AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Neither Sowell nor you redeem yourselves in the slightest manner, foxfyre.

Quote:

"if Sowell had said anything like that"

An exact verbatim quotation would fall under the category of "like that".

Quote:

The comment re Sharia law was within this context

I gave the relevant context. Sentence one has no logical bearing on his utterly bizarre and detached-from-reality projection of a future possibility where the US would militarily and politically surrender to Iran.

Sowell claims he was forwarding a "metaphorical illustration". How convenient. And how dishonest. Perhaps, in a subsequent email, he might tell us precisely what chance he thinks there is that Iran would send a nuke to America, and the chance that America would surrender, and the chance that the good folks of Goose Neck will live under Sharia law. We'd like a thoughtful assessment of the probabilities here, please.

And if none of these possibilities looms larger than a meteorite falling on his dear Auntie Irene's noggin this afternoon, then perhaps he can explain how he manages to believe himself a person of integrity when using "metaphorical illustrations" which have no actual relationship to the real world even while hoping that his readers will be influenced by such in their thinking. I'd accept a simple admission from him that he sees his role as that of purposively deceitful propagandist promoting the noble lie so those foolish individuals who make up the American polity will be shepherded into a better future than they would carve out for themselves.

There's a reason people like Sowell and yourself have lost all credibility, foxfire.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I didn't say that and he didn't say that. But maybe conservatives ARE the only ones that haven't been so ideologically brainwashed that they are able to understand what he did say? So far, I haven't seen much hope from your side of the aisle but I'll wait a bit on the theory that somebody on the Left out there can still correctly think something like this through.

Or perhaps you can get somebody who admits to being right of center to agree with your (and Blatham's) take on it. He long ago wrote me off as immoral and unworthy of consideration, and apparently he has not changed his opinion about that.

Until then, my observation that all or most on the Left are incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit that they do, stands.

3 Replies

@blatham,

Precise and to the point; Sowell's imagination has no potential of reality except in the minds of conservatives who love to use fear as their primary goal.

He's a professor at Stanford? ROFL

Another point of fact that needs to be said; conservatives love to call Obama the messiah. The irony is that these same conservatives believes in Sowell who makes predictions about the US that is beyond religious' belief! Is he their god since no other human has ever spoken such gibberish?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Here's another illustration of how crazy it is getting. If Thomas Sowell had used a metaphorical illustration that a government that regulates what kind of car you will be allowed to buy is a government that would regulate breakfast cereal as a drug, would you think such a metaphorical illustration lacked credibility because it simply couldn't happen?

Quote:

Cheerios 87, FDA 4
Thursday, June 25, 2009

Only four percent (4%) of voters nationwide agree with the federal Food and Drug Administration that the popular breakfast cereal Cheerios should be regulated as a drug. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 87% disagree and oppose such regulation.

Survey participants were told that the FDA made its claim because the cereal is advertised for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease (see question wording).

A letter from the FDA to General Mills, the makers of Cheerios, said the company's advertising makes "unauthorized health claims" which means the cereal should be regulated as a drug. As a result, the FDA declared that Cheerios "may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application." The government agency added that "enforcement action may include seizure of violative products and/or injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products."

When told of Cheerios' claim that it can help reduce cholesterol, just three percent (3%) of voters say the cereal should be removed from the grocery shelves and sold only in pharmacies.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/june_2009/cheerios_87_fda_4

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I attached a link which shows the dollar amounts.

I am sure contributions went both ways.

They have LOTS of influence in our political system and that is why the 2 party system is a failure. Corporate influence must be eliminated.

Yes, a pipedream, I know.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't say that and he didn't say that.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Here's what Sowell said:

Sowell wrote:

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender " especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Now, he either believes that the Obama administration will actually allow Iran not only to get a nuclear arsenal, but also to nuke and occupy the United States and impose Sharia Law on all Americans. That sounds idiotic enough, so it's just understandable that you're trying to come up with an excuse for so much idiocy, but trying to spin it into being "a metaphorical illustration for the way things are going"?

Foxfyre wrote:

He only used that as a metaphorical illustration for the way things are going.

Apparently it seems to you that claiming that the surrender of Japan after being nuked by the US is a metaphor for the way things are currently going in the United States is somehow less idiotic than Sowell's original claims. For somebody with as much experience in making up excuses for the most lunatic of the right-wing fringe, that's pretty pathetic.

But hey, go ahead and explain how Sowell's statements are neither to be understood literally nor metaphorically, but are still completely valid and incredible insights.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Until then, my observation that all or most on the Left are incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit that they do, stands.

By the way, I really love that one!

Sowell: Obama would, like, totally allow Iran to get nukes, drop them on the United States and impose Sharia Law on all Americans.
Poster: That's idiocy. Sowell is nuts.
Foxfyre: You are just incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

He didn't say or imply that. He only used that as a metaphorical illustration for the way things are going. Surely conservatives are not the only ones capable of understanding that form of argument?

Of course, Conservatives are not the only ones who understand metaphor; you will recall that I correctly identified that he was using a metaphor earlier, and proceeded to point out that it was a very bad one.

If Sowell was a better writer, he wouldn't need you to defend and 'explain' his points.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

oe, They are left to put a spin on such ridiculous statements by their "god." It's similar to all the things written in the bible that must be shown to be "metaphorical" rather than literal. They do the same for Sowell (even though Sowell himself didn't make that distinction).

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The comment re Sharia law was obviously a metaphorical illustration of what kind of consequences that can result when you turn a deaf ear or blind eye to unspoken intent.

Yes, Fox.. so when you guys failed to demonstrate in the streets when Obama was elected you turned a deaf ear and blind eye and surrendered to whatever Obama was going to do. Once you surrender, you can't go back. Or did you forget that is what Sowell said?

0 Replies

@old europe,

Okay, I have a few minutes before my next appointment so I'm going to humor you with little hope that you will be able to see it as it is instead of the ideological spin that you seem compelled to put on it.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I didn't say that and he didn't say that.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Here's what Sowell said:

Sowell wrote:
Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender " especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Now, he either believes that the Obama administration will actually allow Iran not only to get a nuclear arsenal, but also to nuke and occupy the United States and impose Sharia Law on all Americans. That sounds idiotic enough, so it's just understandable that you're trying to come up with an excuse for so much idiocy, but trying to spin it into being "a metaphorical illustration for the way things are going"?

You take the metaphor literally. I see the intent. He did not say that the Obama administration would intentionally allow Iran to 'nuke and occupy the United States'. But he is using Iran as an illustration of the kind of capitulation and appeasement that the Obama administration uses. Obama has chosen to tolerate and make friends of Iran, even condone what Iran is doing, rather than stick with his campaign rhetoric that a nuclear Iran is intolerable. Why is it intolerable? Because a nuclear Iran is capable of attacking its neighbors and selling and exporting dirty bombs to very bad people around the world. And, given the mentality of the current leadership, there is zero reason to believe they are incapable of that.

Now lets suppose those dirty bombs are completed and positioned strategically to do great damage to the USA. What will our President and the current Congress do then? Fight? Or surrender? So far they have surrendered on every issue they have been challenged by thugs and dictators around the world. By what theory do you then assume that they would finally choose to fight rather than have Sharia law imposed on the USA? It is an illustration of what that kind of mindset leads to, not a specific prediction of what is going to happen.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
He only used that as a metaphorical illustration for the way things are going.

Apparently it seems to you that claiming that the surrender of Japan after being nuked by the US is a metaphor for the way things are currently going in the United States is somehow less idiotic than Sowell's original claims. For somebody with as much experience in making up excuses for the most lunatic of the right-wing fringe, that's pretty pathetic.

But hey, go ahead and explain how Sowell's statements are neither to be understood literally nor metaphorically, but are still completely valid and incredible insights.

If two nuclear bombs were sufficient to get Japan to surrender when Japan was a completely arrogant, militaristic, and aggressive culture for which surrender was culturally unacceptable, how much do you think it would take to get a nation of appeasers, capitulators, glad handers, and wimps to surrender?

You're a liberal so that must be why you see such a metaphorical illustration as idiotic.

I imagine few conservatives would fail to understand it, however.

2 Replies

@old europe,

It is pretty funny, isn't it OE.

But we are so brainwashed we don't see things the way Fox does. Just because we think jumping off a bridge is nuts is because we can't understand a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

If two nuclear bombs were sufficient to get Japan to surrender when Japan was a completely arrogant, militaristic, and aggressive culture for which surrender was culturally unacceptable, how much do you think it would take to get a nation of appeasers, capitulators, glad handers, and wimps to surrender?

Nice to know your true feelings about America.

Why is it that Conservatives see the world in such black-and-white terms; that either we denounce, embargo, and/or attack Iran, or we are 'weak capitulators?'

If Iran represented any sort of threat to the US, you might see us taking it more seriously. However, they do not, and therefore are being treated exactly appropriately.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THEN

Quote:

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons 'unacceptable': Obama
Nov 7, 2008
CHICAGO (AFP) " US President-elect Barack Obama said on Friday that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was "unacceptable" and he would "respond appropriately" to a congratulatory letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama, speaking at his first press conference since winning Tuesday's presidential election, also said the Islamic Republic must stop supporting "terrorist organizations."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jd7CNq_U-GYQVuGA_4u0z8BDymTw

AND NOW

Quote:

Obama: Iran Has Right to Nuclear Power
By XANA O'NEILL
Tue, Jun 2, 2009

The interview with the president aired ahead of his trip to the Mideast Tuesday night -- a visit aimed at repairing the rocky relationship between the U.S. and the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

Obama's trip to the region is also aimed at deterring Islamic extremists.

The president told the BBC that he plans to use diplomacy to persuade Tehran not to build nuclear weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said.

Iranian state television reported Obama's comments as "recognizing the rights of the Iranian nation," which is how the country refers to its nuclear program, the AP reported.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/us_world/NATL-Obama-Iran-Has-Right-to-Nuclear-Power.html

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Let me see if I have this straight.

Sowell's statement about the US would surrender to Iran if they dropped two atomic bombs on us is a metaphor for how the US would surrender to Iran if they drop 2 atomic bombs on us.

No wonder, I don't get it.

It isn't an illustration of what that mindset leads to Fox unless you accept it as literally what would happen. Otherwise it is just an appeal to extremes that is nothing more than a logical fallacy which has been pointed out by several people already. If we follow Sowell's 'surrender' nonsense to it's end, by your surrendering to Obama's victory you have surrendered to Iran.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Well, there is a difference between Nuclear reactors and Nuclear weapons. So there's no contradiction in what Obama said at all.

But I'm sure you know that already.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So.. Obama was against Iran having nuclear weapons then and is against them having nuclear weapons now...........

I'm not clear what your point is Fox? It must be too complex for me to understand since I think nuclear power is different from nuclear weapons.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Until then, my observation that all or most on the Left are incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit that they do, stands.

By the way, I really love that one!

Sowell: Obama would, like, totally allow Iran to get nukes, drop them on the United States and impose Sharia Law on all Americans.
Poster: That's idiocy. Sowell is nuts.
Foxfyre: You are just incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's.

Foxfyre is correct. I am also incapable of understanding the delicately nuanced and intellectually complex theses posted by H2O Man.

1 Reply

I can hear the press conference a year from now. "This is unacceptable and we are concerned of course. . . .and we will deal with it diplomatically to persuade them not to use those weapons on their neighbors. . . .or us. . . . "

(Note to OE: This is a metaphorical illustration.)

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Until then, my observation that all or most on the Left are incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit that they do, stands.

By the way, I really love that one!

Sowell: Obama would, like, totally allow Iran to get nukes, drop them on the United States and impose Sharia Law on all Americans.
Poster: That's idiocy. Sowell is nuts.
Foxfyre: You are just incapable of understanding a thesis as intellectually complex as Sowell's.

Foxfyre is correct. I am also incapable of understanding the delicately nuanced and intellectually complex theses posted by H2O Man.

But I surely thought you could distinguish the difference beween H2O and OE, Wandel.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know