Animal MSNBC doubles down on stupid

[Quantum Windbag]

Which explains why you, as a self declared liberal who agrees with the founders of this country, are not outraged by the fact that people are being punished for expressing negative opinions of some groups but not others.

As victimhood tantrums go, that's somewhat boring. You'll need to inject some more specific and detailed kookery into your victimhood tantrums if you want more of that attention that you so badly crave.

Which is easily explained by the fact that it had nothing to do with being a ******* victim, asshole. I don't take the victim status, I get the **** up in your face and make you out to be an asshole whenever you try to put me down, just like I did when I got up in Pogo's face with this post. The proof of how successful I was is that he now wants me to prove he didn't say something.

Any other stupid attempts to make yourself look enlightened, oh he who is flabbergasted by the truth?

 

[mamooth]

Given how concerned I am that you might stroke out, I'll have to back off on the mockery of your victimhood tantrums.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In that sense "progressive" could mean "one who approves of progress". Who doesn't.

I'll say again until it sinks in -- without a definition it's still a meaningless hack term.

This is off the topic anyway.

No it isn't.
We are talking about the book Animal Farm which is a satire on Stalin's regime.
It is the same basic ideology as the lefties of the Democrat party (Marxism).

Liberal-
political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.

Stalin's & Linin's political platform-
Lenin and Stalin as Mass Leaders

As masters of Marxian theory, Lenin and Stalin could develop their profound ability as political strategists. The Marxist method of analysis, enabling them to gauge accurately the relationship of classes and the general economic and political forces at work in a given situation, equipped them to determine when, how and where the Party and the masses could strike the most effective blows.

Utter bullshit. Not a request, an observation of what you just did. Strawman in red.

Btw there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". I looked it up -- doesn't exist. But it does tell me where you buy your strawmen.
Your pseudo-definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism.

liberal (ˈlɪbərəl; ˈlɪbrəl)
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream.
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation.
7. (Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
8. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
ˈliberally adv ˈliberalness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

(via Freedic)

And FWIW HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so if you want to call him a liar Sean Hannity will be all over you.

If you are actually a liberal, and thus support individual freedom over government every single time, why do you keep asking "What are you deprived of?" whenever someone raises the issue of government regulations taking away liberty? Why do you support the government mandating safety regulations over individual choice?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ing-fda-to-ban-trans-fats-15.html#post8162109

If you always support individual freedom over government why do you support raising the minimum wage?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...crease-of-the-minimum-wage-3.html#post6928081

Is it because you aren't really a liberal, but that you are a person who supports government intervention in society with the goal of making life better for everyone, aka progressive?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She said Tyranny can come from Dictators, over reaching government, or corporations and wealthy individuals who run our country for their own benefit. She said this statement "confused them" because conservatives have been blinded by the self serving nonsense served up by today's pigs.

I think she nailed it right on the head. And these Republicans call HER "stupid"?

Or, put another way, Pigtards think she's the stupid one.

It confused you because you believe that free markets are evil and that government created monopolies are good. I call anyone that thinks a satire about Stalin is applicable to capitalism. In order to prove me wrong all you have to do is provide a single example of true capitalism leading to an iron lock on the supply of anything. It should be pretty easy given the fact that there is a totally unregulated market out there, if it were true.

Good luck.

 

[mamooth]

Nice sneaking in of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Using the same tactic, we can also declare True Communism never failed as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice sneaking in of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Using the same tactic, we can also declare True Communism never failed as well.

Do you think misrepresenting arguments directed at specific posters as logical fallacies makes you look clever?

 

[peach174]

In that sense "progressive" could mean "one who approves of progress". Who doesn't.

I'll say again until it sinks in -- without a definition it's still a meaningless hack term.

This is off the topic anyway.

No it isn't.
We are talking about the book Animal Farm which is a satire on Stalin's regime.
It is the same basic ideology as the lefties of the Democrat party (Marxism).

Liberal-
political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.

Stalin's & Linin's political platform-
Lenin and Stalin as Mass Leaders

As masters of Marxian theory, Lenin and Stalin could develop their profound ability as political strategists. The Marxist method of analysis, enabling them to gauge accurately the relationship of classes and the general economic and political forces at work in a given situation, equipped them to determine when, how and where the Party and the masses could strike the most effective blows.

Utter bullshit. Not a request, an observation of what you just did. Strawman in red.

Btw there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". I looked it up -- doesn't exist. But it does tell me where you buy your strawmen.
Your pseudo-definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism.

liberal (ˈlɪbərəl; ˈlɪbrəl)
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream.
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation.
7. (Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
8. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
ˈliberally adv ˈliberalness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

(via Freedic)

And FWIW HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so if you want to call him a liar Sean Hannity will be all over you.

Democrats Party
Our Party | Democrats.org

Advocating individual freedom. REALLY?

Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules

Everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share- basic classical Marxism ideology.

tolerant of other people- so long as you are not conservative.

abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream; Like I said- political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.


Yes Pogo liberals are totally ass backwards from what they used to be when this nation was founded.

 

[FJO]

Good god you are polluted by preconceptions... or possibly just polluted in the inebriation sense...

I suspect that you, Mamooth and I are the only interested parties here who actually DID watch the video, seeing as how all the others went into such excruciating detail on it. Anyway...

The talking head sez:
"Animal Farm is a useful cautionary tale warning of the corruption of concentrated power-- no matter in whose hands that power rests"

Do you disagree with that?

She also notes "we already live in a sort of oligarchy". Disagree with that?

You and some of the rest of us may disagree on who it is holding the puppet strings but that has nothing to do with "stupid", so getting your RDA of ad hom in before the thread even starts is poignantly ineffectual.

And it's an editorial anyway.

S... M... H....

Animal Farm is a specific warning against trusting assholes who claim to be looking out for the common guy but are really only looking to line their own pockets. That is not a broad based cautionary tale against concentrated power, it is a specific warning not to trust people who claim they care about your best interests after they wrest power away from someone else.

Agreed. And as noted above from the video quote, the TV talking head said the same thing.

So?



Easily done. You need but ask.

By their flags ye already know them:

Is that enough? Say the word.



No, you no stupid. Orwell stupid, you no stupid.

In fact, I can point to all sorts of idiots, including you, that always get upset when I, or anyone else, point out the little steps we are taking down the road to tyranny.

You keep saying that. Then I keep challenging you to prove it. Then you keep running away. Lather, rinse, repeat, yip yap.

So, please, keep posting here telling me how smart you are for seeing an imaginary oligarchy and how much it reminds you of the Stalinist revolution while simultaneously dismissing every single danger sign of tyranny that I, among others, point out. It makes you look so incredibly idiotic that I really don't have to do anything but point and laugh.

I made no reference to myself or how smart anybody is. You did that with your pointless ad hom obsession. On the contrary I don't see how it takes smarts to see the obvious. But I suppose given your challenges there is a threshold.

I made no reference to Stalin either. Silly me, I'm not locked into the rigid idea that an allegorical novel must apply only to one historical story and anything other application of the same moral is just something to go all over.

If you are mentioning those who were lovey-dovey with mass murderer Joseph Stalin, don't forget to mention Democrat icon, the liberal mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who called his bosom pal "Uncle Joe" and unleashed 40 years of Cold War by sucking Stalin ass.

 

[Pogo]

Animal Farm is a specific warning against trusting assholes who claim to be looking out for the common guy but are really only looking to line their own pockets. That is not a broad based cautionary tale against concentrated power, it is a specific warning not to trust people who claim they care about your best interests after they wrest power away from someone else.

Agreed. And as noted above from the video quote, the TV talking head said the same thing.

So?



Easily done. You need but ask.

By their flags ye already know them:

Is that enough? Say the word.



No, you no stupid. Orwell stupid, you no stupid.



You keep saying that. Then I keep challenging you to prove it. Then you keep running away. Lather, rinse, repeat, yip yap.

So, please, keep posting here telling me how smart you are for seeing an imaginary oligarchy and how much it reminds you of the Stalinist revolution while simultaneously dismissing every single danger sign of tyranny that I, among others, point out. It makes you look so incredibly idiotic that I really don't have to do anything but point and laugh.

I made no reference to myself or how smart anybody is. You did that with your pointless ad hom obsession. On the contrary I don't see how it takes smarts to see the obvious. But I suppose given your challenges there is a threshold.

I made no reference to Stalin either. Silly me, I'm not locked into the rigid idea that an allegorical novel must apply only to one historical story and anything other application of the same moral is just something to go all over.

OH NO, THE EVIL KOCH BROTHERS.

If you can't handle the answer, maybe you shouldn't pose the question. YA THINK?

Tell me again how you aren't an idiot who parrots the talking points of the Democrats and Harry Reid.

I think I may see your problem. "Guilt by association". I haven't even mentioned "Democrats" or "Harry Reid".

Do you mine your own Stupid, or do you hire undocumented workers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Agreed. And as noted above from the video quote, the TV talking head said the same thing.

So?



Easily done. You need but ask.

​

By their flags ye already know them:

​

Is that enough? Say the word.



No, you no stupid. Orwell stupid, you no stupid.



You keep saying that. Then I keep challenging you to prove it. Then you keep running away. Lather, rinse, repeat, yip yap.



I made no reference to myself or how smart anybody is. You did that with your pointless ad hom obsession. On the contrary I don't see how it takes smarts to see the obvious. But I suppose given your challenges there is a threshold.

I made no reference to Stalin either. Silly me, I'm not locked into the rigid idea that an allegorical novel must apply only to one historical story and anything other application of the same moral is just something to go all over.

OH NO, THE EVIL KOCH BROTHERS.

If you can't handle the answer, maybe you shouldn't pose the question. YA THINK?

The Koch brothers have gone out of their way to spend money in ways that actually makes it harder for them to do business, why the **** do you think Harry Reid hates them? If they are the best examples of people who are lining their own pockets at my expense you really got less than nothing.

But thanks for making my point for me, as usual.

I think I may see your problem. "Guilt by association". I haven't even mentioned "Democrats" or "Harry Reid".

Do you mine your own Stupid, or do you hire undocumented workers?

Yet you parrot Harry Reid's attack on the Koch brothers because, well...

Frankly, I have no idea, unless I happen to be right about you being a ******* hack.

 

[mamooth]

Nice sneaking in of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Using the same tactic, we can also declare True Communism never failed as well.

Do you think misrepresenting arguments directed at specific posters as logical fallacies makes you look clever?

I think you're remarkably thin-skinned. You don't take it at well at all whenever one of us mere mortals dares criticize your work. Don't worry, maybe I'll fall down and worship your brilliance next time. You never know.

So, when you're done screaming, explain for us what you mean by "True Capitalism", and why it's not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please also explain your rather peculiar argument that a work of literature can only be interpreted exactly in the way the author was thinking when he wrote it. Do you also believe, for example, that The Bible may not be interpreted in the context of any modern issues?

 

[Pogo]

Which explains why you, as a self declared liberal who agrees with the founders of this country, are not outraged by the fact that people are being punished for expressing negative opinions of some groups but not others.

Sigh.

As always, here comes your daily dose of Kryptonite:

Link to what? Your lack of outrage over something? Can you point to a single example of you ever being outraged about anything that didn't include someone claiming you said something, or didn't say something, which is a new one, on this board?

Didn't think so.

"Link to what"? What do you think??

What a sleazy weasel you are. And I hesitate to say 'weasel' since it's possible you may be legitimately dense enough that you don't see what you're doing. You made the claim I'm "not outraged", declaring in your narcissistic smugness that not only do you see what's in my heart but what's not in there as well. The level of blatant arrogance in that can't even be expressed in written language.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine. You'll need to comb through every one of my posts to find your own disproof, and even then you'll have only what I've posted here, which is in no way a basis for self-satisfied psychobabble about what's in somebody else's head. Remember to go every time you come across one of these.

But doing your research for you because you're too damned lazy to get off your ass and find a basis for your own point ain't my job. And the idea that other people "owe" you some kind of explanation for your own wackadoo strawmen displaying what His Smugness considers an approved level of outrage, assent, dissent or anything else, makes me want to puke in its bombastic self-absorbed egomania. What the **** are you, the Wizard of Emotions controlling the world? Who the **** died and made you Arrogant Arbiter of how other people must express themselves??

Izzat "outraged" enough for your pompous ass?

So again... link?

Authoritarians ... SMH

 

[Pogo]

I agree with you Pogo with true liberalism. But the Progressives who interchange using the words liberal and progressive at will, whenever each word starts to become a bad thing, are the ones who believe in, all are created equal based on, for the good of the collective.

I don't know who around here uses the term "progressive" except for Westwall, and he ain't the brightest bulb in the light tower. It sounds like what you're trying to describe is "leftists", not Liberals. Progressivism belongs to a world of a hundred years ago. Absent a cogent concise definition -- and I certainly couldn't get one out of Bustball -- it's just a meaningless pseudo-slur full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You don't know who uses the term progressive? How about the person you are replying to, idiot?

By the way, how is the term no longer applicable to this world? Considering that one of the goals of progressives in the 19th century was the removal of barriers to travel, and that the European Union is specifically modeled on those goals, how the **** can you say it doesn't exist anymore? What, exactly, would you call a woman who claims that it is racist not to look at skin color?

Is there a translation of this to Coherent?

Number one, you're not the poster I was addressing; yet again you've inserted your control freak nose into an exchange in progress. What the **** gives you the need to control what everybody else is doing? I won't even go on to numbers two and three since they're not only illegitimate but aimless.

Control freaks .... SMH...

 

[Pogo]

I plus others have been using the word, because Democrats have been using the word.
Liberals in the House-Raul Grijalva, Nancy Pelosi all of the liberals.
Congressional Progressive Caucus : Home

The liberals went back to the word progressive again.
Progressive Democrats of America - Tim Carpenter Memorial

In that sense "progressive" could mean "one who approves of progress". Who doesn't.

I'll say again until it sinks in -- without a definition it's still a meaningless hack term.

This is off the topic anyway.

Poor baby.

Your definition of liberal doesn't include anyone in the Democratic Party, or even you yourself, yet you continue to use it like it means something because you like the fact that it makes it seem like you care about freedom.

Nothing I posted in that exchange was about the Democratic Party, except to correct the name thereof. Once again you're jumping in to somebody else's conversation and inserting your own content. Seems to be all you do.

 

[Pogo]

Which explains why you, as a self declared liberal who agrees with the founders of this country, are not outraged by the fact that people are being punished for expressing negative opinions of some groups but not others.

As victimhood tantrums go, that's somewhat boring. You'll need to inject some more specific and detailed kookery into your victimhood tantrums if you want more of that attention that you so badly crave.

Which is easily explained by the fact that it had nothing to do with being a ******* victim, asshole. I don't take the victim status, I get the **** up in your face and make you out to be an asshole whenever you try to put me down, just like I did when I got up in Pogo's face with this post. The proof of how successful I was is that he now wants me to prove he didn't say something.

Any other stupid attempts to make yourself look enlightened, oh he who is flabbergasted by the truth?

And you define that as "success"...

The bubblicious babble-world of the self-absorbed...

 

[Pogo]

No it isn't.
We are talking about the book Animal Farm which is a satire on Stalin's regime.
It is the same basic ideology as the lefties of the Democrat party (Marxism).

Liberal-
political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.

Stalin's & Linin's political platform-
Lenin and Stalin as Mass Leaders

As masters of Marxian theory, Lenin and Stalin could develop their profound ability as political strategists. The Marxist method of analysis, enabling them to gauge accurately the relationship of classes and the general economic and political forces at work in a given situation, equipped them to determine when, how and where the Party and the masses could strike the most effective blows.

Utter bullshit. Not a request, an observation of what you just did. Strawman in red.

Btw there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". I looked it up -- doesn't exist. But it does tell me where you buy your strawmen.
Your pseudo-definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism.

liberal (ˈlɪbərəl; ˈlɪbrəl)
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream.
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation.
7. (Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
8. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
ˈliberally adv ˈliberalness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

(via Freedic)

And FWIW HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so if you want to call him a liar Sean Hannity will be all over you.

If you are actually a liberal, and thus support individual freedom over government every single time, why do you keep asking "What are you deprived of?" whenever someone raises the issue of government regulations taking away liberty? Why do you support the government mandating safety regulations over individual choice?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ing-fda-to-ban-trans-fats-15.html#post8162109

If you always support individual freedom over government why do you support raising the minimum wage?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...crease-of-the-minimum-wage-3.html#post6928081

Is it because you aren't really a liberal, but that you are a person who supports government intervention in society with the goal of making life better for everyone, aka progressive?

There is no "liberty" issue in the FDA thread. What, the "liberty" to sell food with poisons in it?

Again, I will not accept "progressive" without a definition. PERIOD.

And I haven't even been in the minimum wage thread (or any others on that topic). Once again you've pulled a sumption out of your ass instead of researching your own point. Now look where you are.

Nothing like "success" huh?

 

[Pogo]

No it isn't.
We are talking about the book Animal Farm which is a satire on Stalin's regime.
It is the same basic ideology as the lefties of the Democrat party (Marxism).

Liberal-
political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.

Stalin's & Linin's political platform-
Lenin and Stalin as Mass Leaders

As masters of Marxian theory, Lenin and Stalin could develop their profound ability as political strategists. The Marxist method of analysis, enabling them to gauge accurately the relationship of classes and the general economic and political forces at work in a given situation, equipped them to determine when, how and where the Party and the masses could strike the most effective blows.

Utter bullshit. Not a request, an observation of what you just did. Strawman in red.

Btw there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". I looked it up -- doesn't exist. But it does tell me where you buy your strawmen.
Your pseudo-definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism.

liberal (ˈlɪbərəl; ˈlɪbrəl)
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream.
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation.
7. (Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
8. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
ˈliberally adv ˈliberalness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

(via Freedic)

And FWIW HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so if you want to call him a liar Sean Hannity will be all over you.

Democrats Party
Our Party | Democrats.org

Advocating individual freedom. REALLY?

Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules

Everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share- basic classical Marxism ideology.

tolerant of other people- so long as you are not conservative.

abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream; Like I said- political reforms that extend and distribute wealth more evenly. generous: freely giving money.


Yes Pogo liberals are totally ass backwards from what they used to be when this nation was founded.

When did we shift to "Democrats"? I thought we were defining the terms Liberal and Progressive?

I'm sure you understand "Democrats" and "Republicans" are political parties (not ideologies) and the members of either one may include Liberals, conservatives, statists or libertarians which are ideologies (not political parties) - ?

And no, I do not and will not agree that an ipse dixit declaration that taking one such term and declaring "Liberal now means leftist" or "conservative now means racist" or "progressive now means whatever we want it to mean at the time" is legitimate definition. It's a demagoguery of demonization, it's destructive to discourse, and it belongs left behind back in the scrap heap of McCarthyism whence it came.

Sorry about the alliteration... it just worked out that way

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice sneaking in of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Using the same tactic, we can also declare True Communism never failed as well.

Do you think misrepresenting arguments directed at specific posters as logical fallacies makes you look clever?

I think you're remarkably thin-skinned.

Aww, did I hurt your fweelings?

You don't take it at well at all whenever one of us mere mortals dares criticize your work.

Criticize away, if you can. So far you haven't seen any of my actual work, all you have seen is my scorn, but feel free to pick something out I actually worked on and pick it apart, it should be educational.

For you.

Don't worry, maybe I'll fall down and worship your brilliance next time. You never know.

There wasn't anything particularly brilliant about my comment to Pogo, it was simply an attack on his posting style. But, please, keep telling me how brilliant you think I think I am.

So, when you're done screaming, explain for us what you mean by "True Capitalism", and why it's not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Capitalism as defined by economists, not as defined by idiots who post drivel on message boards. Roughly, that would be "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I defy you to show me how that is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Especially since you are going to be the one that is arguing for all the exceptions as you attempt to shoehorn all the various examples you can come up with into the actual definition.

In other words, you are going to be the one screaming about how the Scotch don't do things that way.

Please also explain your rather peculiar argument that a work of literature can only be interpreted exactly in the way the author was thinking when he wrote it.

Funny, I don't recall making that argument, mostly because works of literature are not written with the idea them being interpreted in a certain way. Writers tell stories, they don't set out to put hidden meanings into their work to confuse idiots who end up studying literature because they can't handle the real world. So, please, feel free to interpret any work of literature any way you like, it amuses the people who wrote them to no end.

I do, however, recall making the argument that Orwell deliberately wrote Animal Farm as something other than a work of literature. He had a specific goal, and he accomplished it, and pretending that you can reinterpret his work simply because you were born after him just makes you look pretentious.

Come to think of it, that is a pretty common trait among people who think literature has hidden interpretations.

Do you also believe, for example, that The Bible may not be interpreted in the context of any modern issues?

Gee, I must have missed the part where you became smart enough to actually be a smart ass.

Wait, I didn't, because that was pretty pathetic.

 

[Pogo]

Animal Farm is a specific warning against trusting assholes who claim to be looking out for the common guy but are really only looking to line their own pockets. That is not a broad based cautionary tale against concentrated power, it is a specific warning not to trust people who claim they care about your best interests after they wrest power away from someone else.

Agreed. And as noted above from the video quote, the TV talking head said the same thing.

So?



Easily done. You need but ask.

By their flags ye already know them:

Is that enough? Say the word.



No, you no stupid. Orwell stupid, you no stupid.



You keep saying that. Then I keep challenging you to prove it. Then you keep running away. Lather, rinse, repeat, yip yap.

So, please, keep posting here telling me how smart you are for seeing an imaginary oligarchy and how much it reminds you of the Stalinist revolution while simultaneously dismissing every single danger sign of tyranny that I, among others, point out. It makes you look so incredibly idiotic that I really don't have to do anything but point and laugh.

I made no reference to myself or how smart anybody is. You did that with your pointless ad hom obsession. On the contrary I don't see how it takes smarts to see the obvious. But I suppose given your challenges there is a threshold.

I made no reference to Stalin either. Silly me, I'm not locked into the rigid idea that an allegorical novel must apply only to one historical story and anything other application of the same moral is just something to go all over.

If you are mentioning those who were lovey-dovey with mass murderer Joseph Stalin, don't forget to mention Democrat icon, the liberal mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who called his bosom pal "Uncle Joe" and unleashed 40 years of Cold War by sucking Stalin ass.

The point wasn't "who was lovey-dovey with Stalin", nor was it his murders. It was answering the request "point to the idiots in your imaginary oligarchy who are talking about looking out for you while fighting a revolution that will give them all the power" -- and the pertinent party in that picture was Fred Koch, not Stalin. It just happened to be handy as I had just used that graphic elsewhere.

So that was the topic; if you'd like to plug FDR into that connection, be my jest. You might start with the MIC and make it an 'intelligent design' kind of story.

You can leave out the ass-sucking part though, thanks

 

[Pogo]

OMFG

--- Scottish --- never "Scotch".

Need eye bleach now...