-->
@Ramshutu
Thanks for the demagoguery lesson.
Fuck the violent left...
Posts
Total:
140
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Imperialism was the expansion of America itself
Imperialism does not require the physical extension of borders. Imperialism describes the use of control or influence by a hegemon to maintain, increase, and leverage that control or influence over its claimed protectorates or spheres of influence; imperialism may also involve the assertion of such control as an explicit claim or implicit suggestion. The Monroe Doctrine is a perfect example of this. It represented a US attempt, as a burgeoning regional power, to assert control over a claimed sphere of influence. Imperialism is, to use a biological analogy, a predatory relationship between the countries and an often a mutualistic relationship between the leaders.
Obama created ISIS by not destroying it in the first place
This remark is wholly and entirely unresponsive to what I said, namely: "This is a red-herring and a shifting of the goal posts. ISIS arose out of a larger background of Islamic extremism which was itself caused by right-wing policies. I think Obama did not do enough to stem ISIS's rise, but even if Obama were the precipitating cause, the culture of extremism which made the rise of ISIS possible in the first place is due to right-wing policies."
Islamic Terrorism comes from the Quran because idiots take it literally.
Idiots take the Bible literally. That does not mean the Bible causes terrorism, though it is certainly cited by some terrorists as inspiration for their actions. It is similarly not the Quran which causes terror. The Quran is simply used as a post-hoc justification--or, more accurately, an ideological veneer--for violence which has its roots elsewhere, such as in feelings of cultural emasculation and loss stemming from Western imperialism.
-->
@bsh1
I can show you in the Hadith and Qur'an direct passages that would lead one to believe many horrific things. There's no other way to interpret the lines unless you ignore context and bullshit your way into saying that Islam is a religion of peace.
Islam is a religion of war but the Muslims of today can be peaceful by incorrectly following their scripture and making the religion evolve.
-->
@bsh1
1.sure, But America was young when the Monroe doctrine in the War of 1812 has damaged America, it needed a strong doctrine to fight off the Europeans fucking with them.
2.Were the policies really right-wing.
3.What I mean is that you can't have Islamic Terrorism without the Quran
“capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed”
Also, I’m still waiting for you to confirm that you are willing to go on record and agree that you’re an ignorant fool, with no knowledge of major events, if I am able to show each one of the listed examples actually occurred?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.sure, But America was young when the Monroe doctrine in the War of 1812 has damaged America, it needed a strong doctrine to fight off the Europeans fucking with them.
So so you now acknowledge that America has been an imperialist. That’s a start. But, we don’t need to look too hard to see how it is still being imperialist. Look, for example, to US efforts to prop up pro-US dictators like the Shah of Iran, to the exercise of US influence abroad through organisations like the World Bank and NATO, and to the deployment and stationing of US troops around the world, among other things.
2.Were the policies really right-wing
Absolutely. Imperialism is a right-wing policy agenda.
3.What I mean is that you can't have Islamic Terrorism without the Quran
This statement is laughable vacuous. You’re basically saying we can’t have Islamic terror without Islam. Well...duh. Your statement thus tells us absolutely nothing. Plus, your remark is not responsive to the point I made, namely that the Quran is not the cause of the terror.
I'm right of center and I think Dr. Franklin needs to calm down. He calls all sources that disagree with him biased while citing Fox News and the Federalist. It's kind of hypocritical.
-->
@Greyparrot
I am calling you out for your repeated and blatant hypocrisy, and inability to retain a clear ethical or factual stance on issues, and make repeated complaints about the left on the very same issues that you conspicuously ignore when they come up on the right. I’m pointing out that you have repeatedly lied and misrepresented facts in order to trash the left, giving the clear and unambiguous impression that truth, facts, ethics, reality is less important than pretending the other side is evil/bad/scary.
How you confused that for a “demagoguery lesson”, I don’t know.
Actually, as is mostly your MO; you try and throw out your initial propoganda and misrepresentation bomb to try and smear your political foes:
them hide behind faux ignorant trolling, lies, evasion and nonsense like this.
So yeah: the reason you confused it, is your apparent incapacity to justify your position necessitating you deflecting with an inane troll statement that means nothing. As I am sure you will continue to do in response
-->
@Ramshutu
Again stop projecting your beliefs on to me please, thanks.
-->
@Alec
Evidence
-->
@Ramshutu
I also find it interesting that your keyboard warrior skills are so great as to be able to discern with 100% accuracy whether someone is a liar, or simply misinformed.
That is the clarion-call of a true demagogue. No dog whistles needed.
-->
@bsh1
1.I won't consider simply moving bases around the world including our allies is imperialism, simply helping them, Monore Doctrine was in defense,
2.No
3.ok?
-->
@Ramshutu
Let's take a case in point of a famous political "lie."
On Nov. 4, 2013, Obama claimed that "what we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed"
But Obama in a weekly address on June 6, 2009, said "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
Now a demagogue would immediately declare the 2009 statement a lie, instead of checking to see if Obama was simply misinformed.
Politifact declared the 2009 statement half true and the 2013 statement completely false. The reason for that is enough years went by for Obama to reasonably be informed that people were not going to be able to keep their health insurance. Because Obama couldn't be reasonably misinformed after 4 years, he was most likely deliberately lying to deceive the people.
This example probably means nothing to a demagogue such as yourself, but your continued leaps calling people you don't agree with liars, racists, whatever... with no real reason to assume they are not simply misinformed... is the tired old demagoguery dogma that isn't going to be popular much longer in America.
I don't even think you are conscious of what you do when you take these mental leaps. To you, it just seems automatic that logically there are liars and truth-tellers and nothing in between. That is the mind of a scientist.
In the real world, everybody is not out to deceive you on purpose. if you have lost your faith in humanity to such a degree that you would assume all misinformed people MUST be deceitful liars out to get you, then I will pray to the flying spaghetti monster that you find some peace in the end.
-->
@dustryder
Aren't republicans generally for free speech as guaranteed in the constitution?
I don't think promoting "Violence Against Donald Trump" is protected by free speech.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.I won't consider simply moving bases around the world including our allies is imperialism
It's not that they're placed, but why they're placed. They're placed to be able to allow us to rapidly deploy, and thus interfere in or threaten to interfere in, events around the world. That is a manifestation of a hegemonic mindset. And let's not forget that our "allies" does not mean our "equals" in power. Our allies our often reliant on our goodwill, giving us inordinate levels of control over them and their activities.
2.No
I take it you're denying that imperialism is a right-wing policy. Such a denial reflects (a) your unwillingness to acknowledge even widely-accepted realities which challenge your ideological position and (b) your grievous lack of knowledge regarding world affairs, world history, and political theory.
Let's return, for a moment, to something I said earlier: "Right-wing extremism tends to be characterized by xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, capitalism/corporatism, revanchism, and/or hyper-individualism/exceptionalism (a la Nietzsche). Left-wing extremism tends to be characterized by hyper-egalitarianism, militant socialism/trade unionism, ultra-globalism, anti-nationalism/xenophobia, and/or ecoterrorism."
These definitions, which you never challenged, allude to a broader set of distinctions between the left and the right. The right tends to adopt an us-vs-them mentality, which results in an urge to either isolate "us" from "them" or to control "them" for the sake of "us." The left tends to adopt an all-of-us-together mentality, which results in an urge to bring together groups of people as equals. The stereotype of the bleeding heart liberal encapsulates this dynamic pretty well. These mentalities are even suggested psychologically, since it is fear which drives conservatives towards the comfort of "us" and a lack of fear which enables liberals to open up to "them."
Both of these urges can be carried to dangerous extremes. The violence of Hitler's fascism is an excellent example of the us-vs-them mentality resulting in catastrophe, while Pol Pot's communism is an example of the all-together mentality resulting in catastrophe. Both of these urges can also be beneficial. Protecting the rights of "I" and "us" is an important part of checking government and ensuring the general welfare, as is the need to break down artificial and xenophobic barriers which foment hostility between peoples.
Now, let's look at the explanation of imperialism I gave, which you also never challenged, namely: "Imperialism does not require the physical extension of borders. Imperialism describes the use of control or influence by a hegemon to maintain, increase, and leverage that control or influence over its claimed protectorates or spheres of influence; imperialism may also involve the assertion of such control as an explicit claim or implicit suggestion."
Imperialism is a manifestation of the us-vs-them mentality. It involves the "us" extending control over the "them" in order to exploit the "them" for the benefit of the "us." It is similarly more revanchist, corporatist, and nationalist than any of the liberal kinds of extremism, which is further evidence for its placement on the right of the political spectrum.
-->
@bsh1
Oh my sweat, tl:dr
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Oh my sweat, tl:dr
If you find that too long to read, you're lazy.
Here's bsh1's comment, shortened and summarized:
"Right-wing extremism tends to be characterized by xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, capitalism/corporatism, revanchism, and/or hyper-individualism/exceptionalism (a la Nietzsche). Left-wing extremism tends to be characterized by hyper-egalitarianism, militant socialism/trade unionism, ultra-globalism, anti-nationalism/xenophobia, and/or ecoterrorism."The right tends to adopt an us-vs-them mentality, which results in an urge to either isolate "us" from "them" or to control "them" for the sake of "us." The left tends to adopt an all-of-us-together mentality, which results in an urge to bring together groups of people as equals.Both of these urges can be carried to dangerous extremes. The violence of Hitler's fascism is an excellent example of the us-vs-them mentality resulting in catastrophe, while Pol Pot's communism is an example of the all-together mentality resulting in catastrophe. Both of these urges can also be beneficial. Protecting the rights of "I" and "us" is an important part of checking government and ensuring the general welfare, as is the need to break down artificial and xenophobic barriers which foment hostility between peoples.
What he is basically saying, summarized in ONE sentence, is that both democrats and republicans alike have various strengths and weaknesses, and that neither side is perfect. Simple as that.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's things that I remembered you said. At the beginning of this thread, you accused dustryder of being biased. You cited fox news on my white South African thread. Fox is more biased then the Atlantic.
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s tackle this one by one.
Firstly, the same dismissive trolling rhetoric that avoids any attempt to engage with what I’m saying, is your modus operandi, yet another refusal
to defend the topics you decide to engage with or not is yet another case in point. Everything I’ve said, is specifically behaviour you engage in; and your mostly proving the point with the deflection.
Secondly, there are some circumstances where people are misinformed, some where they are clearly liars: and this can be determined to 100% accuracy. In your case, your inability to engage in a specific topic, your constant and deliberate misrepresentation, and outright lies can be deduced by the words you say when confronted with an actual argument. For example, your on a debate website yet have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a discussion that is more substantial than throwaway misrepresentation in meme form; and when a conflicting point of view is presented, your replies inevitably attempt to spin the conversation onto your misrepresented talking point.
Given that I don’t think your dumb, or mentally ill; the consistency of this behaviour and deflection to avoid taking about your misrepresentation is only really possible if you know it’s misrepresentation: those that aren’t lying generally try and defend it
Finally: What you’re doing is engaging in a straw man - again. My point, and has been clearly spelled out by my explanation of your behaviour: is that you specifically know how baseless, misrepresentative, hypocritical and nonsensical your frequent propagandizing is - You just don’t appear to care. As should have been obvious, I’m not talking about politicians, people in general, society, or really making a wider point like you appear to be stating; but I strongly suspect you already know that.
-->
@Christen
Generally those examples given in the article are examples of them expressing dissatisfaction towards the president. Some of them in quite distasteful ways. None of them however were explicitly directing people to do violence towards the president. Hence their speech should be covered by the first amendment
-->
@Ramshutu
Again with the projections and paranoia.
It's clear I can't possibly speak your language.
-->
@Greyparrot
An accurate and factual description of what you do is neither paranoia, nor projection.
You've repeatedly accused the left of inciting violence at the smallest incidence; and ignore each and every example of the right wing violence we see regularly.
You know that violence exists, so you’re continual repetition of the violence of the left is inherently dishonest and misrepresentative, and thus far - you simply resort to trolling and deflection to prevent it being talked about. This goes the same way for pretty much every thread you join, be it about deliberately lying and continuing to lie about the Mueller report, for no reason, to pretty much every other claim.
It’s odd - I’m here to argue, and I’ve never seen an individual so adverse to actually justifying anything on a debate website. But go ahead, single line troll strategy to deflect away.
That appears to be all you have!
-->
@Ramshutu
Here is a hint, people who don't have paranoia issues don't ever describe people as "constant"
I have really no idea what your mental issues are dude.
-->
@Greyparrot
People who don’t have issues with truth, coherence and logic don’t claim the left are the violent crazies, and inciting violence after each incidence of violence, then forgot to watch the news when Trump supporters send pipe bombs, shoot up mosques and synagogues.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
tl:dr
Laziness perpetuates ignorance.
It's not surprising that someone so wrong on all counts would simply not read in order to enable them to continue to cling to their pigheaded ideas.
-->
@bsh1
Look, I am willing to rite paragraphs, not on forums though
-->
@bsh1
@Dr.Franklin
Laziness perpetuates ignorance.It's not surprising that someone so wrong on all counts would simply not read in order to enable them to continue to cling to their pigheaded ideas.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Wow BIG MAN!
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I mean I don't see you complaining about numerous instances of police brutality and shootings that are fueled by racial bias's on the alt right.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Oh Police Brutality, sorry not a race issue, More whites are shot but blacks commit more crime