Diversity of Everything but Thought

The quote I have from you as a signature is to demonstrate how partisan membership allows extraordinary mental gymnastics of avoidance. Ican does the same thing above. It's not a good thing.

You will see, when you read the book, that Horowitz is setting out what he considers necessary strategies to be successful in politics in America. He is adapting Leninist strategies (precisely as the quote suggests) and applying them in his operations, and has been doing so for a long time.

But, frankly, I don't think you'll protest this when you read the book. An odd consequence...foxfyre agreeing to Lenin's notions of necessary means to proper ends, but it seems likely to happen.

OK...please justify your quote in my signature.

_________________
"Conservatives understand that there can be a difference between a lie and an untruth".

Foxfyre, Feb 26, 2005

Ican Please try to focus. I asked you for textual passages that support your odd notion that Horowitz's quotes... eg
Hell, you can't even quote me properly.

Quote:

"...you cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate.
My "odd notion" as you called it is that what you quoted from Horowitz are not Horowitz's recommendations. Rather they are Horowitz's observations about what the Democrats have been doing up until the year 2000 (and in my opinion, have and are doing since then.). Read the copyrighted excerpts provided by Amazon at its site. I didn't copy and post those excerpts here because Amazon prevents these copyrighted excerpts from being copied.

You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth." (from The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits")

are not what they clearly are (and there are many other such quotes)...recommended strategies for engaging politics in America.
So far you have provided zero evidence to show those quotes you provided are what Horowitz actually recommends the Republicans do. Rather the excerpts Amazon provides from the book make it quite clear that Horowitz is describing what the Democrats have been doing.

And what do you post? Some book reviews and, slipping in kind of sneaky at the end of those, a description of the book from Horowitz's own site (isn't it?).
FALSE!Everything I quoted, copied, and posted here today came from Amazon. Go there and look for yourself. I chose not to transcribe the copyrighted material for you, because I assumed you are quite capable of reading the originals for yourself.

In essence Horowitz is saying to the Republicans the Democrats will lie about you without conscience and without letup. I, Horowitz, know that because when I was a Democrat I did that too.

The truth is factually correct in context with no distortions or omissions.

An untruth is something that is not factually correct or is presented in such a way that it provides a different impression than originally intended. An untruth can be a lie. But an untruth is different from a lie if the person stating the untruth is not aware that it is not the truth and, in fact, believes it to be the truth at the time.

A lie is intentionally stating false information or presenting accurate information in such a way that it will be perceived differently than it is intended.

Given the revelations from Woodward's book, and now the Brit intel memo, did Bush lie

Ican

This will be our last conversation.
Promises! Promises! Promises!

This is an example of the standard flight from argument issued by those incapable of making a relevant rational response.

The final 'review' quote you offered and which I suspected came from Horowitz's site did not come from his site...it's the forward of the book itself, which you'll see if you click on 'look inside'.
I referred you to the excerpts not to either part of the cover.

I guess you don't like what you read from the several pages of excerpts.

As to everything else you've said, there clearly can be no profitable talking with you as any claim or argument opposing Horowitz or any Republican statement/policy must be, ipso facto, merely a description of leftwing guilt.
First, I said zero about left wing (I have said in this thread several times that I don't think I even know what left wing is).

Second, I do know what Democrats and Republicans are.

Third, I said zero about anyone's guilt.

Fourth, I did say that the quotes you provided are descriptions by Horowitz and not recomendations.

Fifth, You have in fact demonstrated that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me: "there clearly can be no profitable talking with [Blatham]as any claim or argument opposing" Blatham'sargument will be rejected by Blatham.

Sixth, surely you understand that your quitting our discussion before showing those quotes you provided were recommendations and not observations, is equivalent to your admission that you were wrong about that.

All the best.

Well what do you expect scheduling perfection for a Tuesday? Everybody knows Thursday is the day for perfection.

foxfyre

The lie was "I've made no decision to go to war. There are no plans for war on my desk".

Do christian conservatives have wet dreams and if yes, why?

dyslexia wrote:

Do christian conservatives have wet dreams and if yes, why?

What's a christian conservative?

ican711nm wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Do christian conservatives have wet dreams and if yes, why?

What's a christian conservative?

This is America Ican look around you, they are everywhere. A religious movement that arose among conservative members of various Protestant denominations early in the 20th century with the goal of returning to the traditional values of bigotry, ethnic cleansing, social/legal domination wholesale genocide and neo-con hate mongering republicanism. Or, as foxfyre would say modern conservatism as opposed to classical conservativism. An opposite view would be the beatitudes found in jesus sermon on the mount which would be defined as christian liberalism.