55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 08:46 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have offered it, you simply have denied it. This is unsurprising, b/c these are troubling things for your party to admit out loud, that an entertainer/drug addict holds sway over a lot of your party's direction.

Cycloptichorn

Offered what, that he forced somebody to apologize? Thats no evidence. And just how do you force somebody to apologize?


You complain about their attacking you on your nationally syndicated radio show, and then legions of your followers attack the elected official with phone calls and threats to withhold donations. This is exactly what has happened to several of your politicians this year alone. That's power, man.

Quote:
I would like to hear how you do that. And I offered real evidence to counter your claim. Limbaugh vigorously opposed McCain, and drummed on it for weeks or months, yet McCain won the party's nomination, which proves what, cyclops? I will answer it for you. It proves he had no power, none, over the party. He supported Thompson, and he didn't get to first base.


You are incorrect; the fact that McCain won the nomination does not prove that Rush has 'no power at all.' That doesn't logically follow.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 08:49 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.

So okie was drawing parallels between Obama and Hitler but he wasn't making comparisons between the two? How do you explain the distinction?


It is perhaps splitting hairs, but there is a difference between comparing two individuals in an attempt to show how they are the same--an attempt that I believe has not been made--and an attempt to observe comparisons of the methodologies and philosophies and somewhat on the similarities of background that produces them.

For instance two executives might be people of very different personality and temperament and moral centering, but employ the same management style to run two very different organizations. In such a case, it would not be suggested that the two executives were the same. You would not be comparing the personalities, but rather noting the similarity in their management styles. Even if you pointed out that they attended the same school of management to explain those management styles, it would not necessarily be comparing those two individuals with each other but noting why they employ the management style that they do.

The same with musicians who appreciate a particular genre of music and incorporate that into their own styles that are nevertheless very different. If you note that they shared similar tastes in music or honed their skills under the same mentors, would you be comparing them with each other as people? Or would two artists who were draw to impressionism and adopted that style in their own work necessarily be the same people in their philosophy of life, moral centering, personal preferences, or would observing their work simply conclude that they were both impressonistic artists however different?

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 08:53 am
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

Excuse me for getting his name wrong. However, he, like the DNC Chairperson, have much influence and are appointed or elected to their position by party members. Therefore, I do not know how you can say he is not "respected" in his position.


I can only respond that you must not have been paying much attention lately.

Quote:

As far as the radio personality, for anyone to think that his position gives him any influence over anything other than his audiences, is naive at best.


You are correct; he influences his audience of millions, who then go out and ditto-head it up and influence elected officials. This is a real thing, I'm not making it up. Perhaps you haven't seen all the forced apologies this year?

Quote:
I have no "skin" in the game of political parties so I will not pretend take side in whatever debate you are trying to have. Yet it appears to me, you seem to be a "card carrying" member of the Democratic Party and I find it unsettling that you appear to have no objectivity when discussing differing points of view.

You act like so many of the so called "extreme right/left" partisans who trust their "parties" policies exclusively with no room for negotiation.

That is why these "political chat rooms" really are useless forums if it is one desire to engage in meaningful debate and exchange of ideas.

Maybe as you gain more life experiences, you and others might become enlightened to the realities of both political parties and become more objective in your views and opinions and how to really engage in the exchange of ideas.

You probably suffer from what I call Youthful Ignorance. I expect, like many others, you will grow out of it at some point.


You are of course welcome to think whatever you like about me and my opinions. But you are not exactly coming across as someone with no skin in the game in many of the posts of yours I've read.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:00 am
@Foxfyre,
Making a mistake and not admitting it is only hurting yourself twice. I keep hoping that okie and you will come to understand this some day. But maybe that's just one of my liberal pipe dreams.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:03 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I don't think that we lived under a dictatorship with Bush, but if we are going to make comparisons, the Bush years are far closer and more relevant to even make a comparisson.


You wandered off, but I'll reply anyways.
mysteryman wrote:

I would disagree.
Lets look at what FDR did.

Why are we talking about FDR? I'm talking about Obama vice Bush.
mysteryman wrote:

He rounded up everybody that he thought MIGHT, and I stress MIGHT, have been a threat, only because of the color of their skin.

Actually nationality. Chinese, Koreans and other east Asians were not gathered up.
mysteryman wrote:

He put them into glorified prison camps with no evidence of any wrongdoing on their parts.

Correct. I am VERY familiar. My Grandparents were in those camps.
mysteryman wrote:

He did not give them trials, he confiscated all of their property, and he denied them any of the rights afforded American citizens (which most of them were).

Correct.
mysteryman wrote:

Why didnt he do that to the German or Italian residents of the east coast?

As I understand this is incorrect. There were German and Italian detainees, but they weren't put in camps similar to the Japanese. It's a topic I have wanted to research more, but haven't found the time.
mysteryman wrote:

Would you say that those were the actions of a man closer to a dictator then Bush?

In terms of power, certainly.
mysteryman wrote:

Or Lincoln, lets look at some of his actions.

Why are we talking about Lincoln? I'm talking about Obama vice Bush.
mysteryman wrote:

He suspended habeus corpus laws, he shut down newspapers, he ordered federal troops into NYC to stop local protests, and he did all of that under the pretext of fighting the civil war.

Correct.
mysteryman wrote:

So for you to say that Bush was the closest we have ever come to a dictatorship is laughable.

Ah but MM, I did NOT say this. I didn't say bush was the closest. I said that he would be a better comparison than Obama.

I said specifically, I didn't think that he was a dictator, but his actions are actually comparable to military dictatorships where as conspiracy theories about what Obama may/could do are not comparable.

I never said Bush was the closest to a dictator we've had.

In terms of power: FDR
In terms of influence: Lincoln
In terms of popularity: Reagan
In terms of zeal: Nixon

I'd go as far as to say Bush is pretty far from a dictator. I never saw him as an evil man, just an incompetent one (for the POTUS).

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:12 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.

Can't the parallels simply be drawn between any two national leaders? How is any comparison going to be valid?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:15 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Why didnt he do that to the German or Italian residents of the east coast?

As I understand this is incorrect. There were German and Italian detainees, but they weren't put in camps similar to the Japanese. It's a topic I have wanted to research more, but haven't found the time.


At least some thousands actually were:

infos about
- German-American internees here and here,
- info about the Italian-American Internment at Wikipedia
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:17 am
@Foxfyre,
You are leaving out the specifics of Hitler compared to Obama. Your two CEO example leaves out the detailed negative actions they have taken against their employees that are comparable. Were they both tyrants (like Hilter)? Did they abuse their employees (like Hitler against the Jews)? How did they "destroy" their companies (the proposition offered by okie)? Did they run "socialist companies?"

Where's the comparisons?

You're not "splitting hairs;" you're talking about an entirely different subject.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:22 am
@Debra Law,
If okie is now modifying his thesis (denying now that he compared Hitler to Obama), what does that say about Foxie's defense of okie? Does two negatives make a positive? LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:29 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie wrote:

Quote:
I don't think that was Okie's point at all. I think his point is that there are certain observable parallels between the mindset, tactics, and methods of most ruthless dictators, and, whether or not Obama would like to be a ruthless dictator, reasonable people should be willing to observe and acknowledge those same parallels in our own political arena. Actually that would be a smart thing to do no matter who is in the White House and no matter what political or governing parallels are drawn.


Is it anything like what Bush did, but all you MACs kept quiet? Where's the comparison between Bush and a law-breaker? We're talking about the US Constitution here.

From the Boston Globe:

Quote:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
By the way, Okie -

Quote:
Poll: Majority unsure who speaks for the GOP
Posted: 11:22 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Americans are unsure who speaks for the GOP, according to a new poll.
Americans are unsure who speaks for the GOP, according to a new poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) " As the Republican Party struggles to regain its footing following the November elections, a new survey shows that a majority of adult Americans sees no clear leader for the minority political party.

Even more problematic for the GOP is that one-third of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of their party, according to the USA Today/Gallup poll.

When it comes to naming a “main person” who speaks for the GOP, 52 percent of Americans were unable to do so.

Among those who did name a speaker for the GOP, 13 percent identified conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, while 10 percent named former Vice President Dick Cheney. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were each named by 6 percent of Americans in the poll.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/10/poll-majority-unsure-who-speaks-for-the-gop/

You will note that Limbaugh has beat out all other (named) people as the perceived leader of the GOP.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:53 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Making a mistake and not admitting it is only hurting yourself twice. I keep hoping that okie and you will come to understand this some day. But maybe that's just one of my liberal pipe dreams.


What mistake? Are you seriously assuming authority to tell Okie or me or anybody else what his/her point of view must be in order to not be a mistake? What kind of arrogance is that? And do you rush to admit your mistakes just because somebody on the right accuses you of being wrong? Look how hard you resisted admitting the 'deduction' as I used it was not in the same context as 'deduction' as I was using it. You did come around to the correct point of view after it was thoroughly explained. Would you have done so had I simply declared you to be making a mistake?

If you think his or my point of view is wrong then spell it out. Make your case. And allow rebuttal. Or will you choose to be like the numbnuts and presume to judge others and declare who is and is not worthy of their time while engaging in the blood sport of trying to hurt and diminish people? Of all the inattractive aspects of liberalism, that one is the absolute worst and it is generally inflicted on those who dare presume to focus on ideas or concepts disagreeable to liberals and who defend their point of view.

I do not presume infallibility myself and absolutely accept that I can be and often am wrong in my perceptions or understandings. When that is clearly demonstrated, I will freely admit that I was wrong. But somebody has to have a better argument than "Foxfyre is an idiot" or "Foxfyre is delusional" or "Foxfyre is stupid" or "Foxfyre is wrong" or "Foxfyre is a fanatical ideologue" or "Foxfyre is a racist bigot" or "Foxfyre is a religious fantic" or whatever the mantra of the day is to persuade me that my point of view isn't as valid as anybody elses. And I don't allow the mean spirited and hateful to dictate to me what I must think about anything.

Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 09:58 am
@Foxfyre,
Please note that people have been making the case, and 'rebuttal' doesn't mean you are necessarily right. That's entirely Thomas' point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Making a mistake and not admitting it is only hurting yourself twice.


I hope PrezBO and those that voted for him take your words to heart.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@H2O MAN,
Thanks for making my point. . . I think.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:20 am
@Thomas,
When the hell did you become a liberal?

I don't remember voting on that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:23 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Especially when the constant focus (by many on the Left) continutes to be on the messenger instead of the topic being discussed.


For you to make such a comment, when this is so commonly your modus operandi is what evokes the expression: "You've got a gall."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:26 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So okie was drawing parallels between Obama and Hitler but he wasn't making comparisons between the two? How do you explain the distinction?


It is perhaps splitting hairs, but there is a difference between comparing two individuals in an attempt to show how they are the same--an attempt that I believe has not been made--and an attempt to observe comparisons of the methodologies and philosophies and somewhat on the similarities of background that produces them.

No, that's not splitting hairs, because there's no hair to split. Comparing two things always involves noting their similarities. Didn't you ever have a "compare and contrast" question on a test in school?

Clearly, okie wasn't saying that Obama is Hitler, he was saying that, in certain respects, Obama is like Hitler. That's a comparison, no matter how you phrase it.

No doubt you're trying to avoid saying that okie made a comparison between Obama and Hitler because, somewhere in the back of your mind, you realize that it would be extremely distasteful to make that comparison. And you'd be right: it is distasteful. That's because any comparison to Hitler is highly inflammatory. But then some people want to be highly inflammatory. That's why okie didn't compare Obama to, say, Mussolini. Nobody gets too exercised over Mussolini.

You can excuse him all you want, and that you've done so here is hardly a surprise -- after all, he's a conservative, and you have never hesitated to make excuses for fellow conservatives. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that he hasn't made the comparison that he has obviously made.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:31 am
@joefromchicago,
I'm sorry, but as in the illustrations that I used, which you ignored, I clearly explained how saying that two people share certain circumstances or backgrounds or approaches to things is not the same thing as saying that the two people are like or are the same or alike. I would be the first to criticize Okie had he said that Obama is no different from Hitler, the person, or that Obama wants to be like Hitler, the person. I do not see that he has said that.

Now if you want to make the point that it is repugnant to make any kind comparisons of the similarities about anything related to a good guy vs a bad guy, I would not share your point of view, but I would accept that as your opinion.

You and I are both arguing a particular point of view here. We are both members of A2K. We have probably both attended public schools and we probably both love our country and perhaps some food preferences or factors in our upbringings. Are we alike? The same? Is pointing out those things that we share somehow an attempt to link us together or, for that matter, an attempt denigrate you or me?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You will note that Limbaugh has beat out all other (named) people as the perceived leader of the GOP.


Why didn't this come as as a shocking revelation to me?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 01:55:29