OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[Anonymous]

Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.[/quote]

Pri: Pure strawman? Do you understand what a strawman is? That’s where I construct a false argument, attribute it to you, and ask you to defend it. I didn’t do that. I took what you wrote and, more importantly the implications therein, and responded.

Sorry, but those were your words, not mine. And, I note that you didn’t respond at all, but fell back on the “strawman” retort in order not to do so.

You have been ducking solid responses and have instead come back time and again with either memetic arguments or a false equivalence (If One Doesn’t Believe A, One MUST Believe B, i.e. if I don’t agree with the president with “the funny sounding name”, I must be a Tea-vangelical nutbag).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.[/quote]

Pri: Pure strawman? Do you understand what a strawman is? That’s where I construct a false argument, attribute it to you, and ask you to defend it. I didn’t do that. I took what you wrote and, more importantly the implications therein, and responded.

Sorry, but those were your words, not mine. And, I note that you didn’t respond at all, but fell back on the “strawman” retort in order not to do so.

You have been ducking solid responses and have instead come back time and again with either memetic arguments or a false equivalence (If One Doesn’t Believe A, One MUST Believe B, i.e. if I don’t agree with the president with “the funny sounding name”, I must be a Tea-vangelical nutbag).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.[/quote]

Pri: Pure strawman? Do you understand what a strawman is? That’s where I construct a false argument, attribute it to you, and ask you to defend it. I didn’t do that. I took what you wrote and, more importantly the implications therein, and responded.

Sorry, but those were your words, not mine. And, I note that you didn’t respond at all, but fell back on the “strawman” retort in order not to do so.

You have been ducking solid responses and have instead come back time and again with either memetic arguments or a false equivalence (If One Doesn’t Believe A, One MUST Believe B, i.e. if I don’t agree with the president with “the funny sounding name”, I must be a Tea-vangelical nutbag).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.[/quote]

Pri: Pure strawman? Do you understand what a strawman is? That’s where I construct a false argument, attribute it to you, and ask you to defend it. I didn’t do that. I took what you wrote and, more importantly the implications therein, and responded.

Sorry, but those were your words, not mine. And, I note that you didn’t respond at all, but fell back on the “strawman” retort in order not to do so.

You have been ducking solid responses and have instead come back time and again with either memetic arguments or a false equivalence (If One Doesn’t Believe A, One MUST Believe B, i.e. if I don’t agree with the president with “the funny sounding name”, I must be a Tea-vangelical nutbag).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, nobody is claiming that anybody should be banned from running from office. You know this, and your response was pure strawman.

Krugman’s point is well articulated and I’m sure you understand it, even if you refuse to accept it.

Eaves certainly gets it, and she is absolutely correct in her assesment of how serious the problem is.[/quote]

Pri: Pure strawman? Do you understand what a strawman is? That’s where I construct a false argument, attribute it to you, and ask you to defend it. I didn’t do that. I took what you wrote and, more importantly the implications therein, and responded.

Sorry, but those were your words, not mine. And, I note that you didn’t respond at all, but fell back on the “strawman” retort in order not to do so.

You have been ducking solid responses and have instead come back time and again with either memetic arguments or a false equivalence (If One Doesn’t Believe A, One MUST Believe B, i.e. if I don’t agree with the president with “the funny sounding name”, I must be a Tea-vangelical nutbag).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Dude. When are we gonna spool up some Marxian dialectic here?

I want to discuss the conflict between dialectical materialism and “pure” Marxism (that is, Marxism uncorrupted by the totalitarian influences of Stalin and Mao).

Kidding aside, we are entering a revolutionary period (from a socio-political vantage) here. I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

I believe that the events of 1968 and 1989 are going to pale in comparison to this. This will be truly epic and epochal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Dude. When are we gonna spool up some Marxian dialectic here?

I want to discuss the conflict between dialectical materialism and “pure” Marxism (that is, Marxism uncorrupted by the totalitarian influences of Stalin and Mao).

Kidding aside, we are entering a revolutionary period (from a socio-political vantage) here. I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

I believe that the events of 1968 and 1989 are going to pale in comparison to this. This will be truly epic and epochal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Dude. When are we gonna spool up some Marxian dialectic here?

I want to discuss the conflict between dialectical materialism and “pure” Marxism (that is, Marxism uncorrupted by the totalitarian influences of Stalin and Mao).

Kidding aside, we are entering a revolutionary period (from a socio-political vantage) here. I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

I believe that the events of 1968 and 1989 are going to pale in comparison to this. This will be truly epic and epochal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Dude. When are we gonna spool up some Marxian dialectic here?

I want to discuss the conflict between dialectical materialism and “pure” Marxism (that is, Marxism uncorrupted by the totalitarian influences of Stalin and Mao).

Kidding aside, we are entering a revolutionary period (from a socio-political vantage) here. I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

I believe that the events of 1968 and 1989 are going to pale in comparison to this. This will be truly epic and epochal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Dude. When are we gonna spool up some Marxian dialectic here?

I want to discuss the conflict between dialectical materialism and “pure” Marxism (that is, Marxism uncorrupted by the totalitarian influences of Stalin and Mao).

Kidding aside, we are entering a revolutionary period (from a socio-political vantage) here. I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

I believe that the events of 1968 and 1989 are going to pale in comparison to this. This will be truly epic and epochal.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

[/quote]

After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

The way I see it, Marxism is an explanation and a decent one. It’s not structural.

You want dialectic – well the right has a dialectic stating that there is two opposing forces 1: the debtors 2: the savers and this will be rectified via the destruction of the welfare state.

Marx would spin this on it’s head and say that is a false dialectic set up by the monied elite. In reality the destruction of the welfare state will show the true nature of the class system and be rectified another way.

But, I agree, the welfare state as we know it is going to get destroyed

Though, agree with the marxian dialectic

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

[/quote]

After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

The way I see it, Marxism is an explanation and a decent one. It’s not structural.

You want dialectic – well the right has a dialectic stating that there is two opposing forces 1: the debtors 2: the savers and this will be rectified via the destruction of the welfare state.

Marx would spin this on it’s head and say that is a false dialectic set up by the monied elite. In reality the destruction of the welfare state will show the true nature of the class system and be rectified another way.

But, I agree, the welfare state as we know it is going to get destroyed

Though, agree with the marxian dialectic

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

[/quote]

After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

The way I see it, Marxism is an explanation and a decent one. It’s not structural.

You want dialectic – well the right has a dialectic stating that there is two opposing forces 1: the debtors 2: the savers and this will be rectified via the destruction of the welfare state.

Marx would spin this on it’s head and say that is a false dialectic set up by the monied elite. In reality the destruction of the welfare state will show the true nature of the class system and be rectified another way.

But, I agree, the welfare state as we know it is going to get destroyed

Though, agree with the marxian dialectic

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think we are about to see the entire societal construct, especially the post-WWII welfare state as epitomized by the Eurozone, get swept away.

[/quote]

After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

The way I see it, Marxism is an explanation and a decent one. It’s not structural.

You want dialectic – well the right has a dialectic stating that there is two opposing forces 1: the debtors 2: the savers and this will be rectified via the destruction of the welfare state.

Marx would spin this on it’s head and say that is a false dialectic set up by the monied elite. In reality the destruction of the welfare state will show the true nature of the class system and be rectified another way.

But, I agree, the welfare state as we know it is going to get destroyed

Though, agree with the marxian dialectic

[Author]

Posts