&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
I noticed that Fitz attacked the website (source) and not the information.
Isn't that called an Ad Hom?
Isn't that called an Ad Hom?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Roosevelt's view was that he, as president, was steward of the national welfare, and that the coal shortage threatened that welfare. As Rutgers history professor John Whiteclay Chambers wrote in The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920, Roosevelt believed the president "should intervene in the economy when necessary to contain the most destructive aspects of assertive wealth and provide some protection for its victims. Without strong presidential leadership and some reforms, mounting discontent might explode into widespread militance and even class conflict." [Page 175] Chambers also noted that Roosevelt's interventionist philosophy was tempered with a desire to "preserve American corporate capitalism as it was evolving by regulating it in the public interest."
It was in this context that Roosevelt was alleged to have said: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" It wasn't an expression of the "anti-Constitution" philosophy Beck attributes to Roosevelt, but rather an acknowledgement by Roosevelt that he considered the threat of widespread fuel riots to be so serious that he would knowingly violate the bounds of his authority by intervening in the coal strike. And Roosevelt did intervene, inviting both labor leaders and employers to the White House for mediations in October 1902, and subsequently threatening to seize control of the mines. The threat worked, and the strike was soon resolved.
I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.
Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.
Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.
Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.
In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.
And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.
Look at all of the new words you've learned!!!! Too bad you don't know what any of them mean. You are a joke, dear. A pathetic joke. It's almost sad. Your attempts at humor fall flat as a pancake. As for your attempts to appear to be super intelligent?? You don't even do it well. Poor thing.
Ah, my poor, simple friend.
I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.
As an extension of this axiom, it appears that the better part of your reading time has involved comic books and the cartoons in which bubble gum is wrapped. Reform yourself...at least to the extent that your nature allows you to.
As a curative exercise, continue to read my posts...look up words...even copy phrases.
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.
And know this, you are not without a certain usefulness: watching your attempt to keep up at this board has been more fun than watching the White House spokesman on a lie detector.
I cannot fathom how anyone can defend Beck. He will say something and contradict what he just said five minutes later. That he makes so much money for doing nothing helpful says much about American culture today. He is the idiot student defended because he says things that appeal to the far right. Everyone (well most everyone) loves to hate a good foe and nothing brings together people like hatred for ? pick one: government, taxes, liberals, progressives, Obama, Nancy, on and on.
This article from Media Matters outlines enough Beck nonsense to make one wonder how any intelligent person could listen to him. But it isn't analyzed because it is so much easier to have enemies that build you up.
"....Nor did Time mention Beck's 2001 statement that he'd like to "beat" Rep. Charlie Rangel "to death with a shovel"; his comments about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; his comparison of the Holocaust museum shooter to Thomas Jefferson; this little outburst; or his comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler. Let's stop there for a second and go back to Time's opening lines:
On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly - the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."
Gee, where did that "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia" garbage come from? It came from Glenn Beck. But Time won't tell you that."
How Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies | Media Matters for America
☭proletarian☭;2197011 said:I did Google it and here's what I found:
Roosevelt's view was that he, as president, was steward of the national welfare, and that the coal shortage threatened that welfare. As Rutgers history professor John Whiteclay Chambers wrote in The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920, Roosevelt believed the president "should intervene in the economy when necessary to contain the most destructive aspects of assertive wealth and provide some protection for its victims. Without strong presidential leadership and some reforms, mounting discontent might explode into widespread militance and even class conflict." [Page 175] Chambers also noted that Roosevelt's interventionist philosophy was tempered with a desire to "preserve American corporate capitalism as it was evolving by regulating it in the public interest."
It was in this context that Roosevelt was alleged to have said: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" It wasn't an expression of the "anti-Constitution" philosophy Beck attributes to Roosevelt, but rather an acknowledgement by Roosevelt that he considered the threat of widespread fuel riots to be so serious that he would knowingly violate the bounds of his authority by intervening in the coal strike. And Roosevelt did intervene, inviting both labor leaders and employers to the White House for mediations in October 1902, and subsequently threatening to seize control of the mines. The threat worked, and the strike was soon resolved.
So he went beyond his bounds to break a Union strike... sounds like the Rightwingers would have applauded him. Doesn't help the attempt to paint him as an evil progressive. Sounds more like he was acting like a rightwinger at the time.
You're 0-2, love.
Look at all of the new words you've learned!!!! Too bad you don't know what any of them mean. You are a joke, dear. A pathetic joke. It's almost sad. Your attempts at humor fall flat as a pancake. As for your attempts to appear to be super intelligent?? You don't even do it well. Poor thing.
Ah, my poor, simple friend.
I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.
As an extension of this axiom, it appears that the better part of your reading time has involved comic books and the cartoons in which bubble gum is wrapped. Reform yourself...at least to the extent that your nature allows you to.
As a curative exercise, continue to read my posts...look up words...even copy phrases.
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.
And know this, you are not without a certain usefulness: watching your attempt to keep up at this board has been more fun than watching the White House spokesman on a lie detector.
Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.
And I am wondering why you always seek me out. Is it because I always ignore you and you hate it?? Well, I'm sorry. But you bore me silly. I told you that months ago and that hasn't has changed. Your posts to me are just full of nothing.
FDR was one complex individual, he was very conservative early on and actually remained conservative as his attempt to reign in spending and the deficit demonstrated. His actions were thought out and often right, obviously some were bad decisions, but after Coolidge and Hoover he brought the nation back from the brink of disaster. Right wing revisionists like PoliticalChic find it necessary to demonize all people on the left, its what they do. But any reading of the period and the policies will change an open minded person's opinion of FDR to one of wonder and a bit of awe.
An accurate descriptor of the website in an offensive term to drive a point home is not an ad hominym attack, it defines the character and nature of the wesite.☭proletarian☭;2197009 said:I noticed that Fitz attacked the website (source) and not the information.
Isn't that called an Ad Hom?
I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.
As an extension of this axiom,
As a curative exercise, continue to read my posts...look up words..
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.
Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.
FDR was one complex individual, he was very conservative early on and actually remained conservative as his attempt to reign in spending and the deficit demonstrated. His actions were thought out and often right, obviously some were bad decisions, but after Coolidge and Hoover he brought the nation back from the brink of disaster. Right wing revisionists like PoliticalChic find it necessary to demonize all people on the left, its what they do. But any reading of the period and the policies will change an open minded person's opinion of FDR to one of wonder and a bit of awe.
Ah, my poor, simple friend.
I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.
As an extension of this axiom, it appears that the better part of your reading time has involved comic books and the cartoons in which bubble gum is wrapped. Reform yourself...at least to the extent that your nature allows you to.
As a curative exercise, continue to read my posts...look up words...even copy phrases.
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.
And know this, you are not without a certain usefulness: watching your attempt to keep up at this board has been more fun than watching the White House spokesman on a lie detector.
Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.
And I am wondering why you always seek me out. Is it because I always ignore you and you hate it?? Well, I'm sorry. But you bore me silly. I told you that months ago and that hasn't has changed. Your posts to me are just full of nothing.
It's so nice to see the lesser folks, like you, tagging along, pretending that you actually have the ability to contend on this level...
In a way, it's kind of ambition, -even though it is built on fantasy.
But it does show what you aspire to, and that makes me so proud of you! I'm going to award you the oh-so-Progressive "E for Effort"!
Now, you know that doesn't actually mean that you know anything, or have accomplished anything...or even predict that you will amount to anything, but it's better to support your self-esteem, isn't it?
As far as the "always seek me out" projection, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?
☭proletarian☭;2197780 said:I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
How, then, do you explain all his previous posts?
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.
Not necessarily. One can be quite literate and still be a poor author, just as the ability to listen does not necessarily make one a great orator.
That's not an axiom, my illiterate friend.
And you'll soon learn her love of quutemines and her failure to further research her talking points prevents her from discussing matters intelligently and honestly.
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.
You don't do advise for people. You were insulting someone's literacy?
Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.
![]()
Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.
And I am wondering why you always seek me out. Is it because I always ignore you and you hate it?? Well, I'm sorry. But you bore me silly. I told you that months ago and that hasn't has changed. Your posts to me are just full of nothing.
It's so nice to see the lesser folks, like you, tagging along, pretending that you actually have the ability to contend on this level...
In a way, it's kind of ambition, -even though it is built on fantasy.
But it does show what you aspire to, and that makes me so proud of you! I'm going to award you the oh-so-Progressive "E for Effort"!
Now, you know that doesn't actually mean that you know anything, or have accomplished anything...or even predict that you will amount to anything, but it's better to support your self-esteem, isn't it?
As far as the "always seek me out" projection, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?
This is exactly who you sound like, I swear. Only she makes more sense.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww]YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[/ame]
☭proletarian☭;2197789 said:FDR was one complex individual, he was very conservative early on and actually remained conservative as his attempt to reign in spending and the deficit demonstrated. His actions were thought out and often right, obviously some were bad decisions, but after Coolidge and Hoover he brought the nation back from the brink of disaster. Right wing revisionists like PoliticalChic find it necessary to demonize all people on the left, its what they do. But any reading of the period and the policies will change an open minded person's opinion of FDR to one of wonder and a bit of awe.
People like PubicChic ( I swear, they could be twins) who can only see the world through the partisan lens of 'Us Versus Them', 'Liberal Versus Progressive' or "Republican v. Democrat' are rarely worth speaking with, since their partisanship, ignorance, and arrogance, prevent them from being able to have a mature and honest discussion. Take for instance, her quotemine of Wilson I called her on.
It's so nice to see the lesser folks, like you, tagging along, pretending that you actually have the ability to contend on this level...
In a way, it's kind of ambition, -even though it is built on fantasy.
But it does show what you aspire to, and that makes me so proud of you! I'm going to award you the oh-so-Progressive "E for Effort"!
Now, you know that doesn't actually mean that you know anything, or have accomplished anything...or even predict that you will amount to anything, but it's better to support your self-esteem, isn't it?
As far as the "always seek me out" projection, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?
This is exactly who you sound like, I swear. Only she makes more sense.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww]YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[/ame]
So, you're still stalking me?
Imagine that, after you asked, what was it...why do I follow you around, or something like that.
Kind of puts the lie to your claim, huh?
But I understand it, groupie.
The bad news: ability doesn't rub off.
☭proletarian☭;2197796 said:It's an ad hom when you attack the site as a means of avoiding addressing the evidence presented.
I find it interesting that you've nothing to say about PC's blatantly dishonest use of quotemines. I suspect it's because she says what you want to hear.