AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@old europe,

Foxie is full of intellectual dishonesty; she can't help herself, because it's in her genes.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No. Stating that beavers build dams from twigs and branches and that construction workers build dams from earth and concrete is not comparing beavers to engineers.

Sure it is. Why wouldn't it be?

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But the ones screaming "Godwin's Law" see it as comparing Obama to Hitler.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I can't tell.

You do understand the fact that even saying "Obama is really different from Hitler" constitutes a comparison between Obama and Hitler, don't you?

Foxfyre wrote:
The intellectually honest see it as comparing strategies to accomplish goals, however different such goals might be.

The intellectually honest would refrain from comparing Obama to Hitler while claiming that they were not comparing Obama to Hitler.

I am not agreeing with you because I believe the writer was comparing tactics or strategies to capture the minds and allegiance of children and not the proponents of such strategies.

In my opinion, the intellectually honest would know that the writer anticipated that ideological fanatics would assert something from the statement that wasn't said and wasn't intended and would acknowledge that the writer was anticipating and disavowing that assertion up front. For the intellectually honest, the best way to dispute a comparison between Hitler and Obama while comparing strategies used in Nazi Germany and modern America is to explain that you are comparing strategies and not national leaders.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But the ones screaming "Godwin's Law" see it as comparing Obama to Hitler. The intellectually honest see it as comparing strategies to accomplish goals, however different such goals might be.

The most dishonest person is actually the writer of the piece that Foxfyre is defending. These are his actual words:

Quote:
This is more than a bit frightening. It is not very far removed from the education of the Hitler Youth. No, I'm not comparing President Obama to Hitler but you have to admit, the similarity is more than a bit creepy.

His denial is sandwiched between "Hitler Youth" and "the similarity is more than a bit creepy."

We have already established that the writer mischaracterized the Hitler Youth, and it is reasonable to accept such mischaracterization as an inadvertent error.

Otherwise, what is dishonest about expressing similarities of tactics used when these are obvious?

0 Replies

We've had this discussion about comparisons before. Here's a sampling:

Foxfyre wrote:

I defy you to show where Okie has ever compared Obama to Hitler.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-518#post-3671640

okie wrote:

Actually, what we are seeing right now in America, with Obama criticizing greed and placing greater control of government in commerce, is that left or right, George? Clearly, Obama is a liberal, he is left, probably the most leftwing president we have ever had. Is he a communist? He certainly claims he isn't. Is he a socialist, probably, but he doesn't claim to be. For comparison purposes, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler to say he is a madman, I don't think he is, but I see alot of similarity between Obama's leftist policies and the policies of Hitler in the 30's. People will jump on me here for comparing Obama to Hitler, for them I would say don't get excited, what I am doing here is comparing policies, economic policy, social programs, relationship with unions, business, volunteerism, and many other things, I am comparing these things to provide evidence for my assertion that Hitler was a leftist, just as Obama is clearly a leftist.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-8#post-3670358

joefromchicago wrote:

Actually, what we are seeing right now in America, with Okie criticizing the president and complaining about the general state of the nation, brings to mind infamous murderer and cult-leader Charles Manson, who also criticized the system and who channeled his rage into unhealthy outlets. For comparison purposes, I am not comparing Okie to Manson to say he is a madman, I don't think he is, but I see a lot of similarity between Okie and Manson in the 70s. People will jump on me here for comparing Okie to Manson, for them I would say don't get excited, what I am doing here is comparing attitudes, styles of argumentation, and many other things. They even look alike. Here's Charles Manson:

And here's Okie (artist's rendering)

Spooky, ain't it?

I am comparing these things to provide evidence for my assertion that Okie is a kook, just as Manson is clearly a kook. Note, I am making the point that I am not comparing Okie as a person to that of Charles Manson. If you have read the many posts about Charles Manson, the obvious reason Manson is discussed and referenced is the discussion of fanaticism, cultism, and homicidal mania. All of this debate is highly instructive if you have a desire to examine the subjects addressed here.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-520#post-3672052

Foxfyre wrote:

Going back to Thomas Sowell's three part essay "In Context" re Sotomayor, he said:

Quote:
What does it say about her qualifications (Sotomayor) to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters' biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds " Richard Nixon " had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Is Sowell comparing Sotomayor to Bonnie and Clyde? Al Capone? Nixon? Hitler? No reasonable person would suggest so and the comparison's Okie has been making between Obama's tactics/policies and those of Adolph Hitler fall into this same category. Okie was just less skillful than Sowell in ensuring that there could be no rational misunderstanding, but then Okie doesn't write for a living.

I think fair minded people would take the point Okie made and show how it was wrong if they believe it is. Obama's policy is nothing like Hitler's policy in *this regard*, for instance, because. But no, they aren't interested in the topic. They just attack the messenger as if that was valid debate.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-520#post-3672115

Foxfyre wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Going back to Thomas Sowell's three part essay "In Context" re Sotomayor, he said:

Quote:
What does it say about her qualifications (Sotomayor) to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters' biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds " Richard Nixon " had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Is Sowell comparing Sotomayor to Bonnie and Clyde? Al Capone? Nixon? Hitler? No reasonable person would suggest so....

Foxfyre, I omitted the part of your post that dealt with Okie. I only want to comment on Sowell. Many reasonable people would suggest that Sowell is making a gratuitous association between Sotomayor and a group of infamous people.

Well Wandel, if you are correct, that would provide fascinating insight into a least one segment of the liberal mind then wouldn't it? I daresay not a single conservative, not even somebody slightly conservative or conservative on a few points or any rational liberal would see it that way. Please tell me that you are not that tunnel visioned.

Bernie Madoff was a stock broker and scammed billions from his clients.
Joe Blow is a stock broker and a pillar of his community.
Therefore liberals would draw the conclusion that Joe Blow is being accused of being a scam artist? Or Madoff of being a pillar of his community? Or would the logical conclusion be that people can share similar cirumstances without being anything alike? Or that being a stock broker does not logically result in a conclusion that one will be either a pillar of the community or a scam artist.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-521#post-3672207

wandeljw wrote:

I can't tell you anything right now, Foxfyre. I am still laughing at your response.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-521#post-3672209

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

You are correct, Debra. This is like a recurring nightmare. I am not saying that Foxfyre is a nightmare, but the similarity is creepy.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

You are correct, Debra. This is like a recurring nightmare. I am not saying that Foxfyre is a nightmare, but the similarity is creepy.

ROFL

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

A recurring nightmare only to those unwilling or incapable of engaging in an actual discussion of a topic. However, the fact that you agree with a point of view that is ideologically fixed and unnecessarily hateful is not comparing you with Debra either.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, the intellectually honest would know that the writer anticipated that ideological fanatics would assert something from the statement that wasn't said and wasn't intended and would acknowledge that the writer was anticipating and disavowing that assertion up front. For the intellectually honest, the best way to dispute a comparison between Hitler and Obama while comparing strategies used in Nazi Germany and modern America is to explain that you are comparing strategies and not national leaders.

You know who else called his opponents "ideological fanatics" and tried to scare people by drawing comparisons between the democratically elected opposition and various enemies of the state?

Hitler.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Intellectual and discussion is completely absent from your posts.

0 Replies

@old europe,

I didn't know that. But even if you are correct, if you are therefore drawing a comparison between me and Hitler or the writer and Hitler based on that similarity, I am going to have to issue you a kook badget with a capital "K".

If I point out that I am cooking stew for the homeless and you are cooking stew for your family, and we are using the same recipe to make the stew, am I comparing myself with you or am I noting that we make stew the same way for different reasons?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfyre wrote:

Ican, do you really expect the numbnuts to read that article re tort reform you just posted? It excellently defines many factors other than mere costs--the most liberal of the liberals agree that malpractice does affect about 2% of healthcare costs which we have demonstrated is not peanuts--but I wonder if any will be able to concede that those other factors should be part of the debate if we really want to reform our healthcare system?

Those you call "numbnuts," I now call WREDAs (i.e., Wealth RE-Distribution Advocates).

I do not expect WREDAs to read the tort reform article I posted. However, in fairness, I think I should have at least given them a chance to read that article.

As you know, I originally posted my claim that tort reform will lead to a reduction in health insurance premiums. Then reacting to something you posted I amended that, and subsequently I frequently posted that tort reform will lead either to {a decrease in health insurance premiums}, or {a decrease in the rate health insurance premiums increase.}

Despite that change, the WREDAs focus only on my claim of {a decrease in health insurance premiums}, and ignore the rest of my claim {or a decrease in the rate health insurance premiums increase.}

That alone leads me to believe no WREDA "will be able to concede that those other factors (other than mere costs) should be part of the debate if we really want to reform our healthcare system."

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In my opinion, the intellectually honest would know that the writer anticipated that ideological fanatics would assert something from the statement that wasn't said and wasn't intended and would acknowledge that the writer was anticipating and disavowing that assertion up front. For the intellectually honest, the best way to dispute a comparison between Hitler and Obama while comparing strategies used in Nazi Germany and modern America is to explain that you are comparing strategies and not national leaders.

You know who else called his opponents "ideological fanatics" and tried to scare people by drawing comparisons between the democratically elected opposition and various enemies of the state?

Hitler.

I'm beginning to believe that Foxfyre and okie are alter egos; not that I'm comparing Foxfyre to okie as persons, but the similarities emerge when comparing their writing:

okie wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Responding to Old Europe, Foxfyre wrote:
I defy you to show where Okie has ever compared Obama to Hitler.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Here is one post where he compares Obama to Hitler:

okie wrote:
Actually, what we are seeing right now in America, with Obama criticizing greed and placing greater control of government in commerce, is that left or right, George? Clearly, Obama is a liberal, he is left, probably the most leftwing president we have ever had. Is he a communist? He certainly claims he isn't. Is he a socialist, probably, but he doesn't claim to be. For comparison purposes, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler to say he is a madman, I don't think he is, but I see alot of similarity between Obama's leftist policies and the policies of Hitler in the 30's. People will jump on me here for comparing Obama to Hitler, for them I would say don't get excited, what I am doing here is comparing policies, economic policy, social programs, relationship with unions, business, volunteerism, and many other things, I am comparing these things to provide evidence for my assertion that Hitler was a leftist, just as Obama is clearly a leftist.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-8#post-3670358

Apparently you didn't read the post, Debra. I compared Obama's policies to Hitler's policies, I made the point that I was not comparing Obama as a person to that of Hitler. If you have read the many posts about Hitler, the obvious reason Hitler is discussed and referenced is the discussion of socialism, fascism, and left vs right. All of this debate is highly instructive if you have a desire to examine the subjects addressed here.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-519#post-3671821

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Those you call "numbnuts," I now call WREDAs (i.e., Wealth RE-Distribution Advocates).

I liked it much better when you called the evil libruls REDs because doing so furthered your agenda to reignite a "red scare" in America and fight against the evil communistic and social marxist plots to destroy capitalism and to take your money and give it to people who did not earn it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

This deserves repeating:

maporsche wrote:

I did point out that rates in Texas didn't increase AS MUCH in Texas as they did nationwide. That should be an important part of this discussion. If rates went up 100% nationwide over 10 years and only up 90% in Texas over the same timeline, well we should see if TORT reform had anything to do with it. Shouldn't we?

And if it did have an effect, it would be accurate to say that TORT reform helped to drive down premiums.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra, feel free to pronounce WREDAs the same way you pronounce REDs.

I think both WREDAs and REDs are statists. I think socialists, communists, fascists, and nazist are all statists in that they all are wealth redistribution advocates. They differ only in their methods for achieving wealth redistribution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra, feel free to pronounce WREDAs the same way you pronounce REDs.

I think both WREDAs and REDs are statists. I think socialists, communists, fascists, and nazist are all statists in that they all are wealth redistribution advocates. They differ only in their methods for achieving wealth redistribution.

We're coming for your money, ican. If you hurry and drink lots of coffee, you'll have lots of containers to hide your money in . . . and if you bury those coffee containers filled with cash in your backyard . . . you can survive the transition from capitalism to communism. As soon as communism takes root during the Obama administration, us evil libruls will elect that avowed communist scoundrel thug Van Jones to be our next black president. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Have any of these jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have decreased? No? Somebody send me a PM if that happens . . .

I did point out that rates in Texas didn't increase AS MUCH in Texas as they did nationwide. That should be an important part of this discussion. If rates went up 100% nationwide over 10 years and only up 90% in Texas over the same timeline, well we should see if TORT reform had anything to do with it. Shouldn't we?

And if it did have an effect, it would be accurate to say that TORT reform helped to drive down premiums.

I'm sure A2K is much better off with all the Hitler arguments back and forth and back and forth; but does anyone have any thoughts on my post?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

And if it did have an effect, it would be accurate to say that TORT reform helped to drive down premiums.

There is no evidence that health insurance premiums went down in Texas, and that directly from the source which Ican cited and linked. Now, if you mean malpractice insurance premiums--well, duh. This whole brouhaha has been about a specious claim that tort reform will reduce health insurance premiums. And the source which Ican cited and linked stated clearly that there is no evidence that there has been any savings for Texas consumers.

Apparently, after asking me why it would not reduce health insurance premiums, and my having responded in detail, one of several things happened. Most likely, you simply didn't bother to read that. I say that out of a charitable impulse, because the other likelihoods are that you were not able to understand it, or that it completely poured through what one is perforce lead to conclude is the sieve of your mind. I prefer to think of you charitably, able to read and understand a relatively simple exposition, and possessed of sufficient mental power to retain at least the sense of the material for a few days.

Therefore, i conclude that you didn't bother to read the response. I'll not do the whole thing over again, but i do urge you to go back and read it. In simplistic terms, health insurance premiums are governed by the negotiated fee schedules between the insurer and the service provider, and have absolutely nothing to do with the costs the service provider incurs. The insurers set their highest acceptable negotiated fee (which they hope to dramatically undercut) based on their actuarial tables (which tell them who is most likely to get sick, how sick they are likely to get, and what things cost in the region for which they are negotiating) and their own company's payment histories. They don't give a rat's ass what doctors pay in liability insurance premiums.

But more important than any of this, there is a little lesson in basic capitalism which i am surprised and dismayed to learn must be given you, just as it was given to Ican. However, i have more confidence that you will understand, that it will sink in with you. When a supplier's costs rise, he or she is very likely to pass on the cost to the customer, so long as competition isn't too cut-throat. When costs drop, the supplier is likely just to pocket the difference. This is capitalist bottom line 101 stuff here. If you really expect people to pass on their savings to you when there is no market pressure to do so, i suggest a little concrete experiment for you, and i'll clean up the language. Why don't you spit in one hand, and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Have any of these jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have decreased? No? Somebody send me a PM if that happens . . .

I did point out that rates in Texas didn't increase AS MUCH in Texas as they did nationwide. That should be an important part of this discussion. If rates went up 100% nationwide over 10 years and only up 90% in Texas over the same timeline, well we should see if TORT reform had anything to do with it. Shouldn't we?

And if it did have an effect, it would be accurate to say that TORT reform helped to drive down premiums.

I'm sure A2K is much better off with all the Hitler arguments back and forth and back and forth; but does anyone have any thoughts on my post?

I do, but I like to have data before I respond. Pretending for a minute that we can suspend the very basic principle that Set lays out above, the fact is that several states had increases that were less than the national average, averages being what they are and all. It would be very difficult to draw a correlation between tort reform and the relatively lower rate of increase of health insurance premiums. And anyway, that wasn't the claim made. The claim was that tort reform would decrease health insurance premiums. That's clearly not what happened, and Texas has had 4 to 6 years for the effects to ripple. If it were going to happen, it would have.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know