US mid terms - what happened?

Look, we're living the Star Wars trilogy right now. In 2008, we had "A New Hope." In 2010, the Empire struck back. Which just means, in 2012, we're going to see the Return of the Jedi, which is awesome, but it also means we're going to be knee-deep in Ewoks by the Iowa caucuses.”
 
Obama pretty much took a shot at too many progressive policies such as the Healthcare Bill. Combined with the fact the economy over there has gotten worse since he became President it was never looking good. All things considered though the Democrats actually got lucky, if the Tea Party hadn't have formed chances are there would be a Republican Majority Senate as well as the Majority house.

Chances are 2012 is going to be a good year for the Democrats, the economy might have improved due to the Policies passed over the last two years. And if the Tea Party continues to have an influence Obama's opposition could very well be poor giving him a clear 2nd term.
 
So did Hitler, it's not anything to be proud of though is it?

Sometimes less really is more.

And Godwin's law comes into effect...


back on topic, I'm really not supprised a countr that constantly argues agaisnt a form of healthcare for its poorest yet sprouts that they have "christian" values.

I actually cant wait for india/china or to take over dominace, maybe the human race might get back on track.
 
And Godwin's law comes into effect...


back on topic, I'm really not supprised a countr that constantly argues agaisnt a form of healthcare for its poorest yet sprouts that they have "christian" values.

I actually cant wait for india/china or to take over dominace, maybe the human race might get back on track.

0 to godwin in less than 24h
wow!
 
And Godwin's law comes into effect...


back on topic, I'm really not supprised a countr that constantly argues agaisnt a form of healthcare for its poorest yet sprouts that they have "christian" values.

I actually cant wait for india/china or to take over dominace, maybe the human race might get back on track.

China???

Are you sure about that?

You think China is a fine example of a nation that looks after its population?
 
So did Hitler, it's not anything to be proud of though is it?

Sometimes less really is more.
Congratulations on winning pointless straw man argument of the day award...

The achievements of all world leaders through the entirity of history whether we like them or not are null and void because of "Hitler" :rolleyes:
 
Congratulations on winning pointless straw man argument of the day award...

The achievements of all world leaders through the entirity of history whether we like them or not are null and void because of "Hitler" :rolleyes:

I don't think you know what a straw man is...

Anyway for those who staggeringly managed to miss my point, it was that just because someone has achieved a lot doesn't mean that they are better than anyone else, the good of their achievements need to be taken into account to make an evaluation.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you know what a straw man is...

Anyway for those who staggeringly managed to miss my point, it was that just because someone has achieved a lot doesn't mean that they are better than anyone else, the good of their achievements need to be taken into account to make an evaluation.

It was a bit silly to bring Hitler into this though - that's precisely what the Tea Party radicalists did. Do you really want to go as low as they do? Bringing Hitler into a debate about Obama's performance doesn't come without any implications.
 
It was a bit silly to bring Hitler into this though - that's precisely what the Tea Party radicalists did. Do you really want to go as low as they do? Bringing Hitler into a debate about Obama's performance doesn't come without any implications.

It was in reference to Bush not Obama.
 
I don't think you know what a straw man is....
..O'Rly..

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

It was pointed out that GWB had achieved a great deal (not least being voted to lead arguably the worlds most powerfull nation, twice), which was likely to be more than the OP had managed to date and yet the OP referred to GWB as thick. You may wish to look up "Ironic" as well.

Rather than address the argument directly, you substituted Hitler (straw man) instead of GWB to try and prove GWB "achievements" Whatever they may be had no value or were not a "good thing" without ever addressing GWB or the OPs achievements themselves.

In any case, you failed as soon as you brought "Hitler" into a discussion about American mid term elections. I presume your next contribution to the discussion will be a scream of "but think of the children" :p
 
Last edited:
..O'Rly..

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I wasn't refuting an argument, if anything I was agreeing with his statement. Hence no fallacy.

Quoting wikipedia is all well and good but without the critical thinking skills to back it up it's meaningless.
 
People who are writing Obama off are forgetting that Reagan had a very similar mid-term problem and went on to win a second term by what i think is the largest margin seen since WW2.

People are also forgetting that Obama is Just Another American President and can no more fix the worlds problems or make our lives better than the bloke next door. He's also proving to be no great friend of the UK.
 
I wasn't refuting an argument, if anything I was agreeing with his statement. Hence no fallacy.

Quoting wikipedia is all well and good but without the critical thinking skills to back it up it's meaningless.

Hitler had critical thinking skills as well! Did Hitler ever quote wikipedia... i think not!
 
A lot of Americans didn't think he was great - he was despised in the South for being pro-civil rights and a Catholic.

Just more short-sighted reactionary rabble from the general population. It wouldn't be any different over here.
The Tea Party's politics have no natural constituency in the UK or anywhere else in Europe - we are far too urbanised for the 'All I need is a gun and a large supply of canned goods' attitude to take hold. America's population is about evenly split between urban and rural areas, which is quite unusual for a developed country.
 
Back
Top Bottom