not how you meant it then I apologize, but I can't fathom why else it would be brought up in the middle of a political debate.

I have to agree here, that is where I thought he was going as well.

[MrTotality]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Looks like you need a deep breath, too.

wow not too sure what you mean by this. Usually when someone asks for personal information like this they are trying to make a silly, childish attack.

[spunkles182]

Bush is a smart man when it comes to economics. His tax cuts and proposed health insurance plan were right on.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

Simple facts:

1). No population, in history, has ever been taxed into prosperity. The Democrats refuse to see this (or aren't willing to let that get in the way of their true agenda).

2). Every time taxes are lowered, government revenues go up. The Democrats refuse to see this (ignoring even John F. Kennedy).

right on. lower taxes means more money available for savings. more savings means more money available for investment. more money for investment means lower interest rates. lower interest rates lower NPV for projects for comanies which inturns means economic growth which means more jobs and higher tax revenues...

[Rufio]

I'm not exactly enthusiastic about Bush's Social Security plans. As for taxes, I'm for eliminating wasteful tax programs and of course wasteful spending (which I feel Bush has increased) but I don't buy into the "what's good for businesses is good for the whole country" argument. Reagan's trickle down economics are what lead to taxes having to be raised by Bush Sr.


Tax cuts for today + increased spending = tax raised later on. That's the problem we ended up with in the early 90's. I don't think Democrats or Republicans are very responsible when it comes to this, except regarding their personal wealth and power.

[MrTotality]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

It often helps, when trying to effectively communicate with others, to gather a bit of background information from them. Empathy may follow. Usually people find this to be flattering, as it shows sincere interest.

It's that 'ol "walk a mile in their moccasins" thing.

I am thinking you just like hearing yourself talk

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Rufio

I'm not exactly enthusiastic about Bush's Social Security plans. As for taxes, I'm for eliminating wasteful tax programs and of course wasteful spending (which I feel Bush has increased) but I don't buy into the "what's good for businesses is good for the whole country" argument. Reagan's trickle down economics are what lead to taxes having to be raised by Bush Sr.


Tax cuts for today + increased spending = tax raised later on. That's the problem we ended up with in the early 90's. I don't think Democrats or Republicans are very responsible when it comes to this, except regarding their personal wealth and power.

what dont you like about his social security plan? im all for it. why should i give the government my money to hold for retirement when i can invest it myself?

[Rufio]

Enormous cost of conversion

Some studies claim we'd end up worse off period (there seem to bee studies that go both ways about the actual effectiveness)

From what I've read, there are several factors not taken into account from the people claiming "crisis" and the current system is in better shape than it was 30 years ago


The cost of conversion is the biggest issue. I don't think it would benefit the middle and lower class nearly as much as what is claimed, especially not in the short term during the conversion.