10 key reasons why the Obama presidency continues to melt down - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31622072]And this was an important part of the conversation why? Do you feel the need to start an argument with me over simply diverging views? I've long since accepted others views and their rights to hold them, if you're so eager to contest that with me, maybe you're the one with that issue?[/QUOTE] it's what i was asking the whole time - the ability to disagree with something but let it be? no, otherwise i would have? probably not, because i'm simply asking a question? hell's bells, why are you so prickly all of a sudden?

I don't hold my tongue when someone is saying something fucking stupid. Sorry that I believe holding idiotic views can be extremely harmful so I can, what, abide by some bullshit social conventions? [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622082]it's what i was asking the whole time - the ability to disagree with something but let it be? no, otherwise i would have? probably not, because i'm simply asking a question? hell's bells, why are you so prickly all of a sudden?[/QUOTE] Politics isn't like eating breakfast - choosing eggs or bacon actually has immense real world consequences. Why even bother living in a democracy, or holding views, if you aren't going to defend them?

[QUOTE=Contag;31622087]I don't hold my tongue when someone is saying something fucking stupid. Sorry that I believe holding idiotic views can be extremely harmful so I can, what, abide by some bullshit social conventions? [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] Politics isn't like eating breakfast - choosing eggs or bacon actually has immense real world consequences. Why even bother living in a democracy, or holding views, if you aren't going to defend them?[/QUOTE] so do you have a go at your friends everytime they hold a view you don't share?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622138]so do you have a go at your friends everytime they hold a view you don't share?[/QUOTE] If it's a stupid one, absolutely. If it sounds reasonable on face value, I'll think about it. I expect them to do the same for me. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] Friends don't let friends think stupid shit.

[QUOTE=Contag;31622155]If it's a stupid one, absolutely. If it sounds reasonable on face value, I'll think about it. I expect them to do the same for me. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] Friends don't let friends think stupid shit.[/QUOTE] you religious, contag?

what does what he does with friends have to do with posting on a forum

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622164]you religious, contag?[/QUOTE] Not in the organized religion sense, no. I'm fine with people believing in whatever diety/etc they want, but when they start spouting shit like "homosexuality is wrong because the bible said so" or "if you're not a christian you'll go to hell when you die" or "I pray to my dead [xyz] who is in heaven", I confront them on it.

[QUOTE=Contag;31622196]Not in the organized religion sense, no. I'm fine with people believing in whatever diety/etc they want, but when they start spouting shit like "homosexuality is wrong because the bible said so" or "if you're not a christian you'll go to hell when you die" or "I pray to my dead [xyz] who is in heaven", I confront them on it.[/QUOTE] that's it - you can accept that people believe something different to you without automatically having to rail against it (i.e. "i believe in allah" or something) i'm done

I'm fine with people believing in things that don't have wide consequences.

[QUOTE=Contag;31622226]I'm fine with people believing in things that don't have wide consequences.[/QUOTE] what about world peace? if people believed that, it'd spread, and have wide consequences - in this case good ones?

I think we can all agree that Dr. Funk has achieved intellectual checkmate here. oh and mr. funk it was your fault for pulling up the whole "persecuting people for their beliefs" thing, because not one person has implied anything of the sort and you were simply trying to draw a false correlation between not tolerating differing opinions and actively discriminating against said opinions so that you could get the answer to the question that you wanted in reality it's perfectly possible to not tolerate opinions that you think are wrong and not discriminate against the people who hold them. so it really bears no relation to your original question. But as I said, you have intellectual checkmate here so I guess it doesn't matter what I say. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622238]what about world peace? if people believed that, it'd spread, and have wide consequences - in this case good ones?[/QUOTE] Not really. World Peace doesn't take into account that some people are unable to be peaceful in certain situations for a variety of reasons. It's a simplistic concept that wouldn't actually work in any real world scenario.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31622241]I think we can all agree that Dr. Funk has achieved intellectual checkmate here. oh and mr. funk it was your fault for pulling up the whole "persecuting people for their beliefs" thing, because not one person has implied anything of the sort and you were simply trying to draw a false correlation between not tolerating differing opinions and actively discriminating against said opinions so that you could get the answer to the question that you wanted in reality it's perfectly possible to not tolerate opinions that you think are wrong and not discriminate against the people who hold them. so it really bears no relation to your original question. But as I said, you have intellectual checkmate here so I guess it doesn't matter what I say.[/QUOTE] i asked if you could let people be people flipped out you accuse me of changing arguments when i haven't because you've crucially misunderstood me. i broadly defined persecution the way you'd define intolerance - not "let's kill you" intolerance, "you're stupid intolerance". you're using different definitions to me; hence, moot point. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31622241] Not really. World Peace doesn't take into account that some people are unable to be peaceful in certain situations for a variety of reasons. It's a simplistic concept that wouldn't actually work in any real world scenario.[/QUOTE] i'm talking about a hypothetical world peace that influenced others until all were with it. like, rainbows everywhere. don't attack the example, attack the idea.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622276]i asked if you could let people be people flipped out you accuse me of changing arguments when i haven't because you've crucially misunderstood me. i broadly defined persecution the way you'd define intolerance - not "let's kill you" intolerance, "you're stupid intolerance". you're using different definitions to me; hence, moot point.[/QUOTE] so you first say that people are flipping out at you for no reason and then you say people are flipping out at you because the words you're using have different connotations to them if you know that the words you're using have different connotations to the people reading them why do you fucking use them stick to your original question of "do you tolerate differing opinions" and stop whining when people misunderstand when you change the wording

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31622297]so you first say that people are flipping out at you for no reason and then you say people are flipping out at you because the words you're using have different connotations to them if you know that the words you're using have different connotations to the people reading them why do you fucking use them[/QUOTE] where did i say people flipped out for no reason. really, i'd like to see it. i was referring to "persecution" in a broadest sense, as reinforced by the rest of my argument. it's not a completely different meaning.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31615882]This article summed up my feelings on him perfectly. Edit: Box Fort for having a different opinion.[/QUOTE] Good idea, play the victim card. You get rated dumb a lot because you're really fucking dumb.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622238]what about world peace? if people believed that, it'd spread, and have wide consequences - in this case good ones?[/QUOTE] The problem with world peace is that believing in it doesn't make it happen. Look at the protests for Australia going into Iraq. Still happened.

Um, the majority of the items on that list aren't directly related to Obama. For example, failure to contain the budget is the fault of both parties refusing to reach compromise. It's not fair to put this on a single man, when clearly such a cluster-fuck of problems could not be created by one man, even if he's the President. The shape of our nation today is the result of past presidents, the current president, and our representatives who so dearly cling to bi-partisanship that they refuse to see eye-to-eye even on problems that affect every single citizens irrespective of their party affiliation. If it weren't for Republican and Democrat representatives bickering and stalling, blindly clinging to their respective party's "value" system, and simply refusing to cooperate out of fear they'll lose their seat in the Senate... well, something might actually be achieved. It's pathetic, and anyone who is simple enough to think that ONE MAN could single-handedly create this mess should probably give up on politics. This nation was created not to give the President all the power [i]on purpose[/i]. Unfortunately, this is exactly why George Washington warned against bi-partisanship. see the following: [quote]"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.... [b]It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.[/b] There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."[/quote] If our population was capable of breaking away from bi-partisanship, we could actually get something done. Instead, we're trapped in this perpetual Red vs Blue cycle in which nothing will ever be achieved, and the people can only blame the President. Whoever wrote this article needs to read some American history and learn how our government actually operates, because s/he certainly has no fucking clue.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31622310]where did i say people flipped out for no reason. really, i'd like to see it. i was referring to "persecution" in a broadest sense, as reinforced by the rest of my argument. it's not a completely different meaning.[/QUOTE] [quote]i asked if you could let people be people flipped out[/quote] you rather clearly imply that people are getting angry at you because you asked the question, not because you worded the question confusingly people didn't flip out because you asked if they could let people be, they flipped out because the way you worded it implied that they either accept all differing opinions or they must actively persecute those that disagree with them persecution is a loaded word that is most commonly used to refer to the most deplorable mistreatment of sections of the population in history you'd have to be dumb to not know how what meaning that word has in popular culture.

Go fuck yourself conservative hitler :D

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31622367]you rather clearly imply that people are getting angry at you because you asked the question, not because you worded the question confusingly people didn't flip out because you asked if they could let people be, they flipped out because the way you worded it implied that they either accept all differing opinions or they must actively persecute those that disagree with them persecution is a loaded word that is most commonly used to refer to the most deplorable mistreatment of sections of the population in history you'd have to be dumb to not know how what meaning that word has in popular culture.[/QUOTE] per·se·cute/ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/Verb 1. Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. 2. Harass or annoy (someone) persistently. sorry but i fail to see anything other than what i originally meant in there. i have never heard that persecution has any special, horrific meaning, nor that it is a loaded word up until you have said it. thinking back, i still can't think of any way persecution has any special significance in the same way other words do, e.g. holocaust. i stand by what i said. my implication was the same as what was explicitly stated - can you accept beliefs you think are incorrect without having to harrass and persecute people for them, in the manner of how some people on this forum feel the urge to attack people for having a religious faith. you're blowing what i say far out of proportion. e: what are you on about, "persecution" isn't a remotely a loaded word. you simply decided to take it as one because you didn't understand how broad the term actually was: don't try and change the english language to suit your argument. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;31622327]The problem with world peace is that believing in it doesn't make it happen. Look at the protests for Australia going into Iraq. Still happened.[/QUOTE] this is a hypothetical situation designed to demonstrate how wide-spread effects of ideas aren't automatically a bad thing. just ignore the fact that this specific example won't ever appear real world, it's not the point.

I think there is a lot of malice towards certain political views and religion on facepunch, but generally speaking the environment is welcoming for the latter. There's some sites where you can say, "Hi I'm a Christian," and people will rip you to shreds for no good reason but prejudging, stereotypes, and an inability to respect others for who they are. I don't think that happens on facepunch, but I think you can run into folks who aren't as tolerant as they could be. I don't think people are as tolerant of conservatives on facepunch though. And that's a damn shame, because just because there's a lot of loonies on the right doesn't mean every conservative policy ever should be discredited. That's like saying Democrats aren't worth listening to because David Wu is nuts. I mean, saying that the left is the only proper political entity in politics is extremism. It's the political version of nationalism. You can't properly operate in politics and believe that, because you'll never be able to negotiate and cooperate with the other side.

The way I see it is, times are changing. America needs a leader that doesn't want to be the war-mongering Republican. But we have too many rightists that want war and they have too much pull on media sources like CNN and Fox News. Once they all die, we'll be good.

This argument reminds me of [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-8-2011/the-forecloser[/url]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/xbJY8.jpg[/img]

I feel bad for that one officer on fire :(.

[QUOTE=Reimu;31624513]I feel bad for that one officer on fire :(.[/QUOTE]Yeah that looks painful.

[QUOTE=Reimu;31624404]I think there is a lot of malice towards certain political views and religion on facepunch, but generally speaking the environment is welcoming for the latter. There's some sites where you can say, "Hi I'm a Christian," and people will rip you to shreds for no good reason but prejudging, stereotypes, and an inability to respect others for who they are. I don't think that happens on facepunch, but I think you can run into folks who aren't as tolerant as they could be. I don't think people are as tolerant of conservatives on facepunch though. And that's a damn shame, because just because there's a lot of loonies on the right doesn't mean every conservative policy ever should be discredited. That's like saying Democrats aren't worth listening to because David Wu is nuts.[/QUOTE] What it gets down to is, in an argument, Christians don't have a leg to stand on. And if they think they do they're usually massive troll bait that's fun to prod from time to time. Conservatives are pretty much the same. They defend the most batshit insane policies and ideologies, and the only people who consistently take their side(Glaber, Burnemdown, Dr. Funk, etc. . .) are semi retarded trailer trash vomit that constantly spout used to death rhetoric and pathetically outdated insults in a sorry attempt to secure some sort of victory in whatever argument they choose to start or join. And it's fucking hilarious. So that's why people confront them, because if they don't admit defeat immediately they're easy to beat down, and if they aren't beat down they're funny to watch thrash about.

[QUOTE=faze;31624457]The way I see it is, times are changing. America needs a leader that doesn't want to be the war-mongering Republican. But we have too many rightists that want war and they have too much pull on media sources like CNN and Fox News. Once they all die, we'll be good.[/QUOTE] Considering that Obama has gone to war with 3 countries in as many years disagrees with the gist of your post.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31624536]Considering that Obama has gone to war with 3 countries in as many years disagrees with the gist of your post.[/QUOTE]Libya is a UN war. This has been said many times, other countries are there too. We're a minority in that country. What other 2 wars has he started?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31624524]What it gets down to is, in an argument, Christians don't have a leg to stand on. And if they think they do they're usually massive troll bait that's fun to prod from time to time. Conservatives are pretty much the same. They defend the most batshit insane policies and ideologies, and the only people who consistently take their side(Glaber, Burnemdown, Dr. Funk, etc. . .) are semi retarded trailer trash vomit that constantly spout used to death rhetoric and pathetically outdated insults in a sorry attempt to secure some sort of victory in whatever argument they choose to start or join. And it's fucking hilarious. So that's why people confront them, because if they don't admit defeat immediately they're easy to beat down, and if they aren't beat down they're funny to watch thrash about.[/QUOTE] No one has a leg to stand on in arguing about religion, to be honest. No one can make a clear argument in a religious debate because, when religion is brought into the mix, you're talking about two different world viewpoints looking at a topic. You can't fight a world viewpoint unless the person with the viewpoint is willing to say, "Well, maybe what I believe in is flawed..." You might as well be arguing about whether the sky is blue, with the one guy saying it looks more like aqua. You're never going to convince him otherwise, because that's how he sees the world around him. Yes, on Facepunch generally speaking some of the more conservative folks don't have the best arguments around. But you also have to understand that a lot of those arguments result in, "Wow, you agree with something I don't like. You must be stupid then." Whenever I so much as try to encourage people to look at issues in a two-sided manner, without even really touching the argument, I can get people pouncing on me as a Republican sympathizer or whatever and calling me stupid, and idiot, etc. I'm not even a fucking conservative. That close-minded sense of, "Oh, all conservatives must be stupid because I only see stupid ones," is a major problem. It also means that when someone introduces an argument that's well thought out and constructed, it gets shot down immediately because they're conservative. To be honest though, neither religion nor politics are treated as sorely on facepunch as in on some sites. If you so much as hint that you're a Christian or Republican or whatever on some sites, people will beat you down until you claim you're a self-hating (insert controversial belief here).