Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

I think if we pull back on the reins a bit and get past name-calling we can actually have discussion about health care, which was going pretty well until recently. I'm guilty of reacting to the threadshitting too and I'd like to get back on topic.

No need to flood Toady's PM box with report submissions over this yet, he's busy.

[piecewise]

Hey man, if it quacks like a duck...You admit you are a Marxist and Stalin and Mao are Marxists as well.

How many people did Stalin murder?  Something close to 15 Million!  Wow, lets see Stalins 15 million + Mao's 10 million = 25 million murders!

Call me a bigot or whatever you want any day of the week, at least I'm not a follower of guys who murdered millions.

Let me try to follow your logic...

Hitler was conservative.

You are conservative.

Therefore you are a follower of Hitler and support his policies.

Oh so you're going to lock the thread because I call you a follower of Mao and Stalin (which YOU agreed with), but then you hypocritically call me a follower of Hitler? 

Okay, now I really know the motive here.

You seem to be following the current trend in America of oversimplification and fundamentalism. Mao was a self professed socialist, though his actions were roughly as socialist as Hitler's were Christian. Its true that socialism taken to stupidly exaggerated extremes is bad, but so is any system. The system that this bill presents is so cut down that it really does make these ravings about how evil and maoist it is look tinfoil-hat-wearing delusional. You seem to forget that almost every other civilized nation in the world has something similar too or even more socialist then this and they seem to be doing just dandy. I haven't heard of the Death Squads in Canada lately.

Over all, Glen Beck and all the tea party bull is just yellow journalist fear mongering, the same type that happened during the Satanic Panic of the 1980's and the famous Hearst yellow journalism such as

Also, I find it just hilariously ironic that Glen pointed out that Jefferson used "Year of our lord christ" in a letter and decided that is proof that Jefferson wanted this to be a Christian nation. He seems to forget that Jefferson actually released a bible with all mention or claim of Christ's divinity removed as well as saying that Christianity will soon be considered myth in the same way as Zeus. While you may be right that basic ideas of socialism are shared by both Mao and Liberals, the truth is that Mao horribly perverted them for his own gain while liberals almost always simply want them conjoined with our current system to allow for a capitalism that does not leave 50 million Americans uninsured and poverty ridden. 

[RedKing]

And all liberals need to shut up, period.  Like I said, they are completely uneducated.  My guess is that most of them are young and naive, still live with their parents, are not married and have no real world experience.  Kind of reminds me of Obama: he never held a real job and is young and very naive.

I'd like to test my theory, how many who support the health care bill on this forum are still "dependents" of their parents?

Ahem. 34, Master's degree in International Relations, Bachelor's in history, married with two kids and own my own house.

You *really* need to rein yourself in before someone has to hand you your own ass in a sling, metaphorically speaking.

[Bauglir]

Oh so you're going to lock the thread because I call you a follower of Mao and Stalin (which YOU agreed with), but then you hypocritically call me a follower of Hitler? 

Okay, now I really know the motive here.

I don't think hypocritically means what you think it means (that joke's been used before, but I was busy at the time).

See, he's using reductio ad absurdum, which is one of the most well-known and widely accepted methods of defeating an argument in debate. The whole point is to show that a necessary consequence of somebody's logic is ridiculous (in this case, that you think Hitler was right). Now, just to start with, would you agree that your logic is something like what follows?

A) Stalin and Mao claimed to be of socialist philosophy
B) These people did horrible things
Therefore
C) People who claim to be of socialist philosphy will do horrible things

[Andir]

See, he's using reductio ad absurdum, which is one of the most well-known and widely accepted methods of defeating an argument in debate. The whole point is to show that a necessary consequence of somebody's logic is ridiculous (in this case, that you think Hitler was right). Now, just to start with, would you agree that your logic is something like what follows?

A) Stalin and Mao claimed to be of socialist philosophy
B) These people did horrible things
Therefore
C) People who claim to be of socialist philosphy will do horrible things

And people were jumping all over me because I even lightly associated with the tea-party movement... 

[Bauglir]

See, he's using reductio ad absurdum, which is one of the most well-known and widely accepted methods of defeating an argument in debate. The whole point is to show that a necessary consequence of somebody's logic is ridiculous (in this case, that you think Hitler was right). Now, just to start with, would you agree that your logic is something like what follows?

A) Stalin and Mao claimed to be of socialist philosophy
B) These people did horrible things
Therefore
C) People who claim to be of socialist philosphy will do horrible things

And people were jumping all over me because I even lightly associated with the tea-party movement... 

Not sure what you mean? I'm just starting from the assumption that lumin is NOT deliberately trolling and just grossly misinterpreted KaelGotDwarves' post. I mean, it's the Internet, so mistakes happen. Seemed like absolute clarity was the way to go, and I am trying to make an effort not to strawman with that proposed logic chain, it's just the only one I could think of at the moment (which is why I asked for clarification).

[Andir]

See, he's using reductio ad absurdum, which is one of the most well-known and widely accepted methods of defeating an argument in debate. The whole point is to show that a necessary consequence of somebody's logic is ridiculous (in this case, that you think Hitler was right). Now, just to start with, would you agree that your logic is something like what follows?

A) Stalin and Mao claimed to be of socialist philosophy
B) These people did horrible things
Therefore
C) People who claim to be of socialist philosphy will do horrible things

And people were jumping all over me because I even lightly associated with the tea-party movement... 

Not sure what you mean? I'm just starting from the assumption that lumin is NOT deliberately trolling and just grossly misinterpreted KaelGotDwarves' post. I mean, it's the Internet, so mistakes happen. Seemed like absolute clarity was the way to go, and I am trying to make an effort not to strawman with that proposed logic chain, it's just the only one I could think of at the moment (which is why I asked for clarification).

Someone who claimed fellowship with the tea party movement cut gas lines, held derogitory signs, etc.  I said I believe the tea party movement has some merit... therefore I must be a crackpot.  At least that's how it felt from my end.

[Aqizzar]

Someone who claimed fellowship with the tea party movement cut gas lines, held derogitory signs, etc.  I said I believe the tea party movement has some merit... therefore I must be a crackpot.  At least that's how it felt from my end.

They were asking you to denounce the officially recognized founder of the current Tea Part organization, an avowed racist and stone-thrower.  Having just read through this hurricane-in-a-bottle of a thread, you have not done so.  You have repeatedly insisted that the recognized founder is a member of the "movement" fringe, and while I certainly believe that you are not of one mind with him, you can't seem to bring yourself to call him and his organization wrong.  I recognize that you want to draw a difference between the Tea Party as a modern organization, and the anti-tax sentiment behind it (some parts of it anyway).  Fine, let's use some capitalization.  Have your tea party, but denounce the Tea Party.

It's a fantastic example of Astroturf anyway.  I'm sure the yokels waving signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache believe they're "grassroots" or whatever the new word for spontaneously angry is.  But the larger function of the Tea Party as an organization, especially their rockstar rallies, mail campaigns, and TV ads are paid for largely by corporate lobbying and advocacy firms.  Namely, FreedomWorks, a thin veneer of populism stretched over a baldfaced corporate-law thinktank, run and funded by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes, and formerly famous for making up medical research for Philip Morris Cigarettes in the 1990s.

[Bauglir]

See, he's using reductio ad absurdum, which is one of the most well-known and widely accepted methods of defeating an argument in debate. The whole point is to show that a necessary consequence of somebody's logic is ridiculous (in this case, that you think Hitler was right). Now, just to start with, would you agree that your logic is something like what follows?

A) Stalin and Mao claimed to be of socialist philosophy
B) These people did horrible things
Therefore
C) People who claim to be of socialist philosphy will do horrible things

And people were jumping all over me because I even lightly associated with the tea-party movement... 

Not sure what you mean? I'm just starting from the assumption that lumin is NOT deliberately trolling and just grossly misinterpreted KaelGotDwarves' post. I mean, it's the Internet, so mistakes happen. Seemed like absolute clarity was the way to go, and I am trying to make an effort not to strawman with that proposed logic chain, it's just the only one I could think of at the moment (which is why I asked for clarification).

Someone who claimed fellowship with the tea party movement cut gas lines, held derogitory signs, etc.  I said I believe the tea party movement has some merit... therefore I must be a crackpot.  At least that's how it felt from my end.

Ah, well, if it helps, I'm just trying to establish a non-strawman position against which I can argue. I don't actually agree with that chain of logic, I'm just trying to make myself understand lumin's position so that I can argue against it properly. But thank you, I think you've helped make the point I'm ultimately going to try and make. Sorry bout having implied that I actually think you're a crackpot (I disagree with you overall, but you seem sane, so carry on).

[Zai]

And all liberals need to shut up, period.  Like I said, they are completely uneducated.  My guess is that most of them are young and naive, still live with their parents, are not married and have no real world experience.  Kind of reminds me of Obama: he never held a real job and is young and very naive.

"Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of liberal deceit."

[Andir]

Having just read through this hurricane-in-a-bottle of a thread, you have not done so.

Erm, mainly because I didn't think there was a need to, but fine.  I don't share said person's way of thought.  Do you feel better?

[Phmcw]

May I point out that
1) Stalin and Mao were also, and most notably communist.
2) American liberals aren't by any mean hard left. Here in Belgium, or in France, they would be center-right at best.
3) they were also both crazy, and killed a lot of communist and socialist.
4) Hitler was a nationalist. Do I have to explain what would applying your logic would make in this case. I mean, it's not because two thing are labeled the same that they are even related.
In this case, as Obama didn't call for the slaughter of "dirty capitalist swine" we can conclude that he is neither stalinist nor maoist. 
5) Some poeple doesn't need an old book to take a decision. I know that can seem crazy but there is also pragmatism and logic. No one need to read Marx to understand the usefulness of universal health-care.

[Aqizzar]

Having just read through this hurricane-in-a-bottle of a thread, you have not done so.

Erm, mainly because I didn't think there was a need to, but fine.  I don't share said person's way of thought.  Do you feel better?

I already knew you don't share his way of thought.  I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I for one am waiting for you to actually call him wrong.

[Andir]

Having just read through this hurricane-in-a-bottle of a thread, you have not done so.

Erm, mainly because I didn't think there was a need to, but fine.  I don't share said person's way of thought.  Do you feel better?

I already knew you don't share his way of thought.  I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I for one am waiting for you to actually call him wrong.

Ugh... alright.  He's wrong with some of the things he does/says/implies.  Sigh... such a reply needed is wrong.

[Andir]

Also, as an FYI... He is NOT the leader of the movement and was asked to leave an event for that sign.

Here... let me dig up some proof...

Edit:  "Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign."
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader
http://washingtonindependent.com/73385/dale-robertson-is-still-at-it

As I said before, he wormed his way in and pretends to be the ringleader because he owns the domain.

Edit: as if you needed more evidence:  http://houstontps.org/?p=318