Free Dating Site    

it's tough being a third party candidate guy, it's really tough. I really think that obama should give half of his campaign cash to barr so they can have an "even playing field." why is it fair that barr has less money? he works just as hard does he not? why does barack have to have all the money? why can't he share with someone who has less? is this sounding familiar to anyone? wealth redistribution, the platform of the democrat party. see how silly it sounds?

straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Ugh, why the heck are people asking for this thread to be deleted, especially for it being non English? It's a silly argument but the freaking English is fine.

Ugh, why the heck are people asking for this thread to be deleted, especially for it being non English? It's a silly argument but the freaking English is fine.

IMO, the OP does make a valid point, but I think that Obama shouldn't give Bob Barr anything. Just like Bush's potential Borg successor (McCain), and Obama, Bob Barr has a legitamate chance to raise money and run a campaign like everyone else. However, I would like Bob Barr to participate in the debates so that we can see all of the candidates for once, and not just a fellow Democrat and war-mongering Repugnican.

I noticed the same thing happening lately to certain forums. It seems some folks are holding bias grudges....I don't see a thing wrong with the thread. But I digress from the topic at hand.....

IMO, the OP does make a valid point, but I think that Obama shouldn't give Bob Barr anything. Just like Bush's potential Borg successor (McCain), and Obama, Bob Barr has a legitamate chance to raise money and run a campaign like everyone else. However, I would like Bob Barr to participate in the debates so that we can see all of the candidates for once, and not just a fellow Democrat and war-mongering Repugnican.

ahhh, but does this not feed right into my point? you say that barr has a chance to raise money like everyone else. does the individual not possess this same chance to succeed and build a comfortable life on their own without the assistance of another?

No actually. A person born in the ghetto has much lower chances of success than somebody born in the Beverly Hills. A person born in the third world has much less success than somebody born in an industrialized country.

Aaaaand you ignored my statement about the differences between functional societies and political competitions, you also straw man Obama's position by stating that he believes in absolute equality. Which he has never stated, he isn't a communist after all, no mater how much his decorators like to pretend he is. He believes in Competition, what he does not believe in is INJUSTICE.

charles, I disagree with you. you are going with two extremes here. someone born in the ghetto and someone born in beverly hills. the one in beverly hills will be born into wealth, we all know that. I am talking about opportunity, you are talking about percentages. the opportunity is there, who chooses to take advantages of it remains to be seen. anyone who is born in a ghetto has an incredible chance for success if they choose to do so. where I live, we have one of the best state college systems in the US. if you are a NC resident and get accepted to UNC and can't afford it, the state pays your tuition. I have no problem with that. charles, the opportunity to succeed is most definitely here.

I never said that obama believes in absolute equality. he believes in equality for some, and not so much for others. if you worked 100 hours per week and made $200,000 per year, how would you feel about getting taxed at 40%? should someone working 40 hours per week making $40,000 per year receive the same benefits? is one evil because he works more? the one working more is considered evil. does this make sense? hopefully people actually wake up in 2012. it's not going to happen this year, but I maintain hope!

its tough being a third party candidate guy, it's really tough. I really think that obama should give half of his campaign cash to barr so they can have an "even playing field." why is it fair that barr has less money? he works just as hard does he not? why does barack have to have all the money? why can't he share with someone who has less? is this sounding familiar to anyone? wealth redistribution, the platform of the democrat party. see how silly it sounds?

jmarquise, the election funds Obama has isnt "his" money. It is the money of people who donated to his campaign.

Bob Barr needs to raise his own.

Indeed, and I wish Mr. Barr all the best in running so he can splinter the Republicans for McCain just like idiot Nader did to the Democrats.

Nope...Bob Barr will steal more than enough right wing votes on his own w/o financial assistance.
I applaud Bob Barr on his campaign's efforts to help elect Barack Obama.

it would be ridiculous to expect any candidate to give up monies that were DONATED to their election efforts.

The very process of being in the ghetto vastly reduces your chance of ever leaving it. Poverty is a trap, and it's an especially horrible trap when their isn't the social programs to back it. The reality is that the USA has horrible social mobility compared to many other countries. You haven't been the land of opportunity and "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" in a long time.

More work isn't usually why people get more pay, you can be a really shitty CEO and make more money than the best carpenter will in his entire life.

Obama doesn't believe in absolute equality, and he doesn't believe in equality for some and not for others. He believes in a just society where every kid gets a real shot at fufilling his potential, and guess where social programs have to come from? Tax revenues.

are you kidding me? I am going to say this again. I live in the mother ****ing ghetto!!!!!! I was born in detroit insinde 8 mile road. I grew up in washington DC, the murder capital of the world. why is this so hard for you to comprehend. you know only second, third, or fourth hand accounts. you know what you see on the news. you know what someone in canada told you. I live this shit, ever day and every night. I know poverty. I know what causes poverty. I lived in poverty. I lived without hot water. I also knew I didn't want to live like that. so I took a $13.25 per hour job and turned it into a quarter of a million dollars in 3 years. I learned how to make sacrifices. I am not an exception, I am an example.

Introduction
Emily Beller and Michael Hout examine trends in U.S. social mobility, especially as it relates to the degree to which a person's income or occupation depends on his or her parents' background and to the independent contribution of economic growth. They also compare U.S. social mobility with that in other countries. They conclude that slower economic growth since 1975 and the concentration of that growth among the wealthy have slowed the pace of U.S. social mobility.

In measuring mobility, economists tend to look at income and sociologists, occupation. The consensus among those measuring occupational mobility is that the average correlation between the occupations of fathers and sons today ranges from 0.30 to 0.40, meaning that most variation in the ranking of occupations is independent of social origins. Those measuring income mobility tend to agree that the elasticity between fathers' and sons' earnings in the United States today is about 0.4, meaning that 40 percent of the difference in incomes between families in the parents' generation also shows up in differences in incomes in the sons' generation.

Beller and Hout show that occupational mobility increased during the 1970s, compared with the 1940s–1960s, but there is some evidence to suggest that by the 1980s and 1990s it had declined to past levels. Existing data on income mobility show no clear trends over time, but increases in economic inequality during the 1980s made mobility more consequential by making economic differences between families persist for a longer time.

In international comparisons, the United States occupies a middle ground in occupational mobility but ranks lower in income mobility. Researchers have used the variation in mobility to study whether aspects of a country's policy regime, such as the educational or social welfare systems, might be driving these results. There is as yet, however, no scholarly consensus about the sources of cross-national differences in mobility.

It's not that I I don't comprehend, it's just that I don't care.