Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

I believe that is an observation that could as accurately be made with respect to many of your posts as well as those of Cicerone himself. Okie is by no means the sole perpetrator here. His stubborn tenacity in clinging to some rather strange concepts for the evaluation and classification of political systems does not necessarily invalidate all his views. It doesn't compel reasonable people to accept them either. Same goes for yours... or mine.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, All I've asked okie/ican to do is to provide credible evidence for their claims when called for. We're not worried about the few views they reported that has some truth to them; that's what most of us expect.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, All I've asked okie/ican to do is to provide credible evidence for their claims when called for. We're not worried about the few views they reported that has some truth to them; that's what most of us expect.

I think George has a point that Okie gets dumped on a lot here. I don't think that a lot of the things that are said towards him are in good taste, and I've been guilty of that in the past as well - though he certainly makes it easy to do that with his own aggressive statements.

However, I think that you'll find a cold shoulder from George when it comes to the concept of providing evidence to back up one's assertions; that's not something he's ever been interested in. Arguing from assertion is his MO.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And I observe that you demand far more backup and verification from others than you usually provide yourself. In addition some of the references you have provided don't constitute convincing evidence ot the truth of the assertions involved. Finding and knowing the truth is often a difficult task. It often requires both in depth analysis and thought as well as specific information. More than just a web link is required for that.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And I observe that you demand far more backup and verification from others than you usually provide yourself.

I always provide evidence upon request, or clearly state that something is my opinion and I don't have evidence to back it up. I don't think that you can say the same.

Quote:

In addition some of the references you have provided don't constitute convincing evidence ot the truth of the assertions involved.

Sez you. Attacking an opponent's evidence is a standard technique in arguments, however, so it's to be expected that you would say this. However, I can't say the same for your posts, because you never bother to post any supporting evidence for your positions.

Quote:

Finding and knowing the truth is often a difficult task. It often requires both in depth analysis and thought as well as specific information. More than just a web link is required for that.

You're correct. But, you can't claim to know the truth of a matter without any evidence at all - something that you often do here, and it robs legitimacy from your arguments on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, There's a huge difference between what okie/ican claims vs what we say. Please identify for us when we have misstated historical facts on politics or economics. If need be, I'll copy and paste from both okie and ican's posts to show you claims they have made without one iota of evidence. It's mostly from their personal imagination/perceptions that are unreal. Fact finding their claims will pretty much be impossible.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, All I've asked okie/ican to do is to provide credible evidence for their claims when called for. We're not worried about the few views they reported that has some truth to them; that's what most of us expect.

I believe I provide as much or more evidence with my posts as anyone here, including you, ci. And I believe ican does as well, in fact his repeated posts of his evidence is obviously highly irritating to many on the left side of the aisle here.

One of the subjects I am so castigated for my stance is my assertion that Hitler was a leftist. I have provided far more evidence than any of my detractors, as I have posted the Nazi 25 points with analysis of what each one is in terms of left vs right, and I have quoted passages from Mein Kampf. I have also posted what I think is an excellent overview of Hitler that has been compiled by a guy in Australia. Most of the time, my detractors do not debate the points regarding what defines left vs right and what Hitler did or said in their regard, but they instead attack me and my sources as being uninformed and ignorant. They make broad sweeping statements about what learned historians have said and they ridicule my debate points without offering any counter reasoning whatsoever.

On many other subjects, I also post plenty of evidence. A good example is the information I just posted about the portion of all home loans made or guaranteed by F * F in this country. It can be seen here:
http://able2know.org/topic/47327-563#post-4319743
This subject has been debated at length, and I think I am the first one or one of the very few to have posted the actual information, which I think is highly pertinent to the debate. It is certainly more information than you have ever offered on it, ci.

2 Replies

@okie,

No, okie, you are wrong. You tried to prove Hitler was a leftist based on his 25-points without understanding how that was used and subsequently ignored by Hitler, nor how he actually ran the country and became a menace to most of Europe. Military power is a rightest goal. You just do not have the intelligence to comprehend history or how it relates to politics or politicians.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

However he did meet Cyclo's criteria. He posted a link and something someone had written. I agree, it doesn't constitute either proof or a convincing argument.

Why ? Because what men do and what they say or write are often different things. This is particularly true of political figures.

Most of Okie's criticisms of Hitler would be fine if he would substitute the phrase "authoritarian tyrant" for "Leftist" or "socialist". Hitler's actions in power clearly demonstrate that he was a tyrant, interested only in his personal power and goals for a powerful and expanded Germany, and not a doctrinaire socialist, or anything else for that matter.

By contrast Stalin headed a regime that truly was dedicated to Socialism. Over time both he and the ruling elite became as interested in preserving and expanding their own power and priviledges as they were in their socialist goals. Stalin's regime was by all measures even more murderous than Hitler's. Both were united in their tyranny, lust for power and willingness to put their own goals (whether involving political doctrine or just expansion) over anyone else or anyone who got in their way.

The polar opposite of both figures would be a libertarian, one who strives for as much individual liberty as possible and who eschews government control of individuals, whether motivated by left or right wing political extremists , ... or even perfectly nice and polite progressives who wish to perfect human behavior through the organization of society and its rules & incentives. All are engaged in controlling the choices and lives of others. Useful distinctions can be made regarding the degree of their control and the methods they use to achieve their goals. However, it is only the libertarian who, as a matter of political doctrine, avoids tyranny as a matter of principle.

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However he did meet Cyclo's criteria. He posted a link and something someone had written. I agree, it doesn't constitute either proof or a convincing argument.

I agree that I didn't find it compelling. But, Christ! At least he's trying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob wrote:

Quote:

He posted a link and something someone had written. I agree, it doesn't constitute either proof or a convincing argument.

That's the crux of my challenge to okie/ican.

0 Replies

Hitler and Stalin happened. How does anybody know what else could have happened?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, okie, you are wrong. You tried to prove Hitler was a leftist based on his 25-points without understanding how that was used and subsequently ignored by Hitler, nor how he actually ran the country and became a menace to most of Europe. Military power is a rightest goal. You just do not have the intelligence to comprehend history or how it relates to politics or politicians.

If any post serves to illustrate how wrong you typically are, this is one. For example, you accuse others of making statements with no evidence, but here is one of your statements with not only no evidence but it is frankly silly and obviously wrong. Military power cannot be classified as either left or right, it is a common goal and aim of every government or nation to obtain, just as a means of self survival at a minimum, and as a means to conquering others at the maximum. Obvious examples are the Soviet Union, a communist empire that amassed a tremendous military complex rivaling that of the United States. Other leftist regimes aiming for military power have been China and North Korea, just to start a list.

So your assertion that military power is exclusively a rightest goal is therefore obviously total nonsense. I am frankly surprised you would say such a thing.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Most of Okie's criticisms of Hitler would be fine if he would substitute the phrase "authoritarian tyrant" for "Leftist" or "socialist". Hitler's actions in power clearly demonstrate that he was a tyrant, interested only in his personal power and goals for a powerful and expanded Germany, and not a doctrinaire socialist, or anything else for that matter.

George, you should be smart enough to know that many authoritarian tyrants are leftists and socialists, in fact I think most of them are. There are obvious other examples out there besides Hitler. Sure he was interested in his personal power and goals, but so are all dictators, and that includes many leftists, and I could list a few like Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Castro, the list goes on.

He was a doctrinaire socialist, read the Nazi Party platform and read Mein Kampf, George. He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist. In fact the basis of Nazism can be summed up in one of the points, that being "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." I have posted that until I am blue in the face, and maybe someday you guys will see the light, that that principle underlies all of Nazism and what Hitler believed, and that is why individuals and individual rights were expendable under Hitler, to the point of mass exterminations. And it is totally consistent with leftist idealogy, completely and soundly, the truth of it is self evident, George.

3 Replies

@okie,

This is too funny to contemplate; okie challenging georgeob - his defender.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I wouldn't say that a libertarian is the polar opposite of either an authoritarian or a Socialist. In their personal lives, many libertarians are authoritarian. Libertarians are often proud and see their point of view as correct. they often seem to "know" what others need.

0 Replies

@okie,

What you miss is that everyone who criticizes you does so because what you offer is your interpretation of events, speeches, laws and actions.

Your interpretations are extremely right wing. You probably are in the most right leaning 1% of the nation. Your chosen political position colors everything you judge.

Many of the people who comment here are widely read. You give no evidence of reading anything but, perhaps, your local newspaper. There is no evidence of broader knowledge to subdue the flaming right of your commentary.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

He is from Oklahoma singing 'what a beautifuk morning' every day and looks at new variations of the wish bone offense in Norman, Oklahoma.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

George, you should be smart enough to know that many authoritarian tyrants are leftists and socialists, in fact I think most of them are.

You just illustrated what I told you in my last post: ". . . I think most of them (authoritarian tyrants) are (leftists and socialists)."

If you said Professor X from Oxford University wrote in his book "----" that during the 20th C, 75% of all who rulers who came to power through a military coup were socialists," you would be offering an opinion presented by a career political scientist who has attained a position of respect. If you presented data on how many of those who seized power through a military coup immediately nationalized vital industries, you would be presenting data on military dictators with socialist leanings.

Instead, you say, "I think . . ."

As I said above, your right wing extremism causes you to interpret data differently than nearly everyone who posts here. Even right wingers have called you out.

okie, it is perfectly acceptable that you are on the right. What is not acceptable is for you to not weigh in your calculations that your right leanings color everything you think and all of your statements.

What sort of person says "I think" and "I am right" and "you should be smart enough to know . . ." as often as you do? Enough with the rhetorical questions, I will answer this. The sort of person who states his opinions as fact and states them firmly and militantly -- which you do - - is an authoritarian.

Maybe, if you toned down your rhetoric somewhat and if you read some books on political science, history, economics and philosophy, maybe you wouldn't need george to defend you.

okie, I have had constructive conversations with gungasnake and david and they are as right wing as you. That may be because gunga and david have actually demonstrated having some interests.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

This is the second time george has come to okie's defense and the second time okie has upbraided george.

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know