AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

You've been made a liar of times over and over. We've checked that box off already for the scavenger hunt Fox.

I'll attack your arguments, while you attack nameless liberals. If you can say I'm attacking the messenger, then you're just setting fire to the woods. Instead of arguing the points raised here in these threads, you rely on attacking the points of people (and imaginary liberals) outside of these threads.

Who is the real coward?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I notice you carefully avoided the question asking for evidence that he was wrong.

I didn't avoid it; I just don't have time to go line by line, so I made some generalizations. However, since you insist:

Quote:

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

These are idiocies. If he knows nothing, it is by choice. He has written two books and they clearly detail the answers to these questions; and his books also themselves provide income to afford his 'upscale lifestyle.' 5 minutes of Googling would have answered all these questions easily.

Quote:

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

This is a ridiculous assertion on his part. He doesn't have the right to decide who is 'culturally American.' What he means, is that he isn't 'white American.'

Quote:

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

The vast majority of Americans have not served, this is a useless observation on his part and also untrue.

Quote:

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

Again, a baseless and untrue assertion re: Obama's character.

Quote:

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

Three lies in a row, all unprovable and baseless. These are nothing more than Republican canards with Obama's name tacked on them.

Quote:

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

Two lies and an idiotic assertion. Obama's health care plan is nothing like a government controlled one at all, windmills are a smart idea (unlimited fuel with no transport cost vs. limited with transport cost, you do the math) and the Capitalism part is just more Republican angst.

Look, I could go on. But why bother? It's a waste of my time and the guy isn't coming from a position of fact, but one of idiotic assertions. Why would you post such a thing?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry but saying that something is not so does not make it not so. You have to show HOW it is not so in order for it to be a valid rebuttal. It would be acceptable to say that you don't think HE can defend his thesis, but that you do not wish to take the time to support your opinion about that.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Actually the burden of proof lies on Lou... wait... he can't, cause he's not here. I guess that burden falls on you to provide since you brought it here.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Not to blame the messenger, but from Fox's bio of Pritchett, it looks like his main claim to some sort of competence and fame is that he has spent the last twenty years of his life making speeches telling corporations they should pay attention to their customers. That is apparently his "big idea". Whoopee ****. Just another "inspirational speaker" overpaid hack.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Well I got quite a bit more from his bio than that, but then I read all of it, including most of the big words.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Actually, I wonder if you have bothered to do any real research about the budget problems here in California at all, as what you have written doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation; that is to say, the Republicans in California have sucessfully hijacked the budgeting process to hold the state hostage.

You are correct as I really did not bother to do any in depth research on Californians budget issue. As an observer I found the election contrary to many peoples perception of the State. I see you have figured out the problem and all the blame you will place on "Republicans...hijacking the budgeting process". That seems a bit simplistic as California has had budget problems in the past under "Democratic regimes". I wonder if you might agree with me that probably the State spends more than it takes in? Think that might have something to do with the States fiscal problems?

Quote:

You are simply incorrect. Limbaugh is an opinion-driver and leader of the Republican party in many ways.

I see you have changed your mind to Limbaugh being a leader to being a leader in many ways. Does he set platform policies for the Party? No. So again, besides his legion of listeners, what influence does he have with voters like me? None.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Sorry but saying that something is not so does not make it not so.

Sure. The writer's saying that something is so does not make it so.

Quote:

You have to show HOW it is not so in order for it to be a valid rebuttal. It would be acceptable to say that you don't think HE can defend his thesis, but that you do not wish to take the time to support your opinion about that.

I gave ample evidence on several points that he is coming from nowhere with his accusations and several of them are clearly false on their face, or nothing more than his opinion. It is not my responsibility to prove to you or anyone that this guy is an idiot.

YOU posted the piece originally, if the responsibility lies with anyone to provide evidence backing up his assertions, it is with you.

As I said earlier; don't have the time or inclination to play games with a letter as moronic as that. You know as well as I that much of what he wrote is a lie or unprovable in any way, so why are you even bothering with this?

What is your fascination, btw, with posting stupid Republican chain emails to A2K? Do you somehow, masochistically, enjoy them being dissected to pieces and shown to be really dumb?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
Actually, I wonder if you have bothered to do any real research about the budget problems here in California at all, as what you have written doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation; that is to say, the Republicans in California have sucessfully hijacked the budgeting process to hold the state hostage.

You are correct as I really did not bother to do any in depth research on Californians budget issue. As an observer I found the election contrary to many peoples perception of the State. I see you have figured out the problem and all the blame you will place on "Republicans...hijacking the budgeting process". That seems a bit simplistic as California has had budget problems in the past under "Democratic regimes". I wonder if you might agree with me that probably the State spends more than it takes in? Think that might have something to do with the States fiscal problems?

Do you understand how the Republicans in the CA congress have engineered a situation in which there can be no tax increases - period? You really ought to do some research on this issue before chalking it up to partisanship on my part.

Actually, a big part of the reason we are in a hole here in CA has to do with... Enron.

Quote:

Quote:
You are simply incorrect. Limbaugh is an opinion-driver and leader of the Republican party in many ways.

I see you have changed your mind to Limbaugh being a leader to being a leader in many ways. Does he set platform policies for the Party? No. So again, besides his legion of listeners, what influence does he have with voters like me? None.

[/quote]

A leader, a leader in many ways - you are splitting hairs.

And the Republican party is chock full of Limbaugh listeners, you may not be one of them but many, many others are. Your logic is faulty here; you assume that b/c you are not impacted by Limbaugh, the Republican party must not be. It simply isn't true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 3673166)
Sorry but saying that something is not so does not make it not so. You have to show HOW it is not so in order for it to be a valid rebuttal.

That's what the original said.

I suspect Fox quickly edited and added,

"It would be acceptable to say that you don't think HE can defend his thesis, but that you do not wish to take the time to support your opinion about that"

because her first posting showed exactly how untenable the old fart's screed was.

0 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

I see you have changed your mind to Limbaugh being a leader to being a leader in many ways.

Uh... dude. That's not a change in position. Read.

Yankee wrote:

Does he set platform policies for the Party? No.

Yeah. The platform is what the party states it supports. Various politicians may be anywhere from mostly to absolutely congruent with it, but the platform is just a group of ideas. This is exactly where Rush Plays in. Rush's influence on what is on that platform is greater than people like Michael Steele.

Yankee wrote:

So again, besides his legion of listeners, what influence does he have with voters like me? None.

What do you mean "besides his legion" exactly? that's the point. He has a legion.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

No I have not supported anything in the piece but posted it for another purpose. I am not obligated to support anything specific in the piece unless I claim that as my own opinion and use the piece to express it. I posted the piece with the speculation that some of our members would attack the messenger rather than the content of the letter. And some of you have beautifully made the case for me that I was right about that.

However, as I did not comment on the accuracy of any point of the letter but you did, it is up to you to support your opinion, not mine.

2 Replies

Me too, Fox, but I understood what the big words were trying to obscure. Guess you didn't. He's a hack. And others did a commendable job of showing what a crock the supposed content of his letter is. My point is that he's just another ex-corporate spin merchant, which the conservative movement seems to abound in.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Your opinion is noted MJ.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Well I got quite a bit more from his bio than that, but then I read all of it, including most of the big words.

No, you swilled it in with all the vapidity of a blank-upstairs rock groupie.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No I have not supported anything in the piece but posted it for another purpose.

What was the purpose of your posting it?

Quote:

I am not obligated to support anything specific in the piece unless I claim that as my own opinion and use the piece to express it.

By taking the time to re-post it, you are by extension claiming it as your own opinion or assigning some relevance to it.

Quote:

I posted the piece as an illustration that some of our members would attack the messenger rather than the content of the letter. And some of you have beautifully made the case for me that I was right about that.

I attacked the content, straight-up. And you failed to respond to that other than to claim I needed to attack in more depth in order for you to consider it a valid rebuttal.

Well, who gives a **** what you consider a valid rebuttal? The guy clearly is ranting in a partisan fashion, providing zero evidence to back up his position. You attempted to Appeal to Authority by posting his bio, which was useless. I think it's pretty clear that there's nothing more to discuss about this case other than the foolishness of some Republicans and their intellectual in-curiosity.

On edit:

Actually, you wrote this:

Quote:

But to further my own thesis, this letter has been circulating on the Internet and in political e-mails for awhile now. How many of the points Pritchett makes do you think Obama supporters would say that 'well, neither did your guy' or 'so did your guy' or 'no more than your guy wanted to do' or whatever'? I wouldn't see that as saying that this makes 'our guy' just like 'your guy' in intent and purpose, nor would they, but they continue to accuse Okie of doing just that.

Not a single one of us Obama supporters said 'your guy did it too.' You were dead wrong about that.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And some of you have beautifully made the case for me that I was right about that.

Moving past the fact that the word "some" means that you actually acknowledge you were wrong, the bottom line is that the content of the letter was discussed. It was discussed by us, not you. In terms of speaking to the man, you talked about his biography. You spoke to the messenger. You.

You won't defend what you bring in here? What use are you? How vacant. Remember this moment the next 1000 times you criticize posters who source what you will so cowardly refer to as the liberal media and therefore dismiss without addressing the content.

I'll take this as your promise to always address every point made if I was to post an article from the Huffington Post. Cool

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

No I have not supported anything in the piece but posted it for another purpose.

What was the purpose of your posting it?

I prefaced my intent when I posted it.

Quote:

Quote:
I am not obligated to support anything specific in the piece unless I claim that as my own opinion and use the piece to express it.

By taking the time to re-post it, you are by extension claiming it as your own opinion or assigning some relevance to it.

Wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
I posted the piece as an illustration that some of our members would attack the messenger rather than the content of the letter. And some of you have beautifully made the case for me that I was right about that.

I attacked the content, straight-up. And you failed to respond to that other than to claim I needed to attack in more depth in order for you to consider it a valid rebuttal.

No you didn't and no I didn't. All I said is that you need to show why it is wrong to support your assertion that it is. You didn't do that. I further said it would be acceptable for you to acknowledge that you didn't want to take the time to do that.

Quote:

Well, who gives a **** what you consider a valid rebuttal? The guy clearly is ranting in a partisan fashion, providing zero evidence to back up his position. You attempted to Appeal to Authority by posting his bio, which was useless. I think it's pretty clear that there's nothing more to discuss about this case other than the foolishness of some Republicans and their intellectual in-curiosity.

Cycloptichorn

No doubt he is partisan. We all are to some degree. If you don't give a **** what a valid rebuttal is, why do you criticize me for mine? And you still aren't getting 'appeal to authority' right. Read up some more on that. Can we interpret your closing remark that you are now running for the tall grass?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Quote:
By taking the time to re-post it, you are by extension claiming it as your own opinion or assigning some relevance to it.

Wrong.

No, right. I am correct in stating this and you are the one who is wrong. If you wish to show me that I am incorrect, you must provide evidence proving that it is incorrect.

Quote:

No doubt he is partisan. We all are to some degree. If you don't give a **** what a valid rebuttal is, why do you criticize me for mine?

I do give a **** what a valid rebuttal is; but I don't give a **** what you consider a valid rebuttal to be, b/c you long ago proved to A2K that you have no real interest in actual debate or debating terminology whatsoever.

Quote:

And you still aren't getting 'appeal to authority' right.

Yes, I am. And I don't need advice on Logical Fallacies from someone who engages in them constantly.

Quote:

Read up some more on that. Can we interpret your closing remark that you are now running for the tall grass?

You can interpret it however you like, but you would be incorrect.

As the poster of the aff piece, I specifically challenge you to prove that any of the things the writer said about Obama are true. It is not my duty to disprove claims forwarded without evidence. This is a basic point of debate that you can't seem to understand.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Why have other prove you're a liar, when you'll do it for them Fox?

You prefaced your intent, and lots of predictions too. All of which flopped. Your post analysis was also bad. You said the liberals attacked the messenger and not his content, and yet you only were willing to post his bio and were hands off about his content.

You're terrible at this.

T
K
O

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know