Sarion posted:

I agree it is a very good rhetorical strategy, especially when you're needing to convince people with something like a speech where lots of information is just going to turn people away. The key, of course, is to have it still backed up with evidence. You're totally right about why it's done; it just pisses me off.

Sarion posted:

I hate "common-sense" anything so much; all it ever really means is "we don't have any evidence to support our claim", like every loving time. If you don't have evidence, just claim common-sense. Can't argue with that stupid libtards

Sarion posted:

Thanks for this. I only just started reading it and had to stop at the Republican's first sentence, "Well let's just say a common-sense policy..." I didn't get any further than that before

I hate "common-sense" anything so much; all it ever really means is "we don't have any evidence to support our claim", like every loving time. If you don't have evidence, just claim common-sense. Can't argue with that stupid libtards



E: This part made me chuckle:

XyloJW posted:

My point in bringing it up is that maybe we ought to focus on that? We all know how citing sources works on Facebook/emails. Maybe it'd be better to work out an argument that appears simple and neat at face value, and used it to argue for stuff we know factually to be true.

losonti tokash posted:

If it makes you feel better, I was listening to On Point earlier in the day and the host interrupted to basically make that exact statement. The Republican just kinda stuttered for a bit and moved on. Dude kept saying it was about increasing confidence even after the other guest literally said "yeah we've done studies on this and voter id laws have absolutely no effect on voter confidence because the people who believe in a non-existent problem are still going to think it's there anyway."

Boxman posted:

Does anyone have a good source for the "absentee ballots are a big problem" claim? It gets thrown around a lot, and I have plenty of sources for "in person fraud is exceedingly rare" but I'd love to be able to show that I do care about voting fraud in these arguments.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Since everyone loves facebook argument chat; a high school friend of mine is using his GI bill and low student loan rates to go to law school. Voter ID discussion

Mo_Steel posted:

If 99% of electoral fraud in 2008 went uncaught and all voter impersonation fraud AND absentee ballot fraud went in favor of Barack Obama, those votes would constitute 0.065% of the difference in votes between the two leading campaigns. Voter impersonation votes would make up 0.0011% of the difference, which is one one-thousandth of one percent of the difference.

Voter ID is a literal waste of MY TAX DOLLARS, even if somehow voter ID were to stop absentee ballot fraud too.

Mo_Steel posted:

Voter ID is a literal waste of MY TAX DOLLARS, even if somehow voter ID were to stop absentee ballot fraud too. It doesn't, and absentee ballot fraud outweighs voter impersonation fraud by quite a margin. Someone else suggested it on these forums (maybe in this thread?) but I wager the argument would turn pretty quick if you suggested that people should only be allowed to pickup their absentee ballots in person no more than 60 days before an election from the county courthouse where they claim residency in person and with a photo ID. What's that, can't get a ballot because you're stationed overseas or doing a church mission outside the country? That's the price we pay for electoral accuracy then, maybe you shouldn't be so lazy about getting your ballot.

XyloJW posted:

I just wanna chime in and say this is a super effective debate tactic: Give the opponent the total benefit of the doubt. "Let's take the worst-case scenario and multiply it by 100 times. Does that sound fair? Okay? Alright, it still wouldn't matter. You're wasting my tax dollars, and inflating the size of the government."

I got a "Well, I still think you're wrong," but the tone was such that I knew he'd not be bringing up that argument again. Hopefully he thought about it later.

XyloJW posted:

I just wanna chime in and say this is a super effective debate tactic: Give the opponent the total benefit of the doubt. "Let's take the worst-case scenario and multiply it by 100 times. Does that sound fair? Okay? Alright, it still wouldn't matter. You're wasting my tax dollars, and inflating the size of the government."

I got a "Well, I still think you're wrong," but the tone was such that I knew he'd not be bringing up that argument again. Hopefully he thought about it later.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

This argument is a good one, but they conceive of voter ID as a matter of great moral urgency. It isn't that it's a real problem, but that the very idea of fraudulent voting is kind of morally repugnant. And it is. But there is a practical problem, in that voting fraud is so ridiculously rare that it doesn't make sense to pass laws, since the chance that even 100 fraudulent votes in a state will determine an election is so slim that it's really not worth it. However, Republicans want to focus on the moral case (I'm taking the rhetoric seriously here, since we know it's about winning elections, but the ordinary Republican-on-the-street doesn't believe that it's rooted in anything but good intentions) because in that they are correct: fraudulent voting is wrong. Still, it doesn't make a case for highly restrictive voter ID laws given the practical worries. And the irony here is that Republicans always toot their own horns about how they're the practical party, not the moralizing party.

Of course, last time I argued all of this with a Republican who loved Rush Limbaugh, he got pissed at my elitist argument strategy and how I'm just trying to confuse him...

Goatman Sacks posted:

There was some fucker on NPR last night who was saying that they don't have to prove voter fraud exists to have these laws, because (mostly southern)states have a vested interest in making sure voters are confident in fair elections. Sadly, the host didn't say "counterpoint: the last 200 years"

Mo_Steel posted:

You can test the moral boundaries then. It's important to highlight that there's no evidence basis first, then move on to any moral underpinning and address that on it's own terms. If fraudulent voting is really a problem, and in-person voter fraud is the real issue, you know what works great? If you ink people's fingers after they vote. If we're going to waste money to stop a problem that isn't happening, let's do it in a way that doesn't potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. Or we could make the crime of voter impersonation punishable by death. Is that cruel and unusual? Who cares, we're already potentially throwing out voting rights portions of the Constitution with requiring voter ID, so why not? I bet it'd discourage a lot of potential fraud too. Still not enough? We've got technology now, we could put a chip in every person and then track where they go; if you go to two polling places on election day you get stripped of citizenship and deported, permanently.

Mo_Steel posted:

You can test the moral boundaries then. It's important to highlight that there's no evidence basis first, then move on to any moral underpinning and address that on it's own terms. If fraudulent voting is really a problem, and in-person voter fraud is the real issue, you know what works great? If you ink people's fingers after they vote. If we're going to waste money to stop a problem that isn't happening, let's do it in a way that doesn't potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. Or we could make the crime of voter impersonation punishable by death. Is that cruel and unusual? Who cares, we're already potentially throwing out voting rights portions of the Constitution with requiring voter ID, so why not? I bet it'd discourage a lot of potential fraud too. Still not enough? We've got technology now, we could put a chip in every person and then track where they go; if you go to two polling places on election day you get stripped of citizenship and deported, permanently.

Obviously the point of these examples is that calling it a moral problem is a dodge to avoid the fact that everyone agrees with preventing voter fraud in principle. The question is how you do it and how big a problem it is, and saying one fraudulent vote is too much is missing the point. Voter disenfranchisement is every bit as bad as fraudulent votes are, so any solution to fraudulent voting should, at a bare minimum, not risk disenfranchising more voters than it prevents fraudulent votes. Especially when the prevalence of fraudulent voting is so extraordinarily low, which we've already established.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Maybe it's because I put on my ethics teacher hat that people turn off at this point, but yeah, I do this with people I'm debating as well as my students. It works for teaching, but people don't always like it and think you're condescending to them. Maybe I just sound condescending?

No, wait, it's that people don't like being challenged in substantive ways! I work as a professional philosopher so my standards are different!

Boxman posted:

The other problem is that the burden of proof should pretty clearly be on those advocating for such a program. Aside from the fact that changes from the status quo should always have the burden of proof (thanks high school debate! ), we should always have an absurdly strong preference for protecting affirmative rights - our strong preference for "freedom from detainment" is why the burden of proof for prosecutors is so high. We should be similarly fanatical about protecting the right to vote.

Mo_Steel posted:

As I mentioned above, if we're going to waste money fixing part of the voting system that isn't broken, may as well do it so it doesn't remove the rights of citizens to vote.

quote:

We can end this in November……
OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS ARE 'SENIOR STAFFERS' ?


And the administration had to be sued to get this through the Freedom of Information Act. (FOIA)
Way to go Judicial Watch ! SENIOR STAFFERS ?

Michelle Obama Listed Daughters As “Senior Staffers” To Justify Expensive African Vacation and Safari October 5, 2011 The most accountable administration:

Judicial Watch said the U.S. Air Force provided a C-32 ( a Boeing 757) modified by the military for the purpose of flying big-wigs around the world – to fly the First Lady and her entourage to and from Africa at a cost of $424,142.00. Another $928.44 was listed as “bulk food” costs of providing 192 on-board meals for the 21 people who made the trip. The Obama daughters were listed on the manifest as “senior staff.”

“This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information .” This story is worthy of our attention. The nation is suffering with the economy sputtering, the national debt soaring and Obama’s economic rescue policies not only failing but actively making things worse.

Meanwhile, the First Lady justifies an expensive trip to Africa to take a vacation and safari with her daughters by saying it’s “official business” and even going so far as to list her children as “staffers.” The level of arrogance and dishonesty on display here is nothing short of shocking. But, er, “hope for change” and “yes we can .”

It’s a true story. Check out these links ...


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...trip-to-africa/

Just one more insult that can be corrected on Nov 6, 2012. Please pass this on. The mainstream media won't do it. It's up to us

Mo_Steel posted:

I suppose if you wanted to be particularly careful about not coming off as condescending you could ask them to air their own views out instead of doing it yourself through somewhat more absurd examples to illustrate the weak moral / ethical argument at play:
[snip]

Tomahawk posted:

Got this email from my boss.

Kat R. Waulin posted:

StealthArcher posted:

Wow, it's like they've all gone full and just accept that somehow Obama being muted makes Romney win because reasons.

Kat R. Waulin posted:

Kat R. Waulin posted:

XyloJW posted:

Nope! Sorry, you can't get to 47% without including the disabled. Romney called them moochers. You can try to say he didn't mean it, but that's what he said. Deal with it.

Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd ReReReReRe posted:

The sheer #s alone are telling and speak volumes!!!!!!!!!
See the last 2 paras if nothing else
jc
WAKE UP AMERICA! LIFE WILL SOON NOT BE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IF WE DON’T STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT. WE HAVE TO VOTE THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE. IF YOU ARE OFFENDED, I’M SORRY, BUT THIS WILL EFFECT YOU TOO WHEN WE ARE NO LONGER A FREE NATION. THINK OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN AND HOW LIFE WILL BE FOR THEM. THEY WILL NEVER KNOW THE FREEDOM YOU AND I HAVE HAD.
Check it out for yourselves on “Truth or Fiction”. This is just a part of the list.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Subject: Fw: Executive Orders .... where's the media?

If you don't get the implications you're not paying attention. How many warnings do you need?

Scary !
923 Executive Orders in 40 Months
During my lifetime, All Presidents have issued Executive Orders, for reasons that vary, some more than others.

When a President issued as many as 30 Ex. Orders during a term in Office, people thought there was something Amiss.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT 923 EX. ORDERS IN ONE PART OF ONE TERM ?????? YES, THERE IS A REASON.
IT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DETERMINED TO TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

Even some Democrats in the House have turned on him, plus a very small number of Democrat Senators question him.

HE SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. WHAT IS HE REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH ????

DOES THIS SCARE YOU AS MUCH AS IT DOES ME?
________________________________

Not really surprising that he appointed "Czars" to be in charge of everything.
Emperor Obama ?
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

....THIS IS NOT FUNNY, AND IF YOU VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN, YOU CAN EXPECT MORE!

Remember what he told Russia 's Putin: "I'll be more flexible after I'm re-elected".

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months!
What did Congress do in those 40 months? (The House - considerable. The Senate -nothing, not even a budget nor allowing any House bill to be considered.) A whole new order must prevail in Wash. DC as a result of this next election! Now look at these:

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the registration of all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Feel free to verify the "executive orders" at will... and these are just the major ones I'm sure you've all heard the tale of the "Frog in the Pot"... you all comfortable???
Watch Obama's actions, not his words! By his actions he will show you where America is headed.

. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to "harmonize" U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system.

Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening. The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to "harmonize" their work with the international community.

THIS IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE??
THEN PROVE TO YOURSELF IT'S WRONG.


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry - 1736-1799

quote:

What did Congress do in those 40 months? (The House - considerable. The Senate -nothing, not even a budget nor allowing any House bill to be considered.)

quote:

THIS IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE??
THEN PROVE TO YOURSELF IT'S WRONG.

quote:

But more recently, Maggie said, Peterson was behaving erratically, sending paranoid political emails daily to family and friends.

“They were very well off people and they saved a lot of money,” she said about the Petersons. “He couldn’t understand how the government could be so irresponsible and he thought it would be on the backs of his boys.”

Monkey Fracas posted:

Presidency Project[/url]:

Kat R. Waulin posted:

Thanks to football season, my fb has been a lot calmer. But these popped up today.

Sub-Actuality posted:

czar, noun \ˈzär, ˈ(t)sär\
1. an evil mini-emperor appointed by Barack Hussein Obama to secretly convert the United States to Communism
2. absolutely nothing else

Origin: New Latin czar, from Russian tsar', from Old Russian tsĭsarĭ
First Known Use: 2008

Monkey Fracas posted:

quote:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry - 1736-1799

quote:

As quoted in The Best Liberal Quotes Ever : Why the Left is Right (2004) by William P. Martin. Though widely attributed to Henry, this statement has not been sourced to any document before the 1990s and appears to be at odds with his beliefs as a strong opponent of the adoption of the US Constitution.

Nuclearmonkee posted:

In a just world, the man (obviously a man) who posted this would never be allowed to have sex with any woman except for the express purpose of procreation.

Monkey Fracas posted:

The only reason its come back into use is to try and draw some insidious connection between the Democratic party and Stalinism. I honestly can't believe people still buy all that McCarthy "Commies EVERYWHERE!!" crap. The cold war apparently really wrecked our political sensibilities or something. Is there a fringe element in Russia that runs around all like goddamn capitalism ruins everything american pigs wharrrrrgbl just out of pure residual post WWII-era misplaced nationalism?

XyloJW posted:

It's of course particularly hilarious because the communists and the czars were opponents.

Monkey Fracas posted:

The only reason its come back into use is to try and draw some insidious connection between the Democratic party and Stalinism. I honestly can't believe people still buy all that McCarthy "Commies EVERYWHERE!!" crap. The cold war apparently really wrecked our political sensibilities or something. Is there a fringe element in Russia that runs around all like goddamn capitalism ruins everything american pigs wharrrrrgbl just out of pure residual post WWII-era misplaced nationalism?

John Charity Spring posted:

Given what happened to their country in the 90s, you could probably forgive Russians for thinking 'goddamn capitalism ruins everything'.

Monkey Fracas posted:

Didn't see this posted here yet. I don't even know where to begin here- the entire thing is predicated on fictitious information that can be proven wrong with the laziest of Google searches and as well invites this by using insanely fake-sounding statistics. It attributes ExO's that are decades old to Obama, uses a hilariously huge made-up number for Obama's supposed count (923) and all of the other counts listed are as also just pulled out of the writer's rear end. The whole "Obama is an arrogant power hungry emperor" narrative is pretty hilarious and people believe it. (Well there was that business with NDAA, which is pretty serious, but I almost never hear that mentioned by these people.)


Apparently Congress is just a powerhouse of effective legislation and totally not obstructionist whatsoever! Yep.


YES IT IS
EGGING ME ON TO FACT CHECK YOUR BULLSHIT IS ALSO VERY BALLSY


EDIT:
Just so nobody has to go out and find the actual numbers (and as a way of apologizing for a wall o' crazy text) here are the actual counts for presidential executive orders from The American Presidency Project:

Nuclearmonkee posted:

In a just world, the man (obviously a man) who posted this would never be allowed to have sex with any woman except for the express purpose of procreation.