False Labeling Stifles Meaningful Debate

[MaggieMae]

Unfettered markets have never in history worked.

Give us an example if you disagree.

unfettered markets have never existed.

keep swinging

No, but the Randians keep trying. (And failing.)

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.

How do you talk rationally to irrational people?

His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]

Whats irrational about recognizing that?

Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.

I think this Newsweek cover (and story byline) scared a lot of people, and then they didn't bother to actually read the article. It spells out succinctly and correctly the history of the last 30 years which has propelled America toward a more "socialist" society simply because of our personal lifestyle choices, the aging of America, and other demographic realities.

The article is only two pages, and well worth the read again.

WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW
We Are All Socialists Now - Newsweek.com

 

[Samson]

It would be nice if people avoided the straw man arguements on both sides.

It would also be nice if truth mattered to both sides.

I have to insist that the right is far more apt to do build straw men and ignore truth.

Happy Birthday TM:

 

[MaggieMae]

Ya..Ya... Whatever..you have been nominated for a membership to "The List".. Any LAST words?

I always wondered if I was in that "list" somewhere. I don't venture there because its sheer size is scary, and I need my sleep at some point.

I'd check for you, but can't remember if I filed it under yawn, can't seem to care or was this suppose to matter.

I wasn't asking you to check, but I assume since it's Huggy's thread that he checks it every day. I'm just curious, so I really don't care if it was a yawn or if I'm even buried there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His policies are Socialist...he uses Marxism to get elected and to push his agenda...he released a very large list of banned guns in the first days of his presidency....and his policies have proven to destroy economies.....[see Greece]

Whats irrational about recognizing that?

Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.

I think this Newsweek cover (and story byline) scared a lot of people, and then they didn't bother to actually read the article. It spells out succinctly and correctly the history of the last 30 years which has propelled America toward a more "socialist" society simply because of our personal lifestyle choices, the aging of America, and other demographic realities.

The article is only two pages, and well worth the read again.

WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW
We Are All Socialists Now - Newsweek.com

That would be great if people would also look up and think about the definitions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. They are neither socialist nor marxist. Really, mud, you need to look up the classical definitions then apply them to this administration. Really, you are making silly statements.

I think this Newsweek cover (and story byline) scared a lot of people, and then they didn't bother to actually read the article. It spells out succinctly and correctly the history of the last 30 years which has propelled America toward a more "socialist" society simply because of our personal lifestyle choices, the aging of America, and other demographic realities.

The article is only two pages, and well worth the read again.

WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW
We Are All Socialists Now - Newsweek.com

That would be great if people would also look up and think about the definitions.

So, because I point out the twinkies of the far right have trouble with definitions, I get nailed by Zander on a neg rep for being supposedly a phony conservative. In all truth, Zander is not a true member of the GOP, but part of the far-right conloon driven reactionary movement that is going to go 'smash' this fall. I am far better a member of the GOP than he is.

Zander, quit whining, son. Your day in the sun is ovah forevah. Your very small minority of Americans (yes, son, you are not the mainstream ~~ not anywhere near it ) are good for grins and chuckles now, but have no relevance otherwise.

 

[HUGGY]

I always wondered if I was in that "list" somewhere. I don't venture there because its sheer size is scary, and I need my sleep at some point.

I'd check for you, but can't remember if I filed it under yawn, can't seem to care or was this suppose to matter.

I wasn't asking you to check, but I assume since it's Huggy's thread that he checks it every day. I'm just curious, so I really don't care if it was a yawn or if I'm even buried there.

You really don't want to go there!!!!

There are places in "The List" I fear to go myself!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd check for you, but can't remember if I filed it under yawn, can't seem to care or was this suppose to matter.

I wasn't asking you to check, but I assume since it's Huggy's thread that he checks it every day. I'm just curious, so I really don't care if it was a yawn or if I'm even buried there.

You really don't want to go there!!!!

There are places in "The List" I fear to go myself!!!

I thought so. It would be like diving head first into the shallow end of the pool.

 

[HUGGY]

I wasn't asking you to check, but I assume since it's Huggy's thread that he checks it every day. I'm just curious, so I really don't care if it was a yawn or if I'm even buried there.

You really don't want to go there!!!!

There are places in "The List" I fear to go myself!!!

I thought so. It would be like diving head first into the shallow end of the pool.

Sometimes when I put someone on "The List".....I cast a lost spell.

Part of that person can be lost forever wandering aimlessly trying to find a way out.

..............................

It's CREEPY!!!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.

I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.

I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.

I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.

I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.

I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.

We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."

*Steps off soap box*

Thanks for listening.

You are so on the money. This has been my mantra since I entered adult hood. Things have a name for a reason. You start randomly assigning titles and descriptions erroneously and nothing means anything anymore.

This is my primary objection to legalizing "marriage" between gays. I don't care if gays get married. I hope they can find ministers to do it. I don't care if they sign their worldly goods over to each other, or buy houses together, or whatever.

I do mind if we change the definition of words with which we describe the fabric of our society. Create a NEW term for homo marriage if you like. But MARRIAGE is a man and a woman, and our society is based upon that basic structure.

I likewise object to the whole "truth is subjective" bullshit. Truth is not subjective. Facts are not subjective.

And at some point, preferential treatment based upon skin color ceased to be racist. Now it's expected to the point where if someone is brown, they can break our laws with impunity, and if we dare to object, then WE are the racists.

It's what happens when socialists take over the press and propagandize the people.

 

[Samson]

You are so on the money. This has been my mantra since I entered adult hood. Things have a name for a reason. You start randomly assigning titles and descriptions erroneously and nothing means anything anymore.

.

So, you're one of those "Mantra" People.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life...

...

*Steps off soap box*

Thanks for listening.

Then STFU about party politics. Start your own party.


---

on a more serious note, you are against the major parties, yet you have no reasonable and rational solutions? I, methinks, the wingnuts and moonbats are owed an apology---by your detractors.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

From now on, I shall describe myself as a 'far left Nazi right wing Neocon'.

a truer label than: Tricky Bitch

 

[Intense]

Look who the admin of this forum is, Gunny, and the shitty example of posting he sets. It's no wonder its like that in so many cases. Place is crawling with troll like posters, and just ranters and ravers

Translation= Anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Alpha1]

The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.

How do you talk rationally to irrational people?

Well, I see the problem already....you attribute to the right, beliefs that aren't quite true...

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist, and more Communist than not...but he only wants to severely limit your Second Amendment rights and "change" America in the way he himself has stated...re-distribute the wealth, nationalize healthcare, etc.

We take him at his word, I don't know how the hell you got your views about him....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.

I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.

I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.

I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.

I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.

I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.

We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."

*Steps off soap box*

Thanks for listening.

ROFLMNAO... Aren't Progressives a GAS?

 

[Intense]

Unfettered markets have never in history worked.

Give us an example if you disagree.

unfettered markets have never existed.

keep swinging

No, but the Randians keep trying. (And failing.)

Rand wasn't so much about converting disciples, more focusing on getting the correct change back from a purchase, getting the correct order at a restaurant, getting deliveries to the correct address, you get it. Value for value. You don't support incompetence any more than her, she just didn't stop because the culprit belonged to a Union or worked for the Government. She wrote some great reads. For a self proclaimed atheist, she got some important stuff right. My market is a direct relationship with my customers, no middlemen or go betweens. In it's own way it usually works out right, two parties coming to a plain agreement. Much less stress that way, no false promises or assumptions. We need Government to maintain the playing field and to establish Justice, Impartial Justice, our disagreement comes in size, function, scope, there are things government should stay out of. getting someone a start or a helping hand, as opposed to redistribution of wealth, a reward for doing nothing to better yourself or your circumstance. Show something for the time and money invested. People are not inherently because they achieve or succeed in what they do. It is horrible that we treat each other so. Method, Intent, are more relevant factors than worth. These teachings are anti federalist, anti free market, anti industrial revolution. We need not apologize to the world for having indoor plumbing and flush toilets. The rational is corrupted and self destructive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

unfettered markets have never existed.

keep swinging

No, but the Randians keep trying. (And failing.)

Rand wasn't so much about converting disciples, more focusing on getting the correct change back from a purchase, getting the correct order at a restaurant, getting deliveries to the correct address, you get it. Value for value. You don't support incompetence any more than her, she just didn't stop because the culprit belonged to a Union or worked for the Government. She wrote some great reads. For a self proclaimed atheist, she got some important stuff right. My market is a direct relationship with my customers, no middlemen or go betweens. In it's own way it usually works out right, two parties coming to a plain agreement. Much less stress that way, no false promises or assumptions. We need Government to maintain the playing field and to establish Justice, Impartial Justice, our disagreement comes in size, function, scope, there are things government should stay out of. getting someone a start or a helping hand, as opposed to redistribution of wealth, a reward for doing nothing to better yourself or your circumstance. Show something for the time and money invested. People are not inherently because they achieve or succeed in what they do. It is horrible that we treat each other so. Method, Intent, are more relevant factors than worth. These teachings are anti federalist, anti free market, anti industrial revolution. We need not apologize to the world for having indoor plumbing and flush toilets. The rational is corrupted and self destructive.

Ayn Rand's rationality was always very irrational. Markets do not get things right or wrong. Markets have no invisible hand. Markets are systems meant to be regulated if we are to survive as a society.

How we regulate and when we regulate are the questions, not should we regulate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.

I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.

I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.

I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.

I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.

I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.

We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."

*Steps off soap box*

Thanks for listening.

ROFLMNAO... Aren't Progressives a GAS?

The Peanut Gallery is approaching a quorum

 

[Shadow]

then there is the simple fact that many people in this world are complete idiots and actually think what they believe is true no matter what the facts, evidence and logic says

This statement is very ironic coming from you.