• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dick Cheney thinks Obama is worst President of his lifetime

Ladewig said:
I don't even understand why Playboy is still published. Porn is widely available on the Internet and if Playboy doesn't have anything better to do than ask Dick Cheney what his political opinions are, then why is it still in business?
Click to expand...

Playboy is basically a male fashion magazine. It shows you the type of clothes, jewelry and women a successful man should buy. The magazine is about accessories for successful business men. The women are presented as accessories.

The magazine is pornographic. However, the intended audience was never teenage males. This was a peripheral audience for a while. Their target is older men in high end business. Teenager boys clearly prefer the internet and harder porn.

The emphasis is on the economic domination of men, not on just sex. Successful men are in control of their women.

Not that there is anything wrong with that ! :D
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
We have averaged 3.3% growth historically and the only times we have averaged below 1% has been under Obama and Carter.

The liberal economics does not work. Welfare doesn't work.

Yes lets have the debate your policies are a total complete failure.

Flat tax, eliminate welfare, opt out of social security the private sector generates jobs not the government.

You loose on all counts
Click to expand...


You lie. The ONLY year of Obama's presidency with a real GDP growth of under 1% was 2009. You know when we were in the midst of the worst financial crisis in 80 years. That same financial crisis that Obama inherited from the previous Republican administration and has since turned around.

Obama will be remember by history as the President that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, turned the country around from the Great Recession which he inherited from a Republican whose presidency will be remembered for what it was - a total disaster and one of the worst ever.

Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Yes, Roger Ramjets, you loose.

You loose so hard.

In your face, looser.
Click to expand...

You lost the argument because of this response...

THis isn't an argument

Here's an example, you have a company that makes tires, the company has to pay for health care because of Obamacare.

Now the company needs to charge 45$ per tire instead of $40. But a company from china can produce the same tire for $41. The american company goes out of business and all the jobs are lost.

Thats basic economics, get it? Thats why Obama and liberal policies are a complete failure.

Thats why Obama is the worst president in the last 60 years.

You need to own up to your economic policies, they are a complete failure, and guess who's to blame?

YOU!
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
You lost the argument because of this response...

THis isn't an argument

Here's an example, you have a company that makes tires, the company has to pay for health care because of Obamacare.

Now the company needs to charge 45$ per tire instead of $40. But a company from china can produce the same tire for $41. The american company goes out of business and all the jobs are lost.

Thats basic economics, get it? Thats why Obama and liberal policies are a complete failure.

Thats why Obama is the worst president in the last 60 years.

You need to own up to your economic policies, they are a complete failure, and guess who's to blame?

YOU!
Click to expand...

Nope. The tire company had to provide Health Insurance in order to be competitive in hiring the workers they wanted.

I certainly wouldn't work for a company that didn't provide health insurance.

Too Bad. So sad. Your fascist policies fail.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
You lost the argument because of this response...

THis isn't an argument

Here's an example, you have a company that makes tires, the company has to pay for health care because of Obamacare.

Now the company needs to charge 45$ per tire instead of $40. But a company from china can produce the same tire for $41. The american company goes out of business and all the jobs are lost.

Thats basic economics, get it? Thats why Obama and liberal policies are a complete failure.

Thats why Obama is the worst president in the last 60 years.

You need to own up to your economic policies, they are a complete failure, and guess who's to blame?

YOU!
Click to expand...
"What have you got to loose?" - Croosby, Stills, Nash and Yooung
 
I think EG6K is right. Obama's market-based private healthcare insurance plan isn't going to work.

TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!

Great idea, EG6K!
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually no. I simply said if that was the penalty given by a court, I wouldn't object. It is that serious an offense. That's not the same thing as what I want. There are a broad range of outcomes that I wouldn't object to, but they all involve a court of law. The only thing I would actually want is that the issue be decided in court. It's all about context. The original post was And that isn't necessarily the case. What you do is decide it in court and hopefully a decent judge decides the appropriate penalty, as opposed to politicians covering their own arses. The only injustice is that, as I said before, war criminals in general only get prosecuted on the loosing side. The winning side's war criminals are generally protected from prosecution. I don't actually want the death penalty. What I want is to maintain the reputation of the USA as a country that doesn't commit war crimes, and severely prosecutes anyone who commits them. That includes those in power sending out orders. That penalty could include up to and including the death penalty. But a judge decides.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not how moral reasoning works. The circumstances of the alleged crimes are fairly well known. Passing the buck to a judge (or a jury rather) who has roughly the same knowledge of the facts as you and deciding to agree with whatever the decision is cannot be a moral position. It's pretty clear to me that if a jury were to sentence anybody to death for what happened, the jury would be acting immorally.
 
Belz... said:
Considering that moral reasoning is entirely subjective, you couldn't possibly make that statement anyway.
Click to expand...

In addition to being reasonably well-read in the subject, I took a moral reasoning class in college. I'm pretty sure that if I had answered a test question about whether a certain punishment for a certain offense was moral or not by writing "well, it's moral if Judge Wapner says it is" that I would not have gotten full credit.
 
sunmaster14 said:
In addition to being reasonably well-read in the subject, I took a moral reasoning class in college. I'm pretty sure that if I had answered a test question about whether a certain punishment for a certain offense was moral or not by writing "well, it's moral if Judge Wapner says it is" that I would not have gotten full credit.
Click to expand...

Of course not, Judge Wapner was an idiot. If you had cited Judge Judy, you would have gotten extra credit.
 
Spindrift said:
Of course not, Judge Wapner was an idiot. If you had cited Judge Judy, you would have gotten extra credit.
Click to expand...

I recently saw some teabagger on Facebook give their government wishlist in response to Cruz announcing his run. It included Ben Carson as Surgeon General and Judge Judy for the Supreme Court. I do not think the person was joking. :boggled:
 
I'm curious as to how moral reasoning makes it so that torturing someone to death shouldn't be a capitol crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom