Stigmatizing The Enemy Within

[JakeStarkey]

Then, Frank, you need to stand up as a real writer of note instead of ths stuff you throw up.

I want to see if you have solid merit for how you believe.

Jake, I throw up better stuff than any of your Media Matter friends

Never, ever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then, Frank, you need to stand up as a real writer of note instead of ths stuff you throw up.

I want to see if you have solid merit for how you believe.

Jake, I throw up better stuff than any of your Media Matter friends

Never, ever.

Yeah, Jake. On a daily basis too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then, Frank, you need to stand up as a real writer of note instead of ths stuff you throw up.

I want to see if you have solid merit for how you believe.

Jake, I throw up better stuff than any of your Media Matter friends

Never, ever.

Yeah, Jake. On a daily basis too.

Nope, never ever. You merely spout out and then pout.

But other than diming each other, I would really like to see an Op Ed that you have written.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then, Frank, you need to stand up as a real writer of note instead of ths stuff you throw up.

I want to see if you have solid merit for how you believe.

Jake, I throw up better stuff than any of your Media Matter friends

Never, ever.

Yeah, Jake. On a daily basis too.

Nope, never ever. You merely spout out and then pout.

But other than diming each other, I would really like to see an Op Ed that you have written.

Yeah, maybe posthumously.

It would be the easiest thing to find my real name and identity with even one of them

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Then, Frank, you need to stand up as a real writer of note instead of ths stuff you throw up.

I want to see if you have solid merit for how you believe.

Is there a thread asking Frank, to stand up as a real writer of note?

 

[JakeStarkey]

He suggests that he writes elsewhere under his real name.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

He suggests that he writes elsewhere under his real name.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

CrusaderFrank's real name being Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen, I've read some of his stuff. Fabulous stuff.

I believe CF should have signed up under the screen name of Baron von Frank.

The Complex Question: The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., "Just answer me 'yes' or 'no': Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos. A counterpart of Either/Or Reasoning.
Master List of Logical Fallacies​

 

[Picaro]

A timely message written by one of our most prominent Founders is appropriate at the moment:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

.. followed by this dead on accurate observation of PC Nazism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence, be it left or right wing lunacy:

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry

 

[Picaro]

As for selectively citing history for propaganda and spin purposes, it is necessary to indulge in lying by omission in order to paint one side as somehow more evil than the other. This writer has an excellent point re revising history to suit a point of view over just accuracy and factual recording:

Pre-colonial era was no democratic paradise, our histories are records of brutal tyranny

Uhuru’s narrative was a rehearsal of the official view of African history crafted by nationalism. According to this rendition, the pre-colonial era was a democratic paradise where various African communities lived harmoniously with each other, a state of affairs that was disrupted by an oppressive colonial occupation. After the defeat of colonialism, the story goes, Africa reclaimed its democratic traditions.

This idealistic retelling of African history is now official, documented in school history books and rehearsed during the marking of national days. The truth, however, is a lot more inconvenient for both our cultural nationalists and those who hold power, for the common denominator in all three historical eras — pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial — is brutal tyranny.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

A timely message written by one of our most prominent Founders is appropriate at the moment:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

.. followed by this dead on accurate observation of PC Nazism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence, be it left or right wing lunacy:

the source of the Jefferson quote -- too bad it does not support what you think he is talking about

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

As for selectively citing history for propaganda and spin purposes, it is necessary to indulge in lying by omission in order to paint one side as somehow more evil than the other. This writer has an excellent point re revising history to suit a point of view over just accuracy and factual recording:

Pre-colonial era was no democratic paradise, our histories are records of brutal tyranny

What is amusing about this one is, the pre colonial and post colonial eras never sought to be democratic, so calling them non democratic amounts to what?

 

[Picaro]

A timely message written by one of our most prominent Founders is appropriate at the moment:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

.. followed by this dead on accurate observation of PC Nazism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence, be it left or right wing lunacy:

the source of the Jefferson quote -- too bad it does not support what you think he is talking about

Actually it does; he's citing the general principle behind his thoughts on that particular issue. That general principle is one followed by virtually every culture and society in history in one form or another, i.e. he's stating the obvious. I say 'virtually' on the remote chance there might be one somewhere who didn't follow that principle I'm not aware of.

 

[Picaro]

As for selectively citing history for propaganda and spin purposes, it is necessary to indulge in lying by omission in order to paint one side as somehow more evil than the other. This writer has an excellent point re revising history to suit a point of view over just accuracy and factual recording:

Pre-colonial era was no democratic paradise, our histories are records of brutal tyranny

What is amusing about this one is, the pre colonial and post colonial eras never sought to be democratic, so calling them non democratic amounts to what?

Maybe reading the article linked to would help you understand what he is talking about. Most modern dictatorships will claim they are 'democratic' and paint a rosey history for whatever reason, propaganda mostly. It's not like the U.S.'s Democratic Party is going to change their Party name to something far more accurate and descriptive of their current ideology held since the early 1980's, like Racist Neo-Fascist Vermin Party or anything, for instance.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

A timely message written by one of our most prominent Founders is appropriate at the moment:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

.. followed by this dead on accurate observation of PC Nazism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence, be it left or right wing lunacy:

the source of the Jefferson quote -- too bad it does not support what you think he is talking about

Actually it does; he's citing the general principle behind his thoughts on that particular issue. That general principle is one followed by virtually every culture and society in history in one form or another, i.e. he's stating the obvious. I say 'virtually' on the remote chance there might be one somewhere who didn't follow that principle I'm not aware of.

Did you follow the link provided? It has the quote in the full context of the letter. Jefferson is citing a principle, that I am unsure you are. You are using a quote in the way Trump has used quotes, when he was quoting Neo Nazis or White Supremacists.

Jefferson is always speaking to the agricultural society that is slowly disappearing. Jefferson is usually as out of touch with reality as most who would quote him -- even, ans especially those who would quote him out of context.

But if you want to continue, you Picaro wrote "his thoughts on that particular issue" so I would ask, what exactly do you believe the 'particular issue' was, that Jefferson was discussing?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

As for selectively citing history for propaganda and spin purposes, it is necessary to indulge in lying by omission in order to paint one side as somehow more evil than the other. This writer has an excellent point re revising history to suit a point of view over just accuracy and factual recording:

Pre-colonial era was no democratic paradise, our histories are records of brutal tyranny

What is amusing about this one is, the pre colonial and post colonial eras never sought to be democratic, so calling them non democratic amounts to what?

Maybe reading the article linked to would help you understand what he is talking about. Most modern dictatorships will claim they are 'democratic' and paint a rosey history for whatever reason, propaganda mostly. It's not like the U.S.'s Democratic Party is going to change their Party name to something far more accurate and descriptive of their current ideology held since the early 1980's, like Racist Neo-Fascist Vermin Party or anything, for instance.

Rather than read the linked to article, I asked you to read about the principle and particular issue you claim Jefferson was writing about. As I wrote in my previous post, if you want to continue this conversation I ask "what exactly do you believe the 'particular issue' was, that Jefferson was discussing?"

 

[Picaro]

Did you follow the link provided? It has the quote in the full context of the letter. Jefferson is citing a principle, that I am unsure you are. You are using a quote in the way Trump has used quotes, when he was quoting Neo Nazis or White Supremacists.

Don't need to follow the link, I've had the collection of Jefferson's letters on bookshelf, for the last three decades. Don't need some Two Minute Google Scholar to pretend to school me on Jefferson, bu thanks for your amateurish 'concern'. The fact you're unsure' about it even with it right in front of you tells me you either can't read well or just don't like the quote, nothing that need interest me, since it just makes you look more and more foolish in your attempt being 'clever' and failing.

Jefferson is always speaking to the agricultural society that is slowly disappearing. Jefferson is usually as out of touch with reality as most who would quote him -- even, ans especially those who would quote him out of context.

You don't understand context, or Jefferson for that matter. I'm well aware of Jefferson's being influenced by Bolingbrokism, but that's nothing you would know about, so no point in you trying to fake it for us.

But if you want to continue, you Picaro wrote "his thoughts on that particular issue" so I would ask, what exactly do you believe the 'particular issue' was, that Jefferson was discussing?

lol you didn't read your own link, and now you've boxed yourself in. You're done, and just playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' now. I answered your question correctly and accurately a long time ago. Whether you're happy with it or not is of no concern. Keep looking silly, as it seems to be all you can do.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Did you follow the link provided? It has the quote in the full context of the letter. Jefferson is citing a principle, that I am unsure you are. You are using a quote in the way Trump has used quotes, when he was quoting Neo Nazis or White Supremacists.

Don't need to follow the link, I've had the collection of Jefferson's letters on bookshelf, for the last three decades. Don't need some Two Minute Google Scholar to pretend to school me on Jefferson, bu thanks for your amateurish 'concern'. The fact you're unsure' about it even with it right in front of you tells me you either can't read well or just don't like the quote, nothing that need interest me, since it just makes you look more and more foolish in your attempt being 'clever' and failing.

Jefferson is always speaking to the agricultural society that is slowly disappearing. Jefferson is usually as out of touch with reality as most who would quote him -- even, ans especially those who would quote him out of context.

You don't understand context, or Jefferson for that matter. I'm well aware of Jefferson's being influenced by Bolingbrokism, but that's nothing you would know about, so no point in you trying to fake it for us.

But if you want to continue, you Picaro wrote "his thoughts on that particular issue" so I would ask, what exactly do you believe the 'particular issue' was, that Jefferson was discussing?

lol you didn't read your own link, and now you've boxed yourself in. You're done, and just playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' now. I answered your question correctly and accurately a long time ago. Whether you're happy with it or not is of no concern. Keep looking silly, as it seems to be all you can do.

Rather than read the linked to article, I asked you to read about the principle and particular issue you claim Jefferson was writing about. As I wrote in my previous post, if you want to continue this conversation I ask "what exactly do you believe the 'particular issue' was, that Jefferson was discussing?"

Where do you people come from? Is there a web site or club you all meet at?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That’s why we have to reject any attempt to stigmatize Muslim-Americans, and their enormous contributions to our country and our way of life...Such attempts are contrary to our character, to our values, and to our history as a nation built around the idea of religious freedom. It’s also counterproductive...It plays right into the hands of terrorists who want to turn us against one another.

The president is, of course, correct – and those with an unwarranted animosity toward Muslims are wrong.

 

[Maggdy]

In my opinion it is possible: the problem occurs if a limited authoritarian fanatics gets the right to write laws for the whole country.

Just one example, Hungary's prime minister and some of his ideas, this is do reflect his simple and limited world of thought.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Interview with BILD Zeitung (Germany)

BILD:
"Does one of the dangers you are warning about include “Islamisation”?"

PM of Hungary, Viktor Orbán:
"I personally have great respect for Islam. Without Islamic philosophy, part of the world would have fallen prey to barbarism centuries ago. But once again, we mustn’t fool ourselves: immigration would lead to a majority Muslim population in Europe within the foreseeable future. If Europe allows cultures to compete, then the Christians will find themselves on the losing side. These are facts. The only way out for those who want to preserve Europe as a Christian culture is not to allow more and more Muslims into Europe. But this is something that Europe’s leading politicians are unwilling to talk about."

Or one other:
http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-...a-global-mass-migration-to-change-our-country

Mr. Orbán told them: "You are the defenders of our culture, lifestyle and sovereignty”.

My questions:
Really? The culture need with gun to protect? What the term "attack" explanation? Acceptable that, they with weapons threaten the unarmed and starving poor people?

 

[Picaro]

That’s why we have to reject any attempt to stigmatize Muslim-Americans, and their enormous contributions to our country and our way of life...Such attempts are contrary to our character, to our values, and to our history as a nation built around the idea of religious freedom. It’s also counterproductive...It plays right into the hands of terrorists who want to turn us against one another.

The president is, of course, correct – and those with an unwarranted animosity toward Muslims are wrong.

Fortunately there isn't hardly any 'unwarranted animosity' toward Islam; it's history is clear and obvious. Sane people don't worry about offending terrorists, any more than we should have worried about making Hitler and his Nazis or the Japanese 'angry with us and playing into their hands'. It's a ridiculous and idiotic premise, made by a 'President' who just agreed to nuclear arm a nation of insane Mullahs who routinely announce they are going to commit genocide aganst one of our allies.