3 ms·

There are some who don't think it's outlandish that Obama might be a lizard person in disguise, and that where change.gov states that the new administration "wi

by GHFigs 18y ago

There are some who don't think it's outlandish that Obama might be a lizard person in disguise, and that where change.gov states that the new administration "will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55", that it is really advocating euthanasia and reprocessing into Soylent Green as a solution to both overpopulation and world hunger. Try as I might to propose alternative interpretations more in line with Obama's prior statements, they only see what they want to see. Whether you think it's an outlandish idea or not does not have any impact on whether it is actually true or whether the case you've made is actually reasonable. You're still insinuating that Obama advocates forced labor based on a redacted description of a program (the American Opportunity Tax Credit, by name) which was never before or ever since been described as mandatory, forced, or required. Implying that it bears resemblance to H.R.393 is an enormous stretch beyond the facts, as well, and the attempt at guilt-by-association is transparent. Rangel, Clark and McDermott are not Obama, representatives of Obama, or the authors of change.gov. Nor for that matter are any supporters of draft reinstatement who happen to not be Democrats. You say "this isn't really the place to discuss the merits of Obama's possible policy proposals", and yet that's exactly what you are doing and I am not. As I noted before, your political bias is obvious. You are clearly more concerned with associating Obama with the concept of forced labor than either ascertaining the correct interpretation of his stated plans or in encouraging others to draw their own conclusions based on the supposed "evidence". Though you feign doubt saying "We will find out soon enough whether Obama really does support forced labor.", that is little different from saying "We will find out soon enough whether Obama really has stopped beating his wife." You don't appear to be concerned with the answer so much calling it into question. In other fields this is known as "FUD". It does little good to advocate transparency for the sake of the American people when you do so by attempting to obscure matters even further.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
I was originally responding to this: Some people will compulsively track every small change - and what this means is that the government will have to be extra careful before changing even a word. My point: there are important changes being made which deserve to be tracked. I provided an example of such a change. I also explained in another post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380300 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380300) why I picked this example: by some ad-hoc means, I was able to dig up the original language. Also, your analogy is ridiculous. If early versions advocated euthanasia, and then it was changed to say "setting a goal to reduce the burden of old people on the social security system", I would be concerned. Unlike your euthanasia example, early versions of the website did unambiguously advocate forced labor. Here is a pdf copy: http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/America_Serves_Change.pdf http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/America_... By the way, your one man downmod squad is cute. Too bad this isn't reddit; plenty of people here like Obama (I used to myself), but we have few (if any) fanatical pro-Obama downmodders.
- kalvin 18y ago
  No need to be a fanatical Obama downmodder to see your use of the term "forced labor" as trolling. If you're unfamiliar with how the term is used-- though I don't think you are-- take a look at the first page of Google results for an idea. Mandatory community service may be a terrible idea, but it's "forced labor" in the same way mandatory K-12 education is.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    It's forced labor in the sense that Obama advocated forcing people to perform labor. The gulag was vastly worse. So what?
    - Angostura 18y ago
      So what? The use of the term makes it appear that you are equating getting a kid to do homework with the Gulag's arrests, interrogations, transport in unheated cattle cars, forced labor, destruction of families, years spent in exile, and the early and unnecessary deaths.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  I daily thank sweet merciful Christ that this isn't reddit, but the more people like yourself I find here, the less I'm able to believe that. Being accused of being a "one man downmod squad" as if I even remotely gave a shit about moderation is a big red flag. I care fuckall for a popularity contest, and I find it personally offensive that your argument has fallen to suggesting that I do. Additionally, you have no idea what my political affiliations are, and I'm not about to explain them, because I am not interested in having an argument over politics, just as you formerly claimed to be. To be clear: I may or may not have voted for Obama, I may or may not be of voting age, and I may or may not be a U.S. citizen. Personal attacks aside, you're still wrong. Of course my analogy is ridiculous. I thought the "lizard person" bit gave that away. The point was that your unorthodox interpretation of the original text is itself nearly as ridiculous in that it completely discards every other statement prior or subsequent in favor of a reading that while literally unambiguous in isolation, is very unlikely to be accurate. Consider this sentence: "All Jews will die." On the one hand, it's factually accurate. On the other, it can be read as a threat. Context is vital, and is not to be ignored. It is in fact most important when potential interpretations are most disagreeable. At no point did I deny that that the text formerly read as it did. What I deny is that your interpretation of that text accurately reflects the intent of the message. I've given reasons above and in my prior posts, none of which you have contradicted. That changes have been made is not in question, but as your point rests in the idea that "major, substantial" changes are being made, and your evidence for that substance is demonstrably flimsy, I don't see where you have done anything more than confirm the statement you were responding to in the first place. That, and insult me. (Incidentally, how do you know the site did not once unambiguously advocate euthanasia and consumption of the elderly? Isn't it central to your case that this is currently unknowable? Aren't you just making an assumption based on the improbability that Obama would suddenly make such a significant change to his agenda only to shortly thereafter remove it?)

by GHFigs 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago

I was originally responding to this: Some people will compulsively track every small change - and what this means is that the government will have to be extra careful before changing even a word. My point: there are important changes being made which deserve to be tracked. I provided an example of such a change. I also explained in another post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380300 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=380300) why I picked this example: by some ad-hoc means, I was able to dig up the original language. Also, your analogy is ridiculous. If early versions advocated euthanasia, and then it was changed to say "setting a goal to reduce the burden of old people on the social security system", I would be concerned. Unlike your euthanasia example, early versions of the website did unambiguously advocate forced labor. Here is a pdf copy: http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/America_Serves_Change.pdf http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/America_... By the way, your one man downmod squad is cute. Too bad this isn't reddit; plenty of people here like Obama (I used to myself), but we have few (if any) fanatical pro-Obama downmodders.

kalvin 18y ago
No need to be a fanatical Obama downmodder to see your use of the term "forced labor" as trolling. If you're unfamiliar with how the term is used-- though I don't think you are-- take a look at the first page of Google results for an idea. Mandatory community service may be a terrible idea, but it's "forced labor" in the same way mandatory K-12 education is.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  It's forced labor in the sense that Obama advocated forcing people to perform labor. The gulag was vastly worse. So what?
  - Angostura 18y ago
    So what? The use of the term makes it appear that you are equating getting a kid to do homework with the Gulag's arrests, interrogations, transport in unheated cattle cars, forced labor, destruction of families, years spent in exile, and the early and unnecessary deaths.
GHFigs 18y ago
I daily thank sweet merciful Christ that this isn't reddit, but the more people like yourself I find here, the less I'm able to believe that. Being accused of being a "one man downmod squad" as if I even remotely gave a shit about moderation is a big red flag. I care fuckall for a popularity contest, and I find it personally offensive that your argument has fallen to suggesting that I do. Additionally, you have no idea what my political affiliations are, and I'm not about to explain them, because I am not interested in having an argument over politics, just as you formerly claimed to be. To be clear: I may or may not have voted for Obama, I may or may not be of voting age, and I may or may not be a U.S. citizen. Personal attacks aside, you're still wrong. Of course my analogy is ridiculous. I thought the "lizard person" bit gave that away. The point was that your unorthodox interpretation of the original text is itself nearly as ridiculous in that it completely discards every other statement prior or subsequent in favor of a reading that while literally unambiguous in isolation, is very unlikely to be accurate. Consider this sentence: "All Jews will die." On the one hand, it's factually accurate. On the other, it can be read as a threat. Context is vital, and is not to be ignored. It is in fact most important when potential interpretations are most disagreeable. At no point did I deny that that the text formerly read as it did. What I deny is that your interpretation of that text accurately reflects the intent of the message. I've given reasons above and in my prior posts, none of which you have contradicted. That changes have been made is not in question, but as your point rests in the idea that "major, substantial" changes are being made, and your evidence for that substance is demonstrably flimsy, I don't see where you have done anything more than confirm the statement you were responding to in the first place. That, and insult me. (Incidentally, how do you know the site did not once unambiguously advocate euthanasia and consumption of the elderly? Isn't it central to your case that this is currently unknowable? Aren't you just making an assumption based on the improbability that Obama would suddenly make such a significant change to his agenda only to shortly thereafter remove it?)