Obama '08?

engineer wrote:

Not to vote for communism, but your example is a classic strawman. Communism did not cause the deaths of 100 trillion people, the totalitarian rulers who took charge did that. Since they were the heads of nominal communist governments, you associated those deaths with communism then refuted it. This fits this basic definition:

Quote:

This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

There are lots of excellent arguments to refute the values of communism, (please consider a different thread), but this is a strawman.

Apart from the accidental million million thing, I disagree.
On that other thread I would argue that the totalitarian rulers who took charge were the imminently predictable, almost inevitable result of communism.

Deist submitted that communism was not a a dirty word. I provided 100 million reasons/people that might disagree. This is in no way an exaggeration or caricature of anyone's argument. It is an historical matter of fact. Whether or not communism is a dirty word, is a matter of opinion. Surely the 100 million victims of same should be entitled to one.

I hope Senator Obama finds time to read Robert Kagan's book The Return of History and the End of Dreams so he can learn the myths about other regions of the world.
---BBB

The Return of History and the End of Dreams

Hopes for a new peaceful international order after the end of the Cold War have been dashed by sobering realities: Great powers are once again competing for honor and influence. Nation-states remain as strong as ever, as do the old, explosive forces of ambitious nationalism. The world remains "unipolar," but international competition among the United States, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India, and Iran raise new threats of regional conflict. Communism is dead, but a new contest between western liberalism and the great eastern autocracies of Russia and China has reinjected ideology into geopolitics. Finally, radical Islamists are waging a violent struggle against the modern secular cultures and powers that, in their view, have dominated, penetrated, and polluted their Islamic world. The grand expectation that after the Cold War the world would enter an era of international geopolitical convergence has proven wrong.

For the past few years, the liberal world has been internally divided and distracted by issues both profound and petty. Now, in The Return of History and the End of Dreams, Robert Kagan masterfully poses the most important questions facing the liberal democratic countries, challenging them to choose whether they want to shape history or let others shape it for them.

Roxxxane, the book was published in April 2008 and Obama has been a little busy.

BBB

Kagan's arguments have particular relevance these days because he is one of the few foreign policy intellectuals that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, seems to respect. When McCain talks about assembling a "league of democracies" to get things done, that's Kagan-talk for how to deal with a world where the United Nations Security Council is "hopelessly paralyzed" and NATO is happiest parachuting into territory where there is little chance of hearing gunfire. (He treads lightly on NATO's timidity in Afghanistan but has an understandable excuse: He lives in Brussels because his wife, Victoria Nuland, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, is the American ambassador to NATO.) A scholar and regular contributor to The Washington Post's op-ed page, Kagan is the rare happy neocon these days, because he steered clear of direct participation in the Bush administration's more disastrous adventures and can now offer advice to the incoming cleanup crews.

Kagan's title, of course, is designed to tweak Francis Fukuyama and others who, in a fit of optimism after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, declared not only the end to ideological struggle but "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." That belief was an underpinning of the Bush doctrine. As the White House correspondent for The New York Times for the first six years of the Bush presidency, I would be a rich man if I had collected a Russian ruble, a Chinese yuan and an Iranian rial every time I sat through a speech in which Bush brought the faithful to their feet promising a prolonged struggle to confront every regime that represses God-given rights to freedom.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You are dead right, Snood. Other than the 2012 theory, her behavior has been completely inexplicable for more than a month now (I don't want to give the Bobby Kennedy theory any credence). Tuesday through Saturday with her 18 million BS after losing is undeniably doing harm to her Party's chances of winning in the General. Reasons to support her actions are:

#1 If you're a Republican.
#2 If you're a Bigot.
#3 If you're an idiot.

If anyone can provide another reason(s); I'd love to hear it.

#4: She really wants to be president.

And the Cowboys wanted to win the Superbowl. So what? (Doesn't fit the list anyway)

I didn't realize the "list" had such a restrictive format. If you love the Cowboys and the Cowboys really wanted to win the Superbowl, you might support any sort of outrageous action they take to win it without being a Giant fan, an idiot, or a bigot.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

#5: You really want her to be president

But she already lost, so that's not logical.

There's more than a bit of arrogance demonstrated by that comment. As an Obama supporter you, clearly, wish to deny even the slightest possibility that your favorite has unquestionably sewed it up, but that's simply not the case until he wins the nomination on the convention floor.

Let's assume that some new revelation about Obama was to hit the headlines next week; something the press could not help him escape. I don't think it will happen, but it might, and if it is damaging enough, superdelegates will flip back to Hillary in a heartbeat.

If you are the sort of avid Hillary supporter who ends your A2K postings with large font campaign slogans, you might be keeping hope alive that some sort of event would happen and that Hillary would be poised to accept the nomination. You could easily do so without being a Republican, and idiot, or a bigot.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

#6: You really don't want Obama to be president

But why? I listed 3 legitimate reasonable reasons a Democrat might feel that way. You listed none.

Now I suppose Rezko could make a reasonable number 4... but when you consider everything from Whitewater to to the Rich Pardon that's pretty thin.

You need not be a Republican, an idiot or a bigot to not want Obama to win. Your insistence that these are legitimate and reasonable characterizations of Democrats who do not want him to win is uncharacteristiclly narrow-minded.

One need not be either of the three choices you've proposed to:

1) Think that he is too inexperienced
2) Think that he is too much of an elitist
3) Think that he is too far to the left in his positions
4) Think that he bald-faced lied when he claimed he didn't know Rev Wright had such divisive notions.
5) Think that there is something just a little too slick about him

I can go on.

Whether or not any of these reasons meet your approval is irrelevant. They do not singularly or in concert reveal their holders to be Republicans, idiots or bigots.

If one agrees with all of Obama's positions and yet still would prefer McCain winning over him, then you might have an argument with the last two of your choices, but to the list you would still have to add:

#5 If you're really disappointed that your candidate didn't win and you believe Obama and the Democratic establishment jobbed her out of the nomination. Not entirely rationale, but not idiotic or bigoted either.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Do you think the NY woman who has recently enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame thanks to an emotional outburst on video is a bigot? An idiot? (This is not to argue that she is neither, but to pose honest questions)

I don't know who or what you're talking about; but if she's a Democrat and supports Hillary's lack of concession to and for the Democratic Nominee and the party itself; then yes, I think she's probably a bigot or an idiot.

That's too bad.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I would find it more illogical for a Hillary supporter to vote for McCain rather than Obama if McCain did not hold so many "liberal" positions.

It would indeed be more illogical were that not the case, but McCain still holds considerably less liberal positions than Obama. This is obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot and should be compelling to any liberal who's neither an idiot nor a bigot.

You have assumed all Clinton supporters who are Democrats are also full-blooded Liberals. I'm surprised by your insistence on party orthodoxy. It is entirely reasonable that A Democrat might find Obama too Liberal, and McCain just Liberal enough. Especially if they are angry that their beloved candidate didn't get the nod.

Democrats who might decide to vote for McCain rather than Obama are not the same as Ann Coulter claiming she would vote for Clinton over McCain. There have been a few self-professed Democrats in this forum who have indicated a willingness to consider voting for McCain.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is certainly more illogical for a Republican opponent of McCain to vote vote for Clinton or Obama, than for a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain, but it's not difficult to see how someone might consider the latter a purely emotional response.

An emotional response is irrelevant to the question. Anyone paying attention knew she was toast a month ago... seemingly everyone but Hillary herself, really. A conclusion to a result that has become increasingly predictable for over a month is not exactly a knee-jerk. Emotional? Obviously... but that doesn't answer the question for Democrats.

Seemingly everyone, but Hillary and all the thousands of Democrats who kept voting for her --- but I guess they were all idiots or bigots.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Considering that the appeal of Obama is so deeply based in personality, and the contemptuous regard so many Obama supporters have had for Clinton, it's a bit disingenuous for Obama supporters to now scold the Clinton faithful for taking this competition somewhat personally.

We won't be voting for Obama's supporters in November. Any Democrat who holds the words of Obama's supporters against Obama, and vows to vote against their own interests as a result is displaying idiocy, pure and simple.

First of all I don't accept that a Democrat voting for McCain is tantamount to voting against their own interests. This may be the case for a left-wing Democrat, but Hillary appealed, in part, to Democrats who previously voted for Reagan. Perhaps you are also suggesting that the Reagan Democrats were idiots and bigots too.

Secondly, you are minimizing the personalization of election campaigns. The very reason a candidate is able to attract tireless and nearly fanatic supporters is more a product of personal than intellectual connection. That doesn't get switched off at the end of a campaign

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Winner and his or her supporters always want the losers to shrug off losing and get with the program. Clinton's supporters would feel the same way if she had won and Obama supporters vowed to either vote for McCain or stay home.

Of course they would. It would be equally idiotic and/or bigoted for a Democrat to do so.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, the Winners are likely to have a better chance of getting want they want if they exhibit some grace and avoid insulting demands of the Losers and their candidate.

This is probably true for truly emotional fools in denial... but more logical folks may recognize the truth however it's packaged. Besides; sometimes it's fun to call a spade a spade.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I hope you don't of course, but it's a thought you may want to consider.

I may soften up a little as the election draws nearer in recognition of the adage "no man is an island"... but I'm no Democrat anyway. I prefer Obama to McCain, but like them both. I would be very much in favor of scrapping the 2 party system... or at least leveling the playing field for 3rd parties… so in some ways my interests are served regardless. Bush and Clinton have done marvelous jobs of increasing the number of Independents. I'd say recognition of this is the reason the Republicans put their weight behind John McCain in the first place.

Revisiting your suggestion that McCain holds some liberal positions: He is now Pro-Life, supports Bush's Tax Cuts, plans to continue our Iraq policy and opposes National Healthcare. No self respecting liberal could honestly believe McCain is more representative of liberal policy than Obama... An idiotic liberal could believe that. Or a bigoted one could pretend to.

No self-respecting Liberal would believe McCain is more representative of left-wing policies than Obama, but not all Democrats are left-wingers. Or so I am told with great regularity here on A2K.

Oh, and partisans sitting out or voting 3rd parties are effectively giving half a vote to the supposed opposition, whether said partisans are Democrats or Republicans. Now if you consider McCain too much of a Maverick, and not truly a Republican, then an argument could be made that there is no need for loyalty because the Party failed to field a Party member. Weak, but possible. On the other hand; is Obama not very, very clearly a Democrat? Snood's right. A Democrat can't fail to vote for him without cutting off his nose to spite his face… which is idiotic, no?

It is perfectly natural for a Republican to oppose Obama. That in itself has encouraged me to disparage NO ONE as a bigot or an idiot. Ask Georgeob1, Finn or Tico how many times I've accused them of bigotry or idiocy. These charges are reserved for people who actually display tendencies towards them.

Without doubt, none, but this doesn't mean we agree on who actually is displaying these tendencies. I do think you can be a bit quick on the draw with the bigot pistol.

And this newest whimpering about "Only on A2K do I hear this stuff" is ridiculous as well. In each of our real lives, most of us have incentive to hold our tongues a whole lot more often than we'd feel compelled to as an anonymous poster on a message board. This is the very reason many come here to discuss politics... and other topics that are somewhat taboo in other venues. Some use their anonymity to post more bigoted and/or idiotic crap than they would normally say in real life. There are probably some folks who are openly bigoted in real life who choose to tone in back on A2K, and folks who know virtually nothing who attempt to wiki their way into feigning being knowledgeable. The simple fact is: On a message board; people are pretty much only judged by what they post.

Fair point, but since few of us are surrounded in our "real" lives by the diversity of opinion found in forums like this one, it's not necessarily inaccurate for someone to contest that "Only on A2K do I hear this stuff."

There's a lot of crazy-ass, ignorant **** (and some interesting opinions) that gets spewed in this forum daily that I would almost never be exposed to in my "real" life of insular priviledge. It's precisely why I keep coming back.

But of course the comment is interesting not because the commenter is a Liberal surrounded by Conservatives, or visa versa, but rather a Liberal surrounded by other Liberals. What is implied in this comment is a sense of betrayal and exile.

To paraphrase a great song by The Band, Hillary is "a Conservative's dream if I ever did see one."

Her refusal to give up (regardless of the origins of that refusal) has, without question, resulted in a schisim among people who consider themselves Democrats and/or liberals. Whether that schisim can easily be patched up or will be trouble for Obama remains to be seen, but it's benefit is not limited to its impact on the election.

It's probably too much to hope for, but it's possible that a fair number of Clinton supporters will now recognize what conservatives have known for years: The Media has a political agenda. That agenda has always favored Liberals, but this time it had to choose between two and it was as nasty to the one it rejected as it has ever been to any conservative.

They may also be realizing a thing or two about the Tribe which they so proudly called their own before these primaries.

Nothing about this election cycle should suggest to them that the other Tribe, that they despise, is any less despicable, but perhaps their faith in the infalibility of their Tribe may have been called into question. Their Tribe may not actually be so open-minded and inclusive. Their Tribe may not be so high minded and respectful of different opinions. Their Tribe may have strict rules that cannot be broken without fear of exile.

Irrespective of which Tribe is involved, it is always a good thing to see all the qualities one's Tribe actually embraces or tolerates.

These elections of ours are steeped in tribalism. A very very few people actually make the mistake of deluding themselves into thinking they are contests of intellectual thought. A very very large number of people believe they are a contest of correct intellectual thought and barbaric urges.

What they are are contests for power between professional wielders of that power. The number of times that the interests of the professionals truly intersect with the interests of the people are few and far between.

In every election, the people, who care to participate, believe that the Leaders of their Tribe actually sublimate their own interests to those of the people. Do they ever?

This time around there are two candidates who, one might argue with some conviction, actually do.

It is very interesting that someone might feel, roughly, ambivalent about who is elected in November, because they are OK with either candidate.

It's difficult to determine to which Tribe such a person belongs, or if there is, in fact, a third major Tribe.

It is also difficult, to me, how such a person could be so, roughly, ambivalent.

In Obama vs McCain, I see a striking choice.

Not necessarily between Right and Left, although I acknowledge this is a plane upon which I can see a marked difference, but between sincerity and, frankly, deceit.

It seems to me that Obama supporters have chosen to ignore any and all evidence that their Headman might not be all that sincere in his magnific assertions.

It is, unfortunately and likely effective, propogandic tactics that will distance Obama from his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church, his, at least, ignorantly accepting relationship with a known domestic terrorist, his "bone headed" decision to personally benefit from the largess of a suspected, and ultimately proven, criminal.

"He's quit the church! What more do you want? He said he never heard Wright make those 'sound-bite' comments!"

"He worked with Bill Ayers on a community project not an effin bomb!"

"There is no evidence that he was directly involved in the crimes of Tony Rezko!"

"Just because he did some work for ACORN doesn't mean he has anything to do with training their operatives to stalk the children of bankers!"

You know, maybe all of this is true.

I don't believe it, but others, obviously, do.

Fortunately, I know I am right and they are wrong.

No matter what happens in November, the world won't end. Things will get better or they will get worse, and we will have a chance in four years to correct things.

If the wrong guy gets the job, individuals will suffer. The country won't fall but individual families will. Which Tribe cares more about these individual familes?

That being said; just like in real life one can alter how their perceived by altering what they project. This cannot be accomplished by whimpering about it... especially not by painting false, unverifiable parallels... that the more intelligent posters realize don't exist.

Harsh!

engineer wrote:

Not to vote for communism, but your example is a classic strawman. Communism did not cause the deaths of 100 trillion people, the totalitarian rulers who took charge did that. Since they were the heads of nominal communist governments, you associated those deaths with communism then refuted it. This fits this basic definition:

Quote:

This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

There are lots of excellent arguments to refute the values of communism, (please consider a different thread), but this is a strawman.

Apart from the accidental million million thing, I disagree.
On that other thread I would argue that the totalitarian rulers who took charge were the imminently predictable, almost inevitable result of communism.

Deist submitted that communism was not a a dirty word. I provided 100 million reasons/people that might disagree. This is in no way an exaggeration or caricature of anyone's argument. It is an historical matter of fact. Whether or not communism is a dirty word, is a matter of opinion. Surely the 100 million victims of same should be entitled to one.

Butrflynet told me she will be very busy the next two weeks regarding her job assignments and won't be posting much on A2K for a while.

BBB

TKO could equally argue that since <Internet> Hitler and Mugabee were democratically elected and that Democracy leads to totalitarianism, millions of deaths, etc.

Not to say I favor communism, only that your argument was a strawman by the definition you posted.

Finally, the president reluctantly agreed to appoint

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

That argument would be false because Hitler was NEVER elected to any position in the German govt.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

engineer wrote:

Not to vote for communism, but your example is a classic strawman. Communism did not cause the deaths of 100 trillion people, the totalitarian rulers who took charge did that. Since they were the heads of nominal communist governments, you associated those deaths with communism then refuted it. This fits this basic definition:

Quote:

This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

There are lots of excellent arguments to refute the values of communism, (please consider a different thread), but this is a strawman.

Apart from the accidental million million thing, I disagree.
On that other thread I would argue that the totalitarian rulers who took charge were the imminently predictable, almost inevitable result of communism.

Deist submitted that communism was not a a dirty word. I provided 100 million reasons/people that might disagree. This is in no way an exaggeration or caricature of anyone's argument. It is an historical matter of fact. Whether or not communism is a dirty word, is a matter of opinion. Surely the 100 million victims of same should be entitled to one.

You made the following jump: Communism leads to brutal, totalitarian regimes. Brutal, totalitarian regimes kill millions of their own people. Regimes that kill millions of their own people are bad, therefore Communism is bad.

The strawman is the first step. You sited an extreme observation, painted it as typical, then attacked it. It is certainly historically accurate that communism in some cases has lead to brutal, totalitarian regimes, but your assumption that it will always do so is the strawman.

You made the following jump: Communism leads to brutal, totalitarian regimes. Brutal, totalitarian regimes kill millions of their own people. Regimes that kill millions of their own people are bad, therefore Communism is bad. The strawman is the first step. You sited an extreme observation, painted it as typical, then attacked it. It is certainly historically accurate that communism in some cases has lead to brutal, totalitarian regimes, but your assumption that it will always do so is the strawman. Several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments who don't murder everyone. TKO could equally argue that since <Internet> Hitler and Mugabee were democratically elected and that Democracy leads to totalitarianism, millions of deaths, etc.

Not to say I favor communism, only that your argument was a strawman by the definition you posted.

It is certainly historically accurate that communism in some cases has lead to brutal, totalitarian regimes, but your assumption that it will always do so is the strawman.

You made the following jump: Communism leads to brutal, totalitarian regimes. Brutal, totalitarian regimes kill millions of their own people. Regimes that kill millions of their own people are bad, therefore Communism is bad. The strawman is the first step. You sited an extreme observation, painted it as typical, then attacked it. It is certainly historically accurate that communism in some cases has lead to brutal, totalitarian regimes, but your assumption that it will always do so is the strawman. Several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments who don't murder everyone. TKO could equally argue that since <Internet> Hitler and Mugabee were democratically elected and that Democracy leads to totalitarianism, millions of deaths, etc.

This may come as a surprise to some here but I read and goggle many articles and news stories trying to garner information about all the candidates beliefs. [..] I read today about the war in the middle east and Obama beginning to back off of his removing our troops from Iraq. He seems to have backed off of the complete removal of all troops from the middle east.

The brutal fact is that it has always done so. The fact of long-standing communist parties in (say) Europe that largely advocated conventional Marxist/Leninist doctrine, but never achieved dominant political power, does not alter the essential fact. Most of these parties (that of France in particular) advocated the complete takeover of government by "The party", and one can only assume that, given the chance, they would have repeated the excesses universally associated with their historical models. Happily they never came to power and their existence doesn't belong in the same category with those of the USSR, China and others.

There are certainly many other paths to Totalitarianism as history amply demonstrates. However, given the totalitarianism implicit in both marxist/leninist doctrine and the universal application of it by such regimes, the straw man here is built of steel.

Lola, you are a noble, unappreciated martyr and I can't understand how you have remained with that man for this long. [size=7]Even though he really is a sweetie.[/size]
Sorry for the interuption. Please continue.

In reality, democratic states work very differently from communistic states -- states where communists have run the government for decades, and have implemented their constitutional ideas.