What a Cruel World

[Frostbyte]

We have some conservatives on this site that are quite good at defending their positions. On the other hand, we have a large number that rely (almost exclusively) on citing the worst of the ultra right outlets (i.e. Faux News, the Heritage Foundation).

I would like to hope that you're not referring to me, if you are it's more proof you haven't been paying attention.

I cited the Heritage Foundation ONCE, I never cited Fox, and I get my news from CNN.

How about you name a salient point of his that isn't dressed up in neocon garbage?

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Obama's policies are oriented towards providing jobs and making sure the economy gets back on its feet. It's open to debate as to whether or not it will work. However, Rush is basically coming across as stating that he hopes neither of these things happens.

If Rush's position is that these policies will not work (which it is) then I don't see the problem of wanting them to fail. IF he thought the MIGHT work and still wanted him to fail, I think it would be different.

I recall the leader of the Socialist party going on the Jon Stewart show saying that he's insulted that people think Obama and his policies are Socialist.

1. I don't know that Limbaugh actually said Obama is a socialist, he probably said that obama's economic ideas have socialist tenants, and he may also have said that he suspects Obama may be socialist. But I find it unlikely that he came out and said "obama is a socialist and his policies will destroy the united states" what I heard during the "i hope he fails" interview was: (rough paraphrase)

"If he wants to add Reagan to his mix of FDR and Lincoln, then YES! I hope he succeeds! But if he wants to create a policy of big government and socialist tenants, things that I know in my heart are bad for this country .... ... Why would I want that to succeed?"

2. Just as an aside, the leader of the Socialist party could be MORE socialist than Obama, drastically more. I consider myself a capitalist, but because I do believe in some regulation, a small safety net for the public, and TEMPORARY government relief during times like this, lassiez farie (pure capitalists) may be insulted that I consider my self so.

Really? I think anyone that wants our leader, regardless of his party, to fail is pretty unpatriotic.

Really? What about all the democrats and liberals that wanted Bush to fail? Or wanted the war in Iraq to fail?

Unconstitutional, huh? Patriot Act anyone?

Oh certainly. But there have always been conflicts in (american) history of rights (particularly privacy) vs. security. But yes, the Patriot Act certainly violates American rights.

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security. deserve neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin

 

[linwood]

A fine point, linwood. I'm not a moderator, but it's hard to say if they got him for such blatant disregard for the truth, the racial slurs, or the personal attacks on everyone that doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.

Well, I wouldn`t know because I don`t spend a lot of time in the political forums here and it seems this is where he did the bulk of his posting.
So I haven`t seen a lot of his posts.

I`m usually only drawn here when I noticed you`ve made a thread TVOR as I seek the enlightenment your posts consistently exude.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

VOR, if you get around to it, you can comment on post #23 if you get bored.

Sorry, Rick. You must have posted that while I was typing.

I didn't intentionally dismiss it - I just missed it.

As for your post, I actually do have you in mind quite often. This thread was, in fact, started with you (and a couple of others) in mind.

Your defense of The Heritage Foundation and their use of statistics is a prime example. They have a pretty solid track record of using statistical data from solid sources, and then misusing the data to the point that the authors of the original work have to call them out on their distortions.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sorry, Rick. You must have posted that while I was typing.

I didn't intentionally dismiss it - I just missed it.

As for your post, I actually do have you in mind quite often. This thread was, in fact, started with you (and a couple of others) in mind.

Your defense of The Heritage Foundation and their use of statistics is a prime example. They have a pretty solid track record of using statistical data from solid sources, and then misusing the data to the point that the authors of the original work have to call them out on their distortions.

OK, fair enough. One other issue, do you really believe that MSNBC is fair and balanced?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I`m usually only drawn here when I noticed you`ve made a thread TVOR as I seek the enlightenment your posts consistently exude.

Better be careful, linwood. You might be treading dangerously close to being suspended yourself - for "laying it on too thick".

You must have me confused with Angellous.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

OK, fair enough. One other issue, do you really believe that MSNBC is fair and balanced?

No, not really. I do think that they tend to do a better job of presenting both sides of an issue, and I don't know that they have been guilty of the shameless political hackery that Faux News has - but I do think they have a definitive left lean. The talking heads that populate their shows tend to be left, rather than right.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Better be careful, linwood. You might be treading dangerously close to being suspended yourself - for "laying it on too thick".

You must have me confused with Angellous.

I would pay good money to see Angellous and Investocracy in a cage match.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I would pay good money to see Angellous and Investocracy in a cage match.

I can tell you one thing - if Investocracy got the best of him, even as they toted Angellous off on a gurney, he'd leave the arena shouting

"ANGELLOUS IS YOUR DADDY"!


If he was a gamecock, they'd say "there ain't no quit in him".

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, not really. I do think that they tend to do a better job of presenting both sides of an issue, and I don't know that they have been guilty of the shameless political hackery that Faux News has - but I do think they have a definitive left lean. The talking heads that populate their shows tend to be left, rather than right.

I don't consider FOX News real news, I consider it entertainment for the same reason my son used to watch wrestling, hot babes! There is something about Conservative young women that turns me on. I'm entertained and the wife has a smile in the morning.

 

[Comicaze247]

2. Just as an aside, the leader of the Socialist party could be MORE socialist than Obama, drastically more. I consider myself a capitalist, but because I do believe in some regulation, a small safety net for the public, and TEMPORARY government relief during times like this, lassiez farie (pure capitalists) may be insulted that I consider my self so.

Fair point. I still don't think of Obama as socialist, though. Just more to the left than past candidates have been.

Really? What about all the democrats and liberals that wanted Bush to fail?

I think there's a difference between wanting the president to fail and thinking the president should be impeached because he fails.

Or wanted the war in Iraq to fail?

I just wanted them to pull out, not fail.

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security. deserve neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin

Great quote!

 

[J Bryson]

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

As no salient point was mentioned in the post I was responding to, and instead a generalization was made, my request for an actual example (as colorfully as I may have phrased it) does not relate to this fallacy.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As no salient point was mentioned in the post I was responding to, and instead a generalization was made, my request for an actual example (as colorfully as I may have phrased it) does not relate to this fallacy.

Not to worry, J. He excels at throwing them out there, whether they are pertinent or not.

It appears to be easier than having to find the right fallacy (assuming that one applies).

 

[Frostbyte]

Fair point. I still don't think of Obama as socialist, though. Just more to the left than past candidates have been.

I don't think he is a socialist either. I believe he has some ideas which from a staunch capitilastic point of view are so far towards that side that for someone who believes in free market it may as well be. I also am somewhat suspicious that there may in fact be more socialistic tendencies to what he believes than he lets on. Some suggest that with the route he is taking certain advances of socialism (nationalizing the banks specifically) could be inevitable.

I think there's a difference between wanting the president to fail and thinking the president should be impeached because he fails.

I believe there were democrats who wanted Bush to fail before he had a shot.

Also impeachment is only the first stage of getting a president (or other official) removed, just a reminder. Some people think that if you impeach someone it means they're out. But that is not the case.

And you can't impeach someone because of ineptitude. Although some of what Bush did (advancing the power of the executive) could be viewed (and determined) unconstitutional, the mere issue of whether he "failed" or not does not constitute impeachment.

As no salient point was mentioned in the post I was responding to, and instead a generalization was made, my request for an actual example (as colorfully as I may have phrased it) does not relate to this fallacy.

He stated that Limbaugh makes salient points, you disagreed and should've given just one example of Limbaugh's statements being "dressed in neocon garbage." That would immediatly disprove the original point. Also I think it would not be difficult to find just ONE point.

Although this probably doesn't matter as Investocracy shouldn't be taken seriously either...

Not to worry, J. He excels at throwing them out there, whether they are pertinent or not.

It appears to be easier than having to find the right fallacy (assuming that one applies).

And you're quite good at being spiteful and completely ignoring any direct evidence that contradicts your point of view as "biased" (no matter if it is or not, and without any proof of bias)

And I'm quite certain that at least in reference to you, all the fallacies have been entirely pertinent.

Maybe the Burden of Proof on J was not. But I don't think it matters.

 

[Sunstone]

The funny thing about America is you can say, "The News has a leftist bias", and get away with it because Americans don't know too many real leftists.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And you're quite good at being spiteful and completely ignoring any direct evidence that contradicts your point of view as "biased" (no matter if it is or not, and without any proof of bias)

You continue to confuse opinion with "direct evidence". You also continue to fail to grasp that I have no intention of addressing every RNC talking point that you toss out there. Not gonna' happen.

And I'm quite certain that at least in reference to you, all the fallacies have been entirely pertinent.

Even the duplicates?

Maybe the Burden of Proof on J was not. But I don't think it matters.

Why doesn't it matter? Are you telling us that we need to sift through your posts, identify the salient points, and dismiss the hyperbole? Like I have been doing all along?

 

[Frostbyte]

The funny thing about America is you can say, "The News has a leftist bias", and get away with it because Americans don't know too many real leftists.

And the leftists they do know have this annoying tendency of ignoring facts, and putting the burden of research on the opposition, and do no research themselves.

You continue to confuse opinion with "direct evidence". You also continue to fail to grasp that I have no intention of addressing every RNC talking point that you toss out there. Not gonna' happen.

And yet I've sited statstic, article and documentation regarding my opinions. And you have not. You continue to dismiss any and every source given in any thread as biased (most of the time with a glance, if we're lucky, at the title and nothing more)

Why doesn't it matter? Are you telling us that we need to sift through your posts, identify the salient points, and dismiss the hyperbole? Like I have been doing all along?

It doesn't matter because Investocracy probably shouldn't have been taken seriously anyway.

I have made plenty of salient points with research to back it up, which you ignore.

You dismiss everything because the reality of facing a differing opinion that doesn't go away at a nasty comment you make is too harsh for you.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have made plenty of salient points with research to back it up, which you ignore.

I fear that you give yourself far too much credit. I just addressed the sources you cited in the thread about Fuax News - and it isn't pretty. You listed 7 or 8 sources - only one of which was unbiased, and one that was only slightly right of center. You continue to insist on being taken seriously, while proving (time after time) that you are incapable of forming your opinions without the aid of ultra right wing outlets feeding you poison. The problem of seeing the world through darkly distorted lenses remains with you, Frosty.

You dismiss everything because the reality of facing a differing opinion that doesn't go away at a nasty comment you make is too harsh for you.

Don't be silly, Frosty. I dismiss your posts because they are slightly less accurate than listening to Dick Cheney re-assure us that Saddam Hussein is the real culprit behind the 9/11 attacks, or that he has huge stockpiles of WMD's hidden around Baghdad and Tikrit.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Don't be silly, Frosty. I dismiss your posts because they are slightly less accurate than listening to Dick Cheney re-assure us that Saddam Hussein is the real culprit behind the 9/11 attacks, or that he has huge stockpiles of WMD's hidden around Baghdad and Tikrit.

That still has your knickers in a wad does it not? What you are saying is, you are still mad because the left was out smarted and tricked into voting for the Iraq war. Even Hillary Clinton supported the President that day.

In my opinion, we did the right thing for the wrong reason. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and when Bush 41 drove him back to Baghdad, he was the most feared person on the planet. He created the biggest environmental mess by setting the oil wells on fire the planet had ever seen. It was hell on earth. It took years to clear up from the great blow to the planet. I would think all you green people would celebrate that he was hanged. Think about it? What single other person polluted so much? Then there is this chemical weapons thing where he proved he was capable of mass murder.

You are basically right VOR, Saddam techniquely did not have current operating weapons of mass destruction, or did he send them to other bordering countries? Even if he did not have them, he would have eventually acquired them as he had in the past. Saying he had no weapons is a moot point.

Let's follow your logic for a moment. Would the world be better off if we did not take Saddam out? Sticking around and spending billions was misdirected, I will give you that point, but it pales by comparison with our rubber stamp congress and what they are spending.

What we have here is an irresponsible government not representing the people. One side was wrong and now the other side is doing the exact same thing only spending the money ON THEIR PET PROJECTS.

Pork is pork right? I can see my sides faults, but you cannot. Why do you have a crystal clear vision of the conservative sins, but turn a blind eye to the current administration?

 

[linwood]

In my opinion, we did the right thing for the wrong reason. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and when Bush 41 drove him back to Baghdad, ...

You mean AFTER the Bush I white house essentially ok`d his invasion into Kuwait to begin with.
You do realise Hussien did not lie about his excuse for invading Kuwait, they were slant drilling into Iraq.
We didn`t liberate Kuwait for the sake of Kuwait, we liberated Kuwait because our oil masters the Saudis freaked out when Hussein took Kuwait.
They thought they were next so The Saudi King jerked George the 1st`s chain and he responded like a dog.

U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam in an emergency meeting on July 25, where the Iraqi leader stated his intention to continue talks. U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while George H. W. Bush and James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq–Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there is this chemical weapons thing where he proved he was capable of mass murder.

Odd, wonder where Hussein got all that money and technology to produce chemical weapons?
Where did he get his very first strains?
Can you guess?
Hmm, I also wonder who incited the popular uprising against Hussein that led to those chemical attacks.
Who promised to help with a rebellion and then simply left those people high and dry to die?
Bay of Pigs anyone?

You probably wonder why they weren`t throwing candy and flowers at US troops when they entered Basra this second time around.
Maybe it because the first time around we left them to die.

You are basically right VOR, Saddam techniquely did not have current operating weapons of mass destruction, or did he send them to other bordering countries? Even if he did not have them, he would have eventually acquired them as he had in the past. Saying he had no weapons is a moot point.

Ridiculous!!
His non-existenet weapons were THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE IRAQI WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Are you telling me thousands of American soldiers are dead because of a moot point?
Moot point my ***.

It was damn unlikely he could have made more since he was no longer being financed and trained by the USA.
Not to mention the crippling sanctions he was under.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You still don't get it. Weapons of mass destruction was just something to get you Liberals on board. IT WAS A DISTRACTION! Best thing about it, it worked. Iraq is a staging ground for the Iran war, nothing more, nothing less. Just as the stimulus bill was nothing about anything but a pet project fest. We where in such a hurry to pass the bill that we did not have time to even read it. AIG bonuses anyone? If we where in such a hurry, why after all this time is 90% of the money not stimulating anything right now? Why did we not get to read the bill on the internet like Obama promised before the vote? It's all taxation without representation. No side has the moral high ground.