I've addressed the proof argument. Again, the administration itself has admitted to doing this. Please stop ignoring this fact.
I'm not ignoring anything K. I've read your article, and even the strongest language that you've been able to glean from your article hardly serves as an admission that anything untoward has happened. There is no "fact" to ignore. There is some speculation and a dishwater-strong quote that doesn't signify anything to anyone who's not already looking for something wrong. Seriously, connect the dots for us and prove something without resorting to "I'm right and if you don't agree, you're stupid." I don't think you can do it.
Joe, in this case you really are acting stupid. Sorry, but that's the reality. Not meant to be an ad hominem, just the reality of having to respond again and again to the same feeble argument you make.
For Joe, and forum members who are too young to have had middle school civics, let me recap. Here is a good article on the patronage system. Notice that for ambassadors, the expectation is that 30-40 percent are patronage positions. The Obama administration itself admitted that they have had a large percentage of political appointments. From the Politico article: White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it is unfair to judge the Obama administration by its first wave of ambassadorial nominations, because most of the openings involve traditional political posts recently vacated by Bush administration appointees.
If you are having a hard time understanding the term "traditional political post", that's your fault, not mine. And here is a specific example of a "top bundler" being made an ambassador. Notice there is a list of other such appointees toward the end of the article. Yes, more specific examples.
And then there is this Washington Times article, from which I will quote: President Obama’s campaign to bring change to the nation’s capital hasn’t kept him from continuing the Washington tradition of handing out ambassadorships to political friends and fundraisers.
Can you cite a single article that suggests that Obama has not engaged in patronage. If you could have, you would have by now.
You can continue with your ad ignorantiam, and I can continue to list examples, or you can show that you have a some intelligence. At this point, I can only assume that you are a troll. Shame on you for putting politics over equality. Shame.
Are you trolling here, or are you just oblivious to a long standing political tradition?
I just recognize that no matter how many news articles one reads, or how many political blogs you browse every day, or how many hours of C-span you watch a week, unless you've either managed to be on the inside enough that you know the whole story, or you have some compelling evidence, You have nothing.
You might turn out to be wrong, you might turn out to be right, but until it's proven either way, every assertion you make is just conjecture and speculation.
Wouldn't dream of stopping you, at all, hey, whatever tickles your pickle, but just saying.
unless you've either managed to be on the inside enough that you know the whole story, or you have some compelling evidence, You have nothing.
This is perhaps the biggest load of bullshit I have read here. Look at history. Look at Obama's list of ambassadors. Look at Obama himself admitting that this would not change under his administration. Look at what his administration has admitted about these positions.
According to your logic, you can't believe that the there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. You haven't seen it first hand. It's just reported by the media.
Oh wait... the fact that Obama is engaging in patronage is being reported by the media. Hmm... double standard ville, here comes Churba! Again, show me ONE article that states that Obama has not engaged in this behavior. Oh, wait... you can't. But then you turn a blind eye to the other media reports.
The simple truth is that I have provided evidence in support of my position. You have provided zero evidence in support of yours. And given politics, your claim is the incredible claim. You are the one who should have the burden of proof. But when the goalposts move, integrity is diminished.
This is compelling evidence, plain and simple. You can look at a tree and call it a duck, but it's still a tree.
I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk when I say that the people here who deny that Obama has engaged in patronage show a serious lack of intelligence.
I ask the forum, who here does NOT believe that Obama has engaged in patronage? I would LOVE to know if I am in the minority in this belief.
This is compelling evidence, plain and simple. You can look at a tree and call it a duck, but it's still a tree.
And you can look at a Duck and call it a duck/hen, but if it's a drake, you're still wrong, no matter how much it looked, quacked, and shat everywhere like a duck.
I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk when I say that the people here who deny that Obama has engaged in patronage show a serious lack of intelligence.
I know. But I refuse to make such an allegation without evidence.
I just recognize that no matter how many news articles one reads, or how many political blogs you browse every day, or how many hours of C-span you watch a week, unless you've either managed to be on the inside enough that you know the whole story, or you have some compelling evidence, You have nothing.
You might turn out to be wrong, you might turn out to be right, but until it's proven either way, every assertion you make is just conjecture and speculation.
Truth. You can call us all the names you want, K, and you can repeat you're "You're stupid if you don't agree with me" comments until you're blue in the face, but you still have not shown one bit of objective proof.
Again, show me ONE article that states that Obama has not engaged in this behavior. Oh, wait... you can't.
That's not Churb's burden.
The simple truth is that I have provided evidence in support of my position.
Actually, you haven't. You've provided some speculation and called us names. That's not evidence in support of your position.
but you still have not shown one bit of objective proof.
How can I debate with people that are willing to flat out lie?
All we're asking for is objective proof to support your position, not speculation and ad hominems. You can't provide that proof. We're not the liars here. We're not the ones saying we've proven something when we haven't.
Saw it. It's a pile of shit. I already know I'm not the smartest guy around here, hell, you're most likely smarter than me by multiple orders of magnitude, and I'm well aware that I'm far behind most of you on the topic of American politics - but if you can't figure out for all of those qualities that a few News articles, blog posts, and opinion pieces do not evidence of governmental corruption make, then quit now, and go take your proper place at the right hand of Michael Moore.
Saw it. It's a pile of shit. I already know I'm not the smartest guy around here, hell, you're most likely smarter than me by multiple orders of magnitude, and I'm well aware that I'm far behind most of you on the topic of American politics - but if you can't figure out for all of those qualities that a few News articles, blog posts, and opinion pieces do not evidence of governmental corruption make, then quit now, and go take your proper place at the right hand of Michael Moore.
Agree. K has shown some articles that basically say that people who donated to the campaign were later given jobs. Not one of them prove that any one of those people was given a job because of their donation or that the size of their donation determined the quality of the job they were offered. The only other things offered are ad hominems and macros - not compelling evidence by any means.
I think this is a new type of logical fallacy - the Argumentum ad Kilarnium, such fallacy being that the acquisition of large numbers of ad hominems, use of phrases such as "moving the goalposts", "hypocrites", "woops", over and over again, and use of old, sad macros do not prove an argument.
When did I say that there was corruption? There is no corruption. I just don't like the system. And it isn't peculiar to Obama.
Turn it up, mate, as best I can tell, what you've been saying is that people are being put into cushy government positions because they contributed money to the President's election campaign. If that's not Corruption, I'm honestly baffled as to what you think is.
you are moving the goalposts.
That's the first time you've used your usual goalposts line in reply to one of my posts - I feel so included now. But anyway, Who needs to move the goalposts? I don't see why the effort would be necessary, all of your kicks have fallen well short of them.
When did I say that there was corruption? There is no corruption. I just don't like the system. And it isn't peculiar to Obama.
Turn it up, mate, as best I can tell, what you've been saying is that people are being put into cushy government positions because they contributed money to the President's election campaign.
Also, as best I can tell, K started talking about ONE PARTICULAR GUY, but when he realized he couldn't actually prove anything about that one particular guy, he moved the goalposts and started talking about general corruption . . . because he's a hypocrite. Woops!
Agree. K has shown some articles that basically say that people who donated to the campaign were later given jobs. Not one of them prove that any one of those people was given a job because of their donation or that the size of their donation determined the quality of the job they were offered. The only other things offered are ad hominems and macros - not compelling evidence by any means.
I have connected the dots. You are also dishonestly ignoring political tradition. Burden of proof is now on you.
Can you please stop dodging the question, Joe.
Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
I view corruption as something illegal. This is immoral, but not illegal.
That's entirely fair - I view Corruption as the abuse of power for personal gain, Not necessarily as something illegal, thus the confusion. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
I'm not dodging any question. I'm just asking you to prove your point, but you won't do it. I don't have any obligation whatsoever to state any beliefs about whether Obama has or has not engaged in patronage. I'm just asking you to prove your point that he has. So far, all you've done is post a lot of articles, ad hominems, and sad macros - the Argumentum ad Kilarnium.
K has shown some articles that basically say that people who donated to the campaign were later given jobs. Not one of them prove that any one of those people was given a job because of their donation or that the size of their donation determined the quality of the job they were offered.
Do you honestly not see the correlation? If you don't, I again question your basic intelligence.
K has shown some articles that basically say that people who donated to the campaign were later given jobs. Not one of them prove that any one of those people was given a job because of their donation or that the size of their donation determined the quality of the job they were offered.
Do you honestly not see the correlation? If you don't, I again question your basic intelligence.
Truth. I cite numerous articles in support of my position. History supports my position. You make an incredible argument, and you cite ZERO evidence in support of your position.
If you cling to your position in light of this, I have every right to question your basic intelligence.
Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
As I see it, you're the one dodging the question. You took on the burden of showing that one particular guy got an ambassadorship because he contributed X number of dollars to Obama's campaign. Then, when you realized you couldn't prove that, you moved the goalposts and started talking about the presence of a general patronage system, but you haven't even been able to prove that.
I haven't undertaken to prove anything. I have no obligation to answer any question. YOU are the one who has undertaken to prove something, and now you're trying to distract from the reality that you can't sustain your burden.
If you cling to your position in light of this,
I have no position other than that you have not proven your point.
Ad hominem.
I have every right to question your basic intelligence.
Ad hominem again. You really need to learn basic debating skills. So basic.
Forum, welcome to classic Joe behavior when he loses an argument. Throw up smoke, lie, etc. Just don't be honest. And whatever you do, don't provide a SHred of evidence in support of an incredible claim. Shame on you, Joe.
Joe, please stop dodging the question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
The forum deserves to know if you believe this, or if you are merely trolling.
Do you honestly not see the correlation? If you don't, I again question your basic intelligence.
I realise the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway - I can see Why you think there is correlation, but I still refuse to say yes or no without evidence. I won't say I even have as much as you do to tip the scales towards that there is a correlation, because so far, you have conjecture, and I don't even have that.
Truth. I cite numerous articles in support of my position.
I cite lynch mobs, as evidence that just because a lot of people have the same idea at the same time, doesn't mean it's a good, sensible, or correct idea.
Forum, welcome to classic Joe behavior when he loses an argument. Throw up smoke, lie, etc. Just don't be honest. Shame on you, Joe.
Joe, please stop dodging the question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
The forum deserves to know if you believe this, or if you are merely trolling.
K, Just go ahead and say that I dodged the question. You're dodging the proof. I haven't said anything one way or the other about my personal beliefs. I'm not the one who came here and said, "ZOMFG!!!111!!! Obama has done something new that I disagree with!" ONCE AGAIN. YOU UNDERTOOK A BURDEN. I have no "side" in this argument. I'm only asking to see proof. If you prove it, I'll believe you. So far, I have seen no proof. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUSTAIN YOUR BURDEN. /argument.
I realise the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway - I can see Why you think there is correlation, but I still refuse to say yes or no without evidence. I won't say I even have as much as you do to tip the scales towards that there is a correlation, because so far, you have conjecture, and I don't even have that.
Then you don't believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia?
I cite lynch mobs, as evidence that just because a lot of people have the same idea at the same time, doesn't mean it's a good, sensible, or correct idea.
Joe, stop dodging the question. Do you personally believe that obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Issues of proof aside, I don't understand why you would be so rude or arrogant so as not to answer a simple question.
Not really. Your original problem was that one particular guy was supposed to have bought one particular job. This article doesn't say anything about that, but I guess you're moving the goalposts.
Comments
For Joe, and forum members who are too young to have had middle school civics, let me recap.
Here is a good article on the patronage system.
Notice that for ambassadors, the expectation is that 30-40 percent are patronage positions. The Obama administration itself admitted that they have had a large percentage of political appointments. From the Politico article:
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it is unfair to judge the Obama administration by its first wave of ambassadorial nominations, because most of the openings involve traditional political posts recently vacated by Bush administration appointees.
If you are having a hard time understanding the term "traditional political post", that's your fault, not mine.
And here is a specific example of a "top bundler" being made an ambassador. Notice there is a list of other such appointees toward the end of the article. Yes, more specific examples.
And then there is this Washington Times article, from which I will quote:
President Obama’s campaign to bring change to the nation’s capital hasn’t kept him from continuing the Washington tradition of handing out ambassadorships to political friends and fundraisers.
You can also refer to this long list.
Can you cite a single article that suggests that Obama has not engaged in patronage. If you could have, you would have by now.
You can continue with your ad ignorantiam, and I can continue to list examples, or you can show that you have a some intelligence. At this point, I can only assume that you are a troll. Shame on you for putting politics over equality. Shame.
You might turn out to be wrong, you might turn out to be right, but until it's proven either way, every assertion you make is just conjecture and speculation.
Wouldn't dream of stopping you, at all, hey, whatever tickles your pickle, but just saying.
According to your logic, you can't believe that the there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. You haven't seen it first hand. It's just reported by the media.
Oh wait... the fact that Obama is engaging in patronage is being reported by the media. Hmm... double standard ville, here comes Churba! Again, show me ONE article that states that Obama has not engaged in this behavior. Oh, wait... you can't. But then you turn a blind eye to the other media reports.
The simple truth is that I have provided evidence in support of my position. You have provided zero evidence in support of yours. And given politics, your claim is the incredible claim. You are the one who should have the burden of proof. But when the goalposts move, integrity is diminished.
This is compelling evidence, plain and simple. You can look at a tree and call it a duck, but it's still a tree.
I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk when I say that the people here who deny that Obama has engaged in patronage show a serious lack of intelligence.
I ask the forum, who here does NOT believe that Obama has engaged in patronage? I would LOVE to know if I am in the minority in this belief.
Read this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or the ultra-right-wing NBC news.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Oh... wait... no amount of media reports are acceptable, even though you haven't cited a SINGLE report in support of YOUR position.
It must be nice to live in a world that distorts reality to suit you.
At this point, Joe, I am comfortable calling you an idiot. Because you are either an idiot or you are trolling.
Joe, let me ask you specifically. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage? If you DO believe that he has, then you are trolling.
Forget your stupid debate tricks. Forget who has the burden of proof. Just tell me what you think.
Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
And then there is that little rag called the Wall Street Journal. But nope. Still not a shred of evidence. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
The British get it.
India gets it.
CNN gets it - but they are right-wing, aren't they?
NPR gets it - but we all know how right-wing they are.
The Washington Post gets it.
The Washington Times understands that money gets you more than just ambassador posts.
USA Today gets it.
The American Academy of Diplomacy gets it.
Now do you see why I question whether or not you have a basic level of intelligence?
There is no corruption. I just don't like the system. And it isn't peculiar to Obama.
I think this is a new type of logical fallacy - the Argumentum ad Kilarnium, such fallacy being that the acquisition of large numbers of ad hominems, use of phrases such as "moving the goalposts", "hypocrites", "woops", over and over again, and use of old, sad macros do not prove an argument.
But anyway, Who needs to move the goalposts? I don't see why the effort would be necessary, all of your kicks have fallen well short of them.
Can you please stop dodging the question, Joe.
Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
I don't want to waste forum space if we agree.
If you cling to your position in light of this, I have every right to question your basic intelligence.
I haven't undertaken to prove anything. I have no obligation to answer any question. YOU are the one who has undertaken to prove something, and now you're trying to distract from the reality that you can't sustain your burden. I have no position other than that you have not proven your point. Ad hominem again. You really need to learn basic debating skills. So basic.
Joe, please stop dodging the question. Do you personally believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
The forum deserves to know if you believe this, or if you are merely trolling.
Joe, stop dodging the question. Do you personally believe that obama has NOT engaged in patronage? Issues of proof aside, I don't understand why you would be so rude or arrogant so as not to answer a simple question.