The Cellar - The Obamanation

I think it's probably a good approach, to not consider people's arguments on a matter when they don't approach it in an adult way.

Most people here do not approach the discussions in an adult way.

infinite monkey

09-27-2011 01:37 PM

But, you know what? Some people ARE stupid.

Seriously. Why do you think they 'measure' intelligence?

And stupid people are easily swayed...so...

If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG. ;)

Spexxvet

09-27-2011 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 758872)

well, then you tuned out before she said the third conclusion is that "they" are evil, then said this strong attachment to our sense of being "right" causes us to treat others terribly.

this is what I was asking about.

I didn't watch yet.

If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they are evil. If those people achieve their goals, it will be to my detriment.

Spexxvet

09-27-2011 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 758878)

I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."

I think it's fair game to not consider people who don't approach discussions in an adult way.

I think that could apply to most people here.

Including you.

infinite monkey

09-27-2011 01:39 PM

We're imperfect fucking assholes.

So what? Who isn't?

But at least we're not stupid.

classicman

09-27-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 758880)

I didn't watch yet.

If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they are evil. If those people achieve their goals, it will be to my detriment.

Are they still evil if said policies are for the betterment of more than just you?

Stormieweather

09-27-2011 02:38 PM

Isn't that what all conflict IS though?

You think it's harmful (probably to you) and I think it's beneficial in some way (probably for me).

Or vice versa.

BigV	09-27-2011 05:50 PM

I'm not opposed to conflict.

Conflict for the sport of conflict, even. But that should be restricted to sporting events, or sparring, or other forms of vigorous exercise. But conflict in the name of some greater purpose, political, social, economic, whatever, those kinds of conflict should be conducted within certain boundaries, preferably mutually agreed upon boundaries. This makes for fair fights. Now before I'm laughed off the stage for believing in, much less desiring fair fighting, I submit that we all have a concept of fairness. We usually notice it when our opponent has breached it, but we have it and we work with it. Think about it--you don't solve all your problems with summary executions, effective (and justifiable) though it may be. It is the method that I have recently objected to, not the objective.

I like learning. When I'm learning, I'm in conflict with my own ignorance, my own bad habits, maybe with other people who hold different positions from mine, and I have to try to overcome these opposing forces if I'm going to learn anything. I have standards though, which I explained earlier.

Conflict is not just ok, it is necessary. Without friction, we would get nowhere. But the end does not justify all means.

BigV	09-30-2011 12:16 AM

1 Attachment(s)

The Obamanation:

TheMercenary

09-30-2011 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 758879)

If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG. ;)

WHat!?!!? The world is not flat?!?!? Oh hell....:p:

TheMercenary

10-04-2011 10:26 AM

Hmmmm.....

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- To the dismay of consumer groups and the discomfort of Democrats, President Barack Obama wants Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other billions owed the federal government.

The change "is expected to provide substantial increases in collections, particularly as an increasing share of households no longer have landlines and rely instead on cellphones," the administration wrote recently. The little-noticed recommendation would apply only to cases in which money is owed the government, and is tucked into the mammoth $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan the president submitted to Congress.

Despite the claim, the administration has not yet developed an estimate of how much the government would collect, and critics reject the logic behind the recommendation.

"Enabling robo-calls (to cellphones) is just going to lead to more harassment and abuse, and it's not going to help the government collect more money," said Lauren Saunders of the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. "People aren't paying their student loans because they can't find a job."

Whatever the impact on the budget deficit, the proposal has aligned the White House with the private debt collection industry - frequently the subject of consumer complaints - at a time when the economy is weak, unemployment is high and Obama is embarking on his campaign for re-election.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-04-06-36-08

SamIam

10-04-2011 11:42 AM

Man, that's really digging. I never answer automated calls of ANY kind. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a computer. If I can hang up on those calls from my land line, I can sure as hell hang up on them from my cell, too. I bet I'm not alone either. BFD :eyebrow:

TheMercenary

10-04-2011 12:19 PM

I think people should own their debts and pay them off. I just don't think these organizations should be able to have and share my personal info, cell phone number, across the board and I don't think government should have to authority to do it.

classicman

10-06-2011 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 756714)

Is this your smoking gun?

no, again not looking for one. Just a search for the truth.

MSNBC report via CNBC

Quote:

“Nearly eight months into our investigation, documents provided to the Committee last Friday confirm those closest to the President — top advisors like Valerie Jarrett, Larry Summers, and Ron Klain — had direct involvement in the Solyndra mess,” said Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), explaining the expansion of the document request. “In addition to the cast of West Wing characters with access to the Oval Office, documents reveal a startlingly cozy relationship between wealthy donors and the President’s confidantes, especially in matters related to Solyndra.”

Official in charge of energy loans resigns

Solyndra officials plead the 5th...

classicman

10-06-2011 08:42 PM

Another piece of the puzzle.

Quote:

Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, worked as a partner at the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm when President Obama nominated her for her current job. The same firm now represents Solyndra Chief Executive Brian Harrison.

Haag must refrain from participating in any matter related to her former employer for two years, under a broad ethics pledge promulgated by Obama that applies to executive appointees.

Haag declined to comment on Solyndra on Wednesday.

The Department of Energy's clean energy loan program also triggered a recusal promise from Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a state court judge nominated by Obama for the federal bench in Northern California. Her husband, Matt Rogers, oversaw DOE's grant and loan program before returning to McKinsey & Company.

Reuters

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Page 96 of 112

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page