• Scott Brown Tries Balancing Act as Tea Party Favorite in a Blue State
    295 replies, posted
Glaber, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. [editline]05:00AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;21339454]Sorry, went into School paper mode for a moment there. If I went into full School paper mode this would had taken longer and have APA citations. EDIT: TLDR line removed. See below for why.[/QUOTE] You say that Marxism caused the death of Frederick Engels and made Marx leave Germany, saying that Marxism doesn't work because of those two events. I'm not sure how Marxism caused the death of Engels; he died of throat cancer. Regardless, this is a fallacious point, since you discount an entire socioeconomic system because of how its founders were treated without any actual application of Marxism having occurred. Basically, it's like saying Christianity is bad because Jesus and the first Christians were persecuted by the Romans. You cite the animated adaptation of Animal Farm as an example of why Marxism is bad. You say you haven't read the novel, so you might not know that the CIA edited parts of the 1954 film adaptation, most critically the ending, in order to remove its critique of capitalism[1]. Keep in mind that Animal Farm is an allegory about post-Revolution Russia and about how Stalin's version of communism, Stalinism, is far from true Marxist ideals. Orwell himself was a self-avowed socialist. You source a wiki site - never a good idea, as information can be easily manipulated. Your arguments that Obama is a Marxist are flimsy at best. Redistribution of wealth, or "taxing the rich" as you might say, is common to many leftist political ideologies, not just Marxism. Marxism isn't socialism with the public ownership of industry, it's socialism with worker-owned industries and sharing of all products for free. You connect student loans to elementary and secondary schools - government student loans are for paying for college. They allow people to borrow money so they can go to college. There's nothing about improving the quality of elementary and secondary schools with student loans. Factual inaccuracies: US doesn't have control over Chrysler - Fiat does. The government has not attempted to "take over" health care, simply regulate it more. Don't use the first person when trying to write like this - it's a big no-no. If you're quoting sources, use footnotes instead of what you did. 1. [url]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800-02.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Now How do I believe this applies to the Obama administration and Obama today? First, Tax the Rich. By making the Rich a target you are making class divisions by money. This can happen by making the people think that all rich people didn't earn the money they have. In doing so you can then make the people who are not rich angry at the rich and support any tax you want to do “Against the Rich”.[/QUOTE]Marxism doesn't advocate the creation of class conflict, it defines class conflict as always having existed. [QUOTE]Second. If Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then The US government's taking over of GM, Chrysler, the Student loan industry, and attempted take over of health care should qualify it for the Marxist title.[/QUOTE]The Obama administration never attempted to "take over" health care. Even at the original version of the health care bill, it was only trying to provide a government health insurance option. It would not have gotten rid of private health insurance companies. It's the same with student loans. Private student loan options still exist. There's simply now a government option as well. And GM and Chrysler haven't been "taken over" by the government either. The US government has temporarily bought majority shares and is providing financial relief to the companies. Regardless of whether or not that's the right remedy, it is not "taking over", the companies are still private and will return to entirely private ownership in time. [QUOTE]Third, with the government take over of Student loans, it appears that the government is attempting equal chances at schools. But a problem with that is that it does not guarantee the schools' quality. Just take a look at Detroit area schools. [/QUOTE]Marxism says nothing about equal chances of schools. [editline]08:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21339438]Well actually, it states that in war the end always justifies any means, so I'm guessing he would condone rape and genocide if it helped contribute to winning a war (which it does, so essentially he is condoning it and anything else you can name).[/QUOTE] He doesn't claim the ends justifies the means, he simply references it as a common viewpoint. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21339438] Also if you look at the sixth rule: "[I]The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.[/I]" So pretty much exactly what I said. [/QUOTE] That doesn't support what you said at all. He's saying that in less important cases you should be more careful about the way you go about bringing about change. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21339438]The seventh rule: "[I]The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.[/I]" Basically if you fail your ethics can be called bad because previous supporters will distance themselves from you anyway, but if you win it doesn't matter what ethics you used because you won so FUCKIN' IN YO FACE BITCHES! [/QUOTE] my god you're giving the most ridiculously hyperbolic characterization of this book that you can. [I]try to have some goddamned objectivity.[/I] You're drawing out timid words to such ridiculous extremes that it's unbelievable. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21339438]What IS clear here is that what is being condoned is ridiculing opponents based on their own standards and ideals,[/QUOTE] no, it's advocating ridiculing them when don't match up with their own standards and ideals, which is perfectly ok. If your opponent is a hypocrite, you should call them on it. [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21339438]Smear campaigning is actually doing anything that has a sole negative impact on the opposition. It's usually a good idea to know about things before you talk about them. [/QUOTE] No, it's not. [QUOTE]A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group.[/QUOTE]It's not a generalized term for any sort of attack. It's a campaign in which you specifically and maliciously associate your opponent with some negative characteristic or group of people.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21346106]He doesn't claim the ends justifies the means, he simply references it as a common viewpoint.[/QUOTE] "[i]The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.[/i] Agreements on the Geneva rules on treatment of prisoners or use of nuclear weapons are observed [b]ONLY[/b] because the enemy or his potential allies may retaliate." This entire chapter of the book is basically saying if you can get away with it do it. There are several more rules which state that judgments on ethics from your opposition don't matter. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21346106]That doesn't support what you said at all. He's saying that in less important cases you should be more careful about the way you go about bringing about change.[/QUOTE] Did you read the the book or my quote at all? "[i]The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.[/i]" So basically you could say this and it would mean the exact same thing: The sixth rules of ethics of means and ends is that the MORE important the end to be desired, the LESS one has to afford to engage in ethical evaluations of the means." So I don't know if you have any sort of reading comprehension, but basically he is saying if you really want something, and in pretty much all cases of political gain they REALLY want something, you should care less about how to get it. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21346106]my god you're giving the most ridiculously hyperbolic characterization of this book that you can. [I]try to have some goddamned objectivity.[/I] You're drawing out timid words to such ridiculous extremes that it's unbelievable. [/QUOTE] Really am I? Here is his little bit on the seventh rule: "The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. [i] There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for it one succeeds he becomes a founding father.[/i]" Most of this book is just bashing the ideals the America was found upon and the people that found them. At one point he complains about how "deceitful" the declaration of independence on it by using logic that is akin to if a chef serves you a steak that he defecated on, you shouldn't complain because there is still some delicious steak under that mountain of shit. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21346106]no, it's advocating ridiculing them when don't match up with their own standards and ideals, which is perfectly ok. If your opponent is a hypocrite, you should call them on it.[/QUOTE] Except the purpose of doing that is to make them angry and coerce them into doing something irrational in a fit of anger. He doesn't actually care if they don't live up to their own ideals, he is just saying to use it against them to make them do something stupid. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21346106]No, it's not.[/QUOTE] AH DURR AH DURR DURRR DURRRRR [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign[/url] Funny how you quoted the first line of the wiki page instead of the first line of the definition of a smear campaign [b]A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character.[/b] Which is what I said: "Smear campaigning is actually doing anything that has a sole negative impact on the opposition." Facepunch as a whole seems to almost never attack the arguments of their opponents [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=923532[/url] So despite these guys standing up for the constitution which is what the country was founded upon, they are just dismissed as "STUPID, RACIST, HICK, FUCKS" rather than actually attacking them for the arguments on which they are basing their actions. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=922922[/url] Not that I agree with this, but it seems to the OP that Mike Huckabee doesn't get to have an opinion on kids because his kids are ugly. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=921961[/url] Yes immigration and health reform are serious issues, but I guess only appearances matter to the majority of FP.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21347041] Most of this book is just bashing the ideals the America was found upon and the people that found them. At one point he complains about how "deceitful" the declaration of independence on it by using logic that is akin to if a chef serves you a steak that he defecated on, you shouldn't complain because there is still some delicious steak under that mountain of shit.[/QUOTE] Again with the gosh-darned hyperbole. If you blow a gasket going out of your way to make everything sound bad, it's all going to sound bad. take a chill pill broheim [QUOTE]Facepunch as a whole seems to almost never attack the arguments of their opponents [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=923532[/URL] So despite these guys standing up for the constitution which is what the country was founded upon, they are just dismissed as "STUPID, RACIST, HICK, FUCKS" rather than actually attacking them for the arguments on which they are basing their actions. [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=922922[/URL] Not that I agree with this, but it seems to the OP that Mike Huckabee doesn't get to have an opinion on kids because his kids are ugly. [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=921961[/URL] Yes immigration and health reform are serious issues, but I guess only appearances matter to the majority of FP. [/QUOTE] teenagers who post on a forum for video games are immature?? whaaa? Besides, there are plenty of valid arguments mixed in with the dumb ones. For example: Mike Huckabee does get an opinion, but his opinion is quantifiably terrible [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21338137]children in this situation have already turned out ok. Statistically, children raised by same sex couples turn out the exact same as children raised by opposite sex couples. [QUOTE]In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21349238]Again with the gosh-darned hyperbole. If you blow a gasket going out of your way to make everything sound bad, it's all going to sound bad. take a chill pill broheim[/QUOTE] Well thanks for proving my point by ignoring the entire argument and attacking the fact that I used an analogy to describe what he says, which is that America shouldn't have been mad at Britain for being dicks because sometimes they were also cool (when it served their own interests). [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21349238]teenagers who post on a forum for video games are immature?? whaaa? Besides, there are plenty of valid arguments mixed in with the dumb ones. For example: Mike Huckabee does get an opinion, but his opinion is quantifiably terrible[/QUOTE] Also way to use the only argument that I said I didn't agree with to try to further your point, that doesn't really work because I was only pointing out that the opposition don't actually argue and just attack the very same extraneous material that you are.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21349946] Also way to use the only argument that I said I didn't agree with to try to further your point, that doesn't really work because I was only pointing out that the opposition don't actually argue and just attack the very same extraneous material that you are.[/QUOTE] I was simply pointing out that you should ignore all of the lame comments because there are plenty of valid arguments mixed in with them. It's the internet, there's going to be lots of dumb crap posted on all sides.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21350404]I was simply pointing out that you should ignore all of the lame comments because there are plenty of valid arguments mixed in with them. It's the internet, there's going to be lots of dumb crap posted on all sides.[/QUOTE] Cool, so are you going to attempt to refute or are you done?
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21340506]Stop acting like he's a laughable idiot [/QUOTE] you haven't seen many Glaber posts have you? [editline]08:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gummylamb;21340733]Only for things that have a lot of proof for it (like evolution or something), I haven't really followed Glaber's activities, but I assume all he's been doing really is being a republican supporter[/QUOTE] Tea party supporter* [editline]08:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;21340839]The burden of proof is now on you. 2 out of the 3 sources I've cited say it is and I got an additional four more to back me up. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism[/URL] (jump down to the Marxism as a political practice section) [URL]http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php[/URL] [URL]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/what_is_marxism.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/WhatIsMarxFrame.htm[/URL] (Right from the socialist party themselves)[/QUOTE] lol, political practice doesn't mean it's the actual idea, that's null Education system teaches Marxism is the Soviet union, that source is null American Thinker? Are you fucking serious? And the socialist party of the UK are Stalinist. [QUOTE=Glaber;21341246]Ah, but it still covers Socialism. Also: Either way it leads to a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] lol, no it doesn't. Sweden hasn't had a dictatorship yet. And communism doesn't even HAVE a government. [editline]08:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21350459]Cool, so are you going to attempt to refute or are you done?[/QUOTE] You can't refute hot air.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21350705]You can't refute hot air.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't try, although I know you guys would just go on and on in circles until the air cooled and then you'd claim victory. So do you want to step up to the plate? Because I haven't seen you do anything but just attempt to dismiss your opposition's argument based on your own opinions of his sources rather than refute what is actually being said by either him or the sources. Wait isn't that the tactics of rules for radicals?
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21351395]I wouldn't try, although I know you guys would just go on and on in circles until the air cooled and then you'd claim victory. So do you want to step up to the plate? Because I haven't seen you do anything but just attempt to dismiss your opposition's argument based on your own opinions of his sources rather than refute what is actually being said by either him or the sources. Wait isn't that the tactics of rules for radicals?[/QUOTE] You say that because Barack Obama thinks people should read the book "Rules For Radicals", he agrees with the ideas in it? That's some odd logic. I think that people should read the Bible, but I think most of it's horseshit.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21351619]You say that because Barack Obama thinks people should read the book "Rules For Radicals", he agrees with the ideas in it? That's some odd logic. I think that people should read the Bible, but I think most of it's horseshit.[/QUOTE] This statement is absolutely asinine and you are a fool and a bandwagon jumper. I don't need to show to you the countless instances of Obama's use of the methods described in the book and his very close, though indirect, ties to the author (Obama was a child when Saul Alinsky died).
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21351395]I wouldn't try, although I know you guys would just go on and on in circles until the air cooled and then you'd claim victory. So do you want to step up to the plate? Because I haven't seen you do anything but just attempt to dismiss your opposition's argument based on your own opinions of his sources rather than refute what is actually being said by either him or the sources. Wait isn't that the tactics of rules for radicals?[/QUOTE] you don't have any points to refute. It's just paranoid ramblings.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21351983]you don't have any points to refute. It's just paranoid ramblings.[/QUOTE] See, you make nothing but baseless claims and present no evidence. I initially made a claim and so far have vigorously and successfully defended it against imbeciles like you, although I have way more respect for Sigma-Lambda than I do for you because he at least tries.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21351983]you don't have any points to refute. It's just paranoid ramblings.[/QUOTE] He is a troll, so it's not surprising.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;21352058]He is a troll, so it's not surprising.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/derp.gif[/img] ^doesn't know what a troll is
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21352042]See, you make nothing but baseless claims and present no evidence. I initially made a claim and so far have vigorously and successfully defended it against imbeciles like you, although I have way more respect for Sigma-Lambda than I do for you because he at least tries.[/QUOTE] that's pretty arrogant of you lol [editline]09:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;21352058]He is a troll, so it's not surprising.[/QUOTE] he's not a troll
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21352449]that's pretty arrogant of you lol[/QUOTE] Is it? So far nothing he has said has proven me wrong, you haven't said anything, so [b]SO FAR[/b] I HAVE successfully defended my claim. If he wants to continue or you want to try to dispute it, then try that is what I am asking, but until then everything I have said stands.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21351871]This statement is absolutely asinine and you are a fool and a bandwagon jumper. I don't need to show to you the countless instances of Obama's use of the methods described in the book and his very close, though indirect, ties to the author (Obama was a child when Saul Alinsky died).[/QUOTE] Everyone uses lots of methods used in the book because a lot of the things in the book are really baseline stuff like "criticize your opponents if they are hypocrites" and "before you criticize someone's plan, make sure you have your own alternative to it."
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21352680]Everyone uses lots of methods used in the book because a lot of the things in the book are really baseline stuff like "criticize your opponents if they are hypocrites" and "before you criticize someone's plan, make sure you have your own alternative to it."[/QUOTE] Well we've already been over the first one, and the second, rule twelve: "[i]The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.[/i] You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying 'You're right - we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.'" While I agree, the only motive he provides in having an alternative is to avoid being defeated in argument. Keep in mind this is barely 5 lines in an 196 page book. But whatever, a lot of it is baseline stuff, that doesn't mean Obama doesn't agree with it because he not only uses all the tactics provided in the book, but then suggests it as educational reading material.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21353064]While I agree, the only motive he provides in having an alternative is to avoid being defeated in argument.[/QUOTE] Does he have to spell everything out? Does he have to preface every single rule with "Before you do this, you've got to actually believe in the things you're espousing"
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21353322]Does he have to spell everything out? Does he have to preface every single rule with "Before you do this, you've got to actually believe in the things you're espousing"[/QUOTE] I didn't say that, I just noted that it was the only motive he provided for doing so before moving on. But when you take into account everything he says before and after this, it warrants raising the point because a lot of the methods he suggests he also relates that you don't necessarily need to believe in such things because the only important goal is to defeat your opposition. Notice how a lot of politicians do suggest alternatives to current strategies and then when they are voted into office they do not go along with them. Every president has done this, including Obama.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21353417]I didn't say that, I just noted that it was the only motive he provided for doing so before moving on. But when you take into account everything he says before and after this, it warrants raising the point because a lot of the methods he suggests he also relates that you don't necessarily need to believe in such things because the only important goal is to defeat your opposition.[/QUOTE] perhaps the book presupposes that anyone reading it actually does believe in the things they are trying to do? It's a book of strategies. If someone uses those strategies for something they don't believe in, it's not the book's fault.
There's some Tea Party rally in my town at 6pm, I don't know the specifics, what does the Tea Party support?
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21354147]There's some Tea Party rally in my town at 6pm, I don't know the specifics, what does the Tea Party support?[/QUOTE] they think obama is a socialist and a very significant portion of them also think he was born in kenya
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21354147]There's some Tea Party rally in my town at 6pm, I don't know the specifics, what does the Tea Party support?[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]The Tea Party Movement supports constitutionally limited government generally,[17][18] and more specifically is anti-stimulus,[19] anti-deficit,[20] anti-bailout.[21][22] Some demonstrators have also opposed federal support for the ailing automobile industry.[3] [/quote] So strict constructionists on the Constitution, and very anti-Obama.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21354241]So strict constructionists on the Constitution, and very anti-Obama.[/QUOTE] they support the constitution but are unaware of the ways in which supreme court decisions have changed the interpretation of the constitution over time, and many things they claim to be unconstitutional were made constitutional by later supreme court decisions or amendments after the first ten
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21354028]perhaps the book presupposes that anyone reading it actually does believe in the things they are trying to do? It's a book of strategies. If someone uses those strategies for something they don't believe in, it's not the book's fault.[/QUOTE] Entirely true, and some of those strategies advocate smear tactics, which brings us back to the actual point. [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21354219]they think obama is a socialist and a very significant portion of them also think he was born in kenya[/QUOTE] You were almost correct... [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21354395]they support the constitution but are unaware of the ways in which supreme court decisions have changed the interpretation of the constitution over time, and many things they claim to be unconstitutional were made constitutional by later supreme court decisions or amendments after the first ten[/QUOTE] Except the supreme court kind of granted itself the right to amend the constitution
I like Scott Brown, glad for the people who voted for him.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21354147]There's some Tea Party rally in my town at 6pm, I don't know the specifics, what does the Tea Party support?[/QUOTE] well, just read their signs: [IMG]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20090912TeaParty03.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://districtramblings.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-nazi_comparison_-_tea_party_protest.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/912-TeaParty-DC-We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/tea-party-signs.jpg[/IMG]
Don't forget the ubiquitous Gadsden Flag.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.