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

[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

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sorry, but those were your words, not mine.[/quote]

Can you help me out and cite the post where I said people should be banned from running for office? I do see where you attributed it to me, I just don’t see where I said it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sorry, but those were your words, not mine.[/quote]

Can you help me out and cite the post where I said people should be banned from running for office? I do see where you attributed it to me, I just don’t see where I said it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sorry, but those were your words, not mine.[/quote]

Can you help me out and cite the post where I said people should be banned from running for office? I do see where you attributed it to me, I just don’t see where I said it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sorry, but those were your words, not mine.[/quote]

Can you help me out and cite the post where I said people should be banned from running for office? I do see where you attributed it to me, I just don’t see where I said it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sorry, but those were your words, not mine.[/quote]

Can you help me out and cite the post where I said people should be banned from running for office? I do see where you attributed it to me, I just don’t see where I said it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.

(BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.)

But seriously I agree with what you are saying, and it’s frustrating.

Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.

It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Pri: Okay, I’ll play. Shown above is your thread, in its entirety and untouched in any way.

Starting from the top:

1) Reference to the “left elite” marking a clear contention that the left is more elite and better educated. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

2) Reference to “real Americans”, followed by the aside that “English was the language Jesus used to write the Constitution”, marking a clear delineation from Comment 1, wherein the “left” was identified as “elite” and “real Americans” were identified with the “right”, with the right being made up of ignorant, overly religious ideologues. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

3) Reference made to Paul Krugman’s “liberalism”, again establishing not only Krugman’s leanings, but his inferred superiority of the above “left elite”. As with Comments 1 and 2, this is presented snidely, but with the goal of preventing an honest rejoinder, since it is presented as a joke. This is one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks going, in that it allows an author to make a point, but then fall back on “it is comedy” (much akin to Jon Stewart’s standard fallback when confronted for his lack of objectivity when “reporting” the “news”). In this instance, I did NOT question the contents of Krugman’s article, despite your contention to the contrary, and thus did I confront you with the strawman accusation.

4) Reference made to “extreme bullshit”, which clearly implies that certain points of view or politics are “correct”, whilst others are not. This clearly misses the point of both representative democracy AND objective journalism, in that the latter’s mandate is to present ALL points of view equally and allow the READER to make up his/her mind as to the best course of action. An autocratic position, such as that espoused by John Kerry when confronting the press (“Please stop paying attention to the Tea Party”) is clearly contrary to this position, in that it demands complete control and removes the right of the informed to make their own decisions. Your support of the autocratic position is further augmented by YOUR use of the word “equal” (YOUR quotes added for emphasis), thus denoting your derision for the notion of equality, especially as it relates to people like Christine O’Donnell (reference to which follows immediately in your post). Your mention of Christine O’Donnell, right after your use of “equal” and “extreme bullshit” (quotes mine) indicates not only your position, but your contempt for those not “qualified” to run for elected office (an honest inference based on YOUR words).

You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.

(BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.)

But seriously I agree with what you are saying, and it’s frustrating.

Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.

It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Pri: Okay, I’ll play. Shown above is your thread, in its entirety and untouched in any way.

Starting from the top:

1) Reference to the “left elite” marking a clear contention that the left is more elite and better educated. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

2) Reference to “real Americans”, followed by the aside that “English was the language Jesus used to write the Constitution”, marking a clear delineation from Comment 1, wherein the “left” was identified as “elite” and “real Americans” were identified with the “right”, with the right being made up of ignorant, overly religious ideologues. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

3) Reference made to Paul Krugman’s “liberalism”, again establishing not only Krugman’s leanings, but his inferred superiority of the above “left elite”. As with Comments 1 and 2, this is presented snidely, but with the goal of preventing an honest rejoinder, since it is presented as a joke. This is one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks going, in that it allows an author to make a point, but then fall back on “it is comedy” (much akin to Jon Stewart’s standard fallback when confronted for his lack of objectivity when “reporting” the “news”). In this instance, I did NOT question the contents of Krugman’s article, despite your contention to the contrary, and thus did I confront you with the strawman accusation.

4) Reference made to “extreme bullshit”, which clearly implies that certain points of view or politics are “correct”, whilst others are not. This clearly misses the point of both representative democracy AND objective journalism, in that the latter’s mandate is to present ALL points of view equally and allow the READER to make up his/her mind as to the best course of action. An autocratic position, such as that espoused by John Kerry when confronting the press (“Please stop paying attention to the Tea Party”) is clearly contrary to this position, in that it demands complete control and removes the right of the informed to make their own decisions. Your support of the autocratic position is further augmented by YOUR use of the word “equal” (YOUR quotes added for emphasis), thus denoting your derision for the notion of equality, especially as it relates to people like Christine O’Donnell (reference to which follows immediately in your post). Your mention of Christine O’Donnell, right after your use of “equal” and “extreme bullshit” (quotes mine) indicates not only your position, but your contempt for those not “qualified” to run for elected office (an honest inference based on YOUR words).

You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.

(BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.)

But seriously I agree with what you are saying, and it’s frustrating.

Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.

It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Pri: Okay, I’ll play. Shown above is your thread, in its entirety and untouched in any way.

Starting from the top:

1) Reference to the “left elite” marking a clear contention that the left is more elite and better educated. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

2) Reference to “real Americans”, followed by the aside that “English was the language Jesus used to write the Constitution”, marking a clear delineation from Comment 1, wherein the “left” was identified as “elite” and “real Americans” were identified with the “right”, with the right being made up of ignorant, overly religious ideologues. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

3) Reference made to Paul Krugman’s “liberalism”, again establishing not only Krugman’s leanings, but his inferred superiority of the above “left elite”. As with Comments 1 and 2, this is presented snidely, but with the goal of preventing an honest rejoinder, since it is presented as a joke. This is one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks going, in that it allows an author to make a point, but then fall back on “it is comedy” (much akin to Jon Stewart’s standard fallback when confronted for his lack of objectivity when “reporting” the “news”). In this instance, I did NOT question the contents of Krugman’s article, despite your contention to the contrary, and thus did I confront you with the strawman accusation.

4) Reference made to “extreme bullshit”, which clearly implies that certain points of view or politics are “correct”, whilst others are not. This clearly misses the point of both representative democracy AND objective journalism, in that the latter’s mandate is to present ALL points of view equally and allow the READER to make up his/her mind as to the best course of action. An autocratic position, such as that espoused by John Kerry when confronting the press (“Please stop paying attention to the Tea Party”) is clearly contrary to this position, in that it demands complete control and removes the right of the informed to make their own decisions. Your support of the autocratic position is further augmented by YOUR use of the word “equal” (YOUR quotes added for emphasis), thus denoting your derision for the notion of equality, especially as it relates to people like Christine O’Donnell (reference to which follows immediately in your post). Your mention of Christine O’Donnell, right after your use of “equal” and “extreme bullshit” (quotes mine) indicates not only your position, but your contempt for those not “qualified” to run for elected office (an honest inference based on YOUR words).

You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.

(BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.)

But seriously I agree with what you are saying, and it’s frustrating.

Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.

It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Pri: Okay, I’ll play. Shown above is your thread, in its entirety and untouched in any way.

Starting from the top:

1) Reference to the “left elite” marking a clear contention that the left is more elite and better educated. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

2) Reference to “real Americans”, followed by the aside that “English was the language Jesus used to write the Constitution”, marking a clear delineation from Comment 1, wherein the “left” was identified as “elite” and “real Americans” were identified with the “right”, with the right being made up of ignorant, overly religious ideologues. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

3) Reference made to Paul Krugman’s “liberalism”, again establishing not only Krugman’s leanings, but his inferred superiority of the above “left elite”. As with Comments 1 and 2, this is presented snidely, but with the goal of preventing an honest rejoinder, since it is presented as a joke. This is one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks going, in that it allows an author to make a point, but then fall back on “it is comedy” (much akin to Jon Stewart’s standard fallback when confronted for his lack of objectivity when “reporting” the “news”). In this instance, I did NOT question the contents of Krugman’s article, despite your contention to the contrary, and thus did I confront you with the strawman accusation.

4) Reference made to “extreme bullshit”, which clearly implies that certain points of view or politics are “correct”, whilst others are not. This clearly misses the point of both representative democracy AND objective journalism, in that the latter’s mandate is to present ALL points of view equally and allow the READER to make up his/her mind as to the best course of action. An autocratic position, such as that espoused by John Kerry when confronting the press (“Please stop paying attention to the Tea Party”) is clearly contrary to this position, in that it demands complete control and removes the right of the informed to make their own decisions. Your support of the autocratic position is further augmented by YOUR use of the word “equal” (YOUR quotes added for emphasis), thus denoting your derision for the notion of equality, especially as it relates to people like Christine O’Donnell (reference to which follows immediately in your post). Your mention of Christine O’Donnell, right after your use of “equal” and “extreme bullshit” (quotes mine) indicates not only your position, but your contempt for those not “qualified” to run for elected office (an honest inference based on YOUR words).

You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.

(BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.)

But seriously I agree with what you are saying, and it’s frustrating.

Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.

It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Pri: Okay, I’ll play. Shown above is your thread, in its entirety and untouched in any way.

Starting from the top:

1) Reference to the “left elite” marking a clear contention that the left is more elite and better educated. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

2) Reference to “real Americans”, followed by the aside that “English was the language Jesus used to write the Constitution”, marking a clear delineation from Comment 1, wherein the “left” was identified as “elite” and “real Americans” were identified with the “right”, with the right being made up of ignorant, overly religious ideologues. Presented as a comedic aside to attempt to deflect any later attempts to assail this point.

3) Reference made to Paul Krugman’s “liberalism”, again establishing not only Krugman’s leanings, but his inferred superiority of the above “left elite”. As with Comments 1 and 2, this is presented snidely, but with the goal of preventing an honest rejoinder, since it is presented as a joke. This is one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks going, in that it allows an author to make a point, but then fall back on “it is comedy” (much akin to Jon Stewart’s standard fallback when confronted for his lack of objectivity when “reporting” the “news”). In this instance, I did NOT question the contents of Krugman’s article, despite your contention to the contrary, and thus did I confront you with the strawman accusation.

4) Reference made to “extreme bullshit”, which clearly implies that certain points of view or politics are “correct”, whilst others are not. This clearly misses the point of both representative democracy AND objective journalism, in that the latter’s mandate is to present ALL points of view equally and allow the READER to make up his/her mind as to the best course of action. An autocratic position, such as that espoused by John Kerry when confronting the press (“Please stop paying attention to the Tea Party”) is clearly contrary to this position, in that it demands complete control and removes the right of the informed to make their own decisions. Your support of the autocratic position is further augmented by YOUR use of the word “equal” (YOUR quotes added for emphasis), thus denoting your derision for the notion of equality, especially as it relates to people like Christine O’Donnell (reference to which follows immediately in your post). Your mention of Christine O’Donnell, right after your use of “equal” and “extreme bullshit” (quotes mine) indicates not only your position, but your contempt for those not “qualified” to run for elected office (an honest inference based on YOUR words).

You want me to continue, or is this enough for you?

[briansd1]

[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]

And what is to replace it?

Will that prove beneficial to the average American?

As eaves pointed out before, the period after WWII saw millions of Americans entering the middle-class and acquiring an education for the first time ever. America was a young country with great social mobility (at least for Whites).

Generations later, people are more entrenched in their social classes. Institutions have become old and stagnant and mainly concerned with perpetuating their power.

If the social safety net is dismantled, will we see a return to the social stratification of the 1920s?

[quote=Arraya]
After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

[/quote]

And what will the revolution bring us? There are no guarantees that the revolutionaries will be able to lead. In most likelihood, they won’t. I personally don’t want a bunch of proletarians without education or understanding of economics running the world.

What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Why are you so eager for a collapse of the exiting order when you are unsure of the future?

I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.

[briansd1]

[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]

And what is to replace it?

Will that prove beneficial to the average American?

As eaves pointed out before, the period after WWII saw millions of Americans entering the middle-class and acquiring an education for the first time ever. America was a young country with great social mobility (at least for Whites).

Generations later, people are more entrenched in their social classes. Institutions have become old and stagnant and mainly concerned with perpetuating their power.

If the social safety net is dismantled, will we see a return to the social stratification of the 1920s?

[quote=Arraya]
After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

[/quote]

And what will the revolution bring us? There are no guarantees that the revolutionaries will be able to lead. In most likelihood, they won’t. I personally don’t want a bunch of proletarians without education or understanding of economics running the world.

What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Why are you so eager for a collapse of the exiting order when you are unsure of the future?

I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.

[briansd1]

[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]

And what is to replace it?

Will that prove beneficial to the average American?

As eaves pointed out before, the period after WWII saw millions of Americans entering the middle-class and acquiring an education for the first time ever. America was a young country with great social mobility (at least for Whites).

Generations later, people are more entrenched in their social classes. Institutions have become old and stagnant and mainly concerned with perpetuating their power.

If the social safety net is dismantled, will we see a return to the social stratification of the 1920s?

[quote=Arraya]
After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

[/quote]

And what will the revolution bring us? There are no guarantees that the revolutionaries will be able to lead. In most likelihood, they won’t. I personally don’t want a bunch of proletarians without education or understanding of economics running the world.

What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Why are you so eager for a collapse of the exiting order when you are unsure of the future?

I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.

[briansd1]

[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]

And what is to replace it?

Will that prove beneficial to the average American?

As eaves pointed out before, the period after WWII saw millions of Americans entering the middle-class and acquiring an education for the first time ever. America was a young country with great social mobility (at least for Whites).

Generations later, people are more entrenched in their social classes. Institutions have become old and stagnant and mainly concerned with perpetuating their power.

If the social safety net is dismantled, will we see a return to the social stratification of the 1920s?

[quote=Arraya]
After that is done – then the revolution comes:)

[/quote]

And what will the revolution bring us? There are no guarantees that the revolutionaries will be able to lead. In most likelihood, they won’t. I personally don’t want a bunch of proletarians without education or understanding of economics running the world.

What about the transition period? Did you consider that there will be a period of untold suffering and poverty?

Why are you so eager for a collapse of the exiting order when you are unsure of the future?

I feel more comfortable with Mend it, don’t end it.

[Author]

Posts