Hey, by all means, if you want to mention specific quotes of hers and argue why they’re wrong, please do. I’m not criticizing your view simply because it is against a republican. I’m criticizing it because of your comment,
“No one attacked her family. She’s a ridiculous attention whore who just repeated THE MEDIA IS GOING AFTER MY FAMILY!!! for pretty much no reason over and over again and people buy it for some reason and believe in her victimhood.”
Like come on…really? The statement you say that she was screaming could only make sense if the media was going after her family. There would have been no reason for her to say it if it were otherwise…if absolutely no one was, not even her own side would subscribe to the claim.
Thats like me saying, “John Kerry is just trying to get attention by saying people are going after his military record.”
This is a hijack, but if you have any evidence that the media (not defined as one random blogger) has “gone after” her family that would be the most concise way to deal with this.
The difference in your example is that people did go after Kerry’s record. There was an entire lying campaign dedicated to it with hundreds of thousands or more dollars worth of funds. There has been no media attack on Palin’s family.
I see what you’re saying, but you’re wrong. Factually incorrect.
Ha well, I apoligize if I came across as saying"a media channel openly trashed Palins family." But the left cleary did it quite a bit. Obama stated that families are off limits, talking about this same family issue, her pregnant daughter, that was taking so much heat. Again, there would have been no need for him to say this, unless so many journalists and reporters weren’t trying to dig it up to get somthing smear her with. Not to mention Family Guy making fun of her son with down-syndrome…how that got aired I’ll never understand.
“I’ve seen the worst minds of my generation exalted by morons, sleek dumb and happy
Dragging their ignorant asses to the halls of power, looking for a diet soda…”
You never heard of a pre-emptive strike? Whether or not she was really worried about the media going after her daughter, she was certainly worried about the media noting that Ms. Family Values and Abstinence Education couldn’t keep her own daughter from getting knocked up. Ample reason to try to make the whole situation off-limits.
Again with the reading comprehension…it’s good that you’re entitled to your opinions, because your grasp of fact is often so tenuous. Try this: from the top of the thread, search for “Hitler”. The first mention is from your post #38:
You ask whether one is “as bad as” the other, making the initial comparison. And again, it’s too stupid to continue to pursue.
You’re like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty…your definition of “nationalization” really isn’t; it’s so nebulous that you can bend it 'most any way you like. For instance, now it’s not even necessary for government to own any stake in a company? Convenient what a disjunction in a definition will do for you. Just a furtherance of the (now signatory) Republican pretzel logic so prevalent these days. (It’s not a lie! It’s just that ‘death panel’ means just what I choose it to mean!)
Makes for great scare-mongering…so keep banging that drum. The boogeyman is sure to arrive soon. Boogah boogah!
I think you actually enjoy creating your own reality – for some time now, also an (in)famously Republican trait.
As far as Republican racism goes, two words for you: Southern strategy. Or is that a fiction conjured up by dem nasty ole Dems? But evidence shows that you won’t let facts get in your way. It’s truly a pity that for some, ideology forms an impervious bubble. Party on, Garth.
I’m about the same age as the OP, but the one thing I think is missing from the OP is a bit of a historical link. Not that I’m really qualified to make it, as I didn’t pay much attention to politics prior to Bush 43 (what I recall of the late 90s is that an impression of Clinton being pretty scummy, while at the same time thinking he did pretty damn well as President). To fill in some of that history for myself, I’m looking forward to watching Boogie Man sometime soon. As I understand it, Atwater’s fingerprints are all over (Republican) politics today (for instance, he had a hand in establishing Karl Rove).
IMHO, most criticism currently directed at the 'Pubs is simply them reaping exactly what they’ve sown for so long – to the detriment of all of us.
Whoops…you are correct that I made the initial comparison. Not a reading comprehension problem so much as a memory problem :). Regardess, the point is valid. Those on the Left that are feigning outrage at the Right for calling Obama a Marxist did not seem at all concerned with the Left comparing Bush to Hitler. So, yes, the Left is at best hypocritical. If the OP is outraged by the Right using this comparison then he/she should have been equally outraged at the Left.
My definition is clear. I didn’t make it up…that is the definition. Whether you consider state control without ownership to be nationalization is irrelevant. I didn’t define the health care overhaul as nationalization but, since the state controls who must be covered and what must be covered, I said it is functionally nationalization. If single-payer is the end-game then this is merely an intermediate step. Would you consider single-payer to be nationalization of the health insurance industry?
So you are equally opposed to Obama’s appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”? Can you imagine Bush trying to “reconnect” with southerners, veterans, christians, and white males? The southern strategy was not nearly as overt.
Again, no, it’s pointlessly stupid and I won’t pursue it.
But it is relevant, for without an agreed upon definition, no debate can be had.
Again, my objection was to your claim that (paraphrased) “Obama has nationalized multiple industries while trying to eliminate others”. Even if I conceded (and I do not) that “multiple industries have been nationalized and other industries eliminated”, it’s still a fact that you cannot attribute that specifically to Obama.
Some (really basic) logic using your own premises: “Single-payer” is nationalized health care. The HCR just passed is an intermediate step. An “intermediate step” is not nationalization. Therefore health care hasn’t been nationalized. (By Obama or anyone else.) QED.
Jeebus, another tu quoque. It’s almost like…hmmm…like your position is indefensible. Alas, poor yorick73! I knew his fallacies (all too) well…
Which means you merely want to dismiss the point. This IS the point of the OP. The OP is outraged at the insults and name calling directed at the left. If this is the main reason the OP is fed up with the right then it makes perfect sense to point out that the same, and worse, comes from the left. What do you not understand about that?
Do you disagree with my definition. I didn’t pull it out of my ass…look it up. State control OR ownership is the definition. I’ve cautiously considered state ownership as nationalization while referring to state control as functional nationalization. I’ve pointed out that two of the big three auto makers are partially owned by the state. The student loan industry is now completely owned by the state. A large chunk of the mortgage lending sector is now owned by the state. You correctly point out that the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie happened under Bush’s watch so I can’t blame Obama for that one. But, I will breathe a little easier if and when the government gets out of all these sectors.
Single payer and a public option were attempts to eliminate the private health insurance industry. It is obvious that single payer would eliminate insurance companies and arguable that a public option would have the same effect. Single payer is still the endgame and you know this. The government has forced insurance companies to accept everyone and dictates what must be covered. Of course they will rail against the industry when, inevitably, rates increase. This is the intermediate step to single payer.
Again, I did not claim that Obama nationalized health insurance. I pointed out that, under the definition of nationalization, the industry is functionally nationalized as the state now controls who they MUST do business with and what they MUST cover. I’m guessing the next assault will be to tell the insurance companies what they MUST charge for coverage.
Jeebus, another idiotic comment. It’s almost like…hmmm…like you didn’t bother to read the OP. The whole point of this discussion, again, is that the OP is upset at the right for their treatment of the left. Yet, when I mention that this behavior is practiced by the left as well, and that it makes no sense to be angry at one side while not angry at the other, you act as though this is a logical fallacy. I have not dismissed the OPs arguments. I’ve merely pointed out that the OPs anger is mighty selective.
And again, just so you understand, I don’t dismiss the southern strategy. Nonetheless, I think that Obama’s attempt to polarize the electorate is equally disgusting. You, on the other hand, seem to dismiss Obama’s actions and think that racism exists only on the right.
Oh, fer fuck’s sake. I woke up slightly cross this morning, and I apologize in advance if it shows.
The OP is specifically about the Republican party; not a single mention of praise (or condemnation) of any other party. A critique of one specific entity is exactly that, no more and no less. You may want it to be more, may have some unnatural compulsion to expand it to the Democratic party, but that’s a fallacy known as a tu quoque. Yet you insist on pursuing it, even after it’s been pointed out multiple times. That indicates to me that you’re either stupid or being willfully disingenuous.
The fact that you insist that “Obama is more of a Marxist than Bush is like Hitler” is a meaningful comparison indicates to me that stupidity is more likely.
It’s not clear to me how you can continue to form grammatical argumentative sentences while not grasping basic logic. Look: you claimed p AND q, where p = “multiple industries nationalized, blah, blah, blah” and q = “Obama did it”. Your premise p is, at best and using your definition, only partially true (as you’ve already admitted). Your premise q is false for those cases where p may be true.
Do the truth tables yourself. Show your work when you come back.
I don’t have to “act as though” it’s a fallacy, because it is a fallacy. In fact, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, it is known as a tu quoque. Look it up. Maybe take a logic class. Write it on a 2x4 and beat yourself about the head with it. Maybe then it’ll penetrate…
Saying “those nasty ole Dems are racist too!” is simple evasion. In the form of a tu quoque. In fact, you’ve just acknowledged that the Republican party has been/is racist. Why the hell are you still arguing?
Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a hockey game on…perhaps watching some playoff action will put me in a better mood…
Sigh…resorting to insult is usually the last throes of losing an argument. It usually comes right before you say “Fuck you, it is because I say it is,” which, by the way, is very close to where you are right now.
Now, on to the few points you were attempting to make. First, as I have stated numerous times and you fail to understand, my statement does not constitute a tu quoque. The OP, while agreeing with conservative principles, is angry at the right because of all the name calling. I did not attempt to dismiss the arguments made by the OP. Instead, I pointed out that the anger is selective since the left uses very similar and, at times, much worse tactics. The OP would be a republican but for these tactics. It is only logical to compare the two parties under these circumstances.
Again, so you can understand, the fact that the left does it too does not excuse the behavior. But, anyone upset at the underhanded tactics of one side must be equally upset when the other side does the same thing. Otherwise you are not being consistent and you, in fact, commit a tu quoque fallacy by excusing everything the left does because you feel the right is so much nastier.
I think you need to refresh your memory of tu quoque since you like to throw it around so much. Here…I’ll help. From Wikipedia:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
[/QUOTE]
Here…you may find this part interesting
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Legitimate use
Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. One convenient and not fallacious way [to use tu quoque] is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one [something] and not the other is … itself a fallacy [of equivocation]. […] Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof.
[/QUOTE]
Does that help?
So, Obama didn’t nationalize GM and Chrysler? How’s about the student loan industry…now nationalized under your strict definition? Health insurance industry? Maybe arguable but as close to being under complete government control without being owned by the government. They will be functionally a utility when the law kicks in.
See above comment. Write it on a 2x4 and beat yourself about the head with it. Maybe then it’ll penetrate…
PLEASE quit misusing the tu quoque fallacy! It really doesn’t make you sound as smart as you think it does. Do I really need to remind you of the rampant racism in the history of the Democratic party? Probably not, but I do not expect you to stop being a democrat due to past transgressions. And, I certainly would not try to paint the entire party of today with that brush. So, why must you?
As an aside, I consider the current day Democratic party, and not the current Republican party, to be racist. Democrats consider select minority groups to be mental children that need to be taken care of. I personally consider this a particularly virulent strain of racism.
The issue at hand is why Dob doesn’t (or won’t) vote Republican. More explicitly, it’s not clear that he votes Democrat. It’s not clear that he votes at all anymore. No political party other than Republicans was at issue. That is until you began posting, diverting attention.
Prior to your entry in the thread, no one had excused “the left”. In fact, mention of “the left” was all (mildly) negative, save for one rhetorical (though factual) question indirectly referencing Clinton’s surplus.
Nor have I made any attempt to excuse “the left”. (Perhaps the closest I’ve come is to say that I’m more pragmatist than idealogue, thus I’ve only minor qualms with the auto bailouts – post #81, if you care.) Rather, I have worked to discard the red herrings you’ve presented, correct the factual inaccuracies, and have attempted to clean up and clarify your thinking/arguments.
Aw, shucks. No, really…no need to thank me.
Note: numbering added to above quotation for reference. (1) No, I don’t consider them nationalized; furthermore, you’ve said you consider them only partly nationalized. (2) No; as per your own statements, student loans were already nationalized. (3) No; the government neither owns nor exerts complete control over the health insurance industry.
A perfect example of my point. One of my points, anyway. See, I don’t excuse racism from either party. Open a thread outlining racism in the Democratic party and I’ll be right there with you condemning it. What I won’t do is to say, “Yeah, but the Republicans do it too!”
What fun we could have – venting our spleens on a lazy Sunday afternoon!
yorick, in case it’s still not getting through to you, try this:
Respond to Digital without using the words “left”, “liberal”, “Democrats”, “Obama”, or anything referencing any person, group, or ideology from that side of the spectrum. Don’t even use a quote from someone else who says those things. Just talk about Republicans, because that is the topic.
Sorry, not tending to my thread. Been out for a few weeks
In any case, the issue is that I wont vote republican… but not because the democrats are perfect or don’t have their own issues. I wont vote republican mainly because any party that continually calls themselves “real americans” (and by extension are saying that anyone that doesn’t agree them aren’t real americans) doesn’t deserve my support.
I wonder whatever happened to “I disagree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it”? Defend that. Support that. That is what I think a real american would do.
Again, I am not attempting to divert attention. Dob states in the OP that he/she voted for Clinton and Gore. It is not exactly a stretch to assume Dob votes Democrat. Thus, a discussion of Dem vs Pub use of smear tactics is useful. You are merely grasping at straws trying to justify your multiple incorrect use of tu quoque.
The issue at hand is why Dob doesn’t (or won’t) vote Republican. More explicitly, it’s not clear that he votes Democrat. It’s not clear that he votes at all anymore. No political party other than Republicans was at issue. That is until you began posting, diverting attention.[?QUOTE]
Again, Dob voted Democrat and then supported Bush, and then decided not to vote for Republicans anymore due to their behavior. Since Dob has voted for Democrats and has not, at least that we know of, vowed to not for them again, of course it makes sense to compare tactics.
You don’t consider majority ownership, having the CEO removed at the administration’s request, and government involvement in reshaping the board of directors to be nationalization? Your definition is narrow indeed.
According to your definition of nationalization the student loan industry was NOT nationalized before, and Obama completely nationalized it.
No, the government does not own it. But, dictating everything except the price (for the time being) is functionally nationalized.
Read the title of the thread. It is clearly not “Why I vote Democrat rather than Republican”. If your insistence on diverting attention from Republican shortcomings to instead malign Democrats isn’t pathological, it sure borders on being so.
shrug I don’t know what else to say about it other than to suggest you re-read post #116.
(1) No. (2) No. (3) No.
You’re correct that you have not excused it from either party. Your mother must be very proud.
But a tu quoque it was, and thus shall remain forevermore.
There is no diversion…you just fail to understand. That has been a common theme of your posts. If someone is in agreement with the Republican platform and leaves the party because of character assassination then it is only logical to ask them why they are aligning with a party that does the same thing while, apparently, disagreeing with their platform. If, as appears to be the case, the ONLY deciding factor in leaving the party is is the fact that the person does not like the behavior of those in the party then it makes sense to point out the identical flaws in the other party and ask why they are not equally disgusted. This is not diversion…but you seem unable to understand this basic point.
Not really…she’s a Democrat
C’mon…you’ve already shown a complete lack of understanding of the tu quoque fallacy yet you continue to search for a way that you could have been correct retroactively. You’ve embarrassed yourself and you are beginning to embarrass me.
