[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You said, clearly, that Bush was a demagogue and the implication was that Obama, as a result, was not.[/quote]

No, that’s not what I said. It’s kinda hard to have a discussion when you keep attributing things to me things I didn’t say.

Initially, you had called Obama the worst kind of demagogue, and somewhere along the way you lectured me on understanding the meaning of words (amigo).

I agree with you that words count. And I thought (and still think) you were engaging in hyperbole and posted the definition of demagoguery which appears again for your reference:

[quote=I]
a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.[/quote]

I then said, just reading this definition, it fits the pattern of the previous administration. Much more so than the current one. That does not mean that I think that Bush was a demagogue (and for the record, I don’t).

But I do think that he and Cheney to a huge and really unhealthy degree used “impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes” and exploited that kind of talk for political purposes. You know, “Axis of Evil,” “You’re either with us or you’re against us,” that sort of thing. I could cite lots of examples but I don’t see the point.

I suspect you’re never going to agree with that assessment no matter what I cite, and the two of us probably aren’t going to agree on a lot politically. And the discussion is getting kind of meta- anyway. I dunno, maybe this is entertaining for the peanut gallery but frankly I find it rather tiresome and regrettable.

Shall we switch to discussing religion instead? 🙂

Cheers,

Hatfield

PS. Oh, and by the way, YOU mentioned Hitler. I did not. You lose, amigo. 🙂

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You said, clearly, that Bush was a demagogue and the implication was that Obama, as a result, was not.[/quote]

No, that’s not what I said. It’s kinda hard to have a discussion when you keep attributing things to me things I didn’t say.

Initially, you had called Obama the worst kind of demagogue, and somewhere along the way you lectured me on understanding the meaning of words (amigo).

I agree with you that words count. And I thought (and still think) you were engaging in hyperbole and posted the definition of demagoguery which appears again for your reference:

[quote=I]
a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.[/quote]

I then said, just reading this definition, it fits the pattern of the previous administration. Much more so than the current one. That does not mean that I think that Bush was a demagogue (and for the record, I don’t).

But I do think that he and Cheney to a huge and really unhealthy degree used “impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes” and exploited that kind of talk for political purposes. You know, “Axis of Evil,” “You’re either with us or you’re against us,” that sort of thing. I could cite lots of examples but I don’t see the point.

I suspect you’re never going to agree with that assessment no matter what I cite, and the two of us probably aren’t going to agree on a lot politically. And the discussion is getting kind of meta- anyway. I dunno, maybe this is entertaining for the peanut gallery but frankly I find it rather tiresome and regrettable.

Shall we switch to discussing religion instead? 🙂

Cheers,

Hatfield

PS. Oh, and by the way, YOU mentioned Hitler. I did not. You lose, amigo. 🙂

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You said, clearly, that Bush was a demagogue and the implication was that Obama, as a result, was not.[/quote]

No, that’s not what I said. It’s kinda hard to have a discussion when you keep attributing things to me things I didn’t say.

Initially, you had called Obama the worst kind of demagogue, and somewhere along the way you lectured me on understanding the meaning of words (amigo).

I agree with you that words count. And I thought (and still think) you were engaging in hyperbole and posted the definition of demagoguery which appears again for your reference:

[quote=I]
a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.[/quote]

I then said, just reading this definition, it fits the pattern of the previous administration. Much more so than the current one. That does not mean that I think that Bush was a demagogue (and for the record, I don’t).

But I do think that he and Cheney to a huge and really unhealthy degree used “impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes” and exploited that kind of talk for political purposes. You know, “Axis of Evil,” “You’re either with us or you’re against us,” that sort of thing. I could cite lots of examples but I don’t see the point.

I suspect you’re never going to agree with that assessment no matter what I cite, and the two of us probably aren’t going to agree on a lot politically. And the discussion is getting kind of meta- anyway. I dunno, maybe this is entertaining for the peanut gallery but frankly I find it rather tiresome and regrettable.

Shall we switch to discussing religion instead? 🙂

Cheers,

Hatfield

PS. Oh, and by the way, YOU mentioned Hitler. I did not. You lose, amigo. 🙂

[Hatfield]

BTW, “Hatfield” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield

He’s an interesting character, whether you look at him as a colorful con artist, or as a cautionary tale about being careful about what one asks for.

Don’t know that he was related at all to the Hatfields of the McCoy-hating variety.

[Hatfield]

BTW, “Hatfield” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield

He’s an interesting character, whether you look at him as a colorful con artist, or as a cautionary tale about being careful about what one asks for.

Don’t know that he was related at all to the Hatfields of the McCoy-hating variety.

[Hatfield]

BTW, “Hatfield” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield

He’s an interesting character, whether you look at him as a colorful con artist, or as a cautionary tale about being careful about what one asks for.

Don’t know that he was related at all to the Hatfields of the McCoy-hating variety.

[Hatfield]

BTW, “Hatfield” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield

He’s an interesting character, whether you look at him as a colorful con artist, or as a cautionary tale about being careful about what one asks for.

Don’t know that he was related at all to the Hatfields of the McCoy-hating variety.

[Hatfield]

BTW, “Hatfield” is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield

He’s an interesting character, whether you look at him as a colorful con artist, or as a cautionary tale about being careful about what one asks for.

Don’t know that he was related at all to the Hatfields of the McCoy-hating variety.

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hatfield: Ah, I get it. Because Bush Co. was guilty of demagoguery, Obama can’t be. Wait, do I have that right? That’s your argument, then?
[/quote]

No, that actually wasn’t my argument. That’s *your* argument, a straw man one. Whatever. I’m not thrilled with everything Obama is doing either, but I also don’t see the world in the boolean black-vs-white you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mindset that you seem to. So be it. We’re clearly never going to come to agreement.

Getting back to the original post (the discussion of the list), it seems like the author of that list is assuming a TSHTF scenario, why not just say so up front? Not much point in discussing real estate anymore, run for the hills!

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hatfield: Ah, I get it. Because Bush Co. was guilty of demagoguery, Obama can’t be. Wait, do I have that right? That’s your argument, then?
[/quote]

No, that actually wasn’t my argument. That’s *your* argument, a straw man one. Whatever. I’m not thrilled with everything Obama is doing either, but I also don’t see the world in the boolean black-vs-white you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mindset that you seem to. So be it. We’re clearly never going to come to agreement.

Getting back to the original post (the discussion of the list), it seems like the author of that list is assuming a TSHTF scenario, why not just say so up front? Not much point in discussing real estate anymore, run for the hills!

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hatfield: Ah, I get it. Because Bush Co. was guilty of demagoguery, Obama can’t be. Wait, do I have that right? That’s your argument, then?
[/quote]

No, that actually wasn’t my argument. That’s *your* argument, a straw man one. Whatever. I’m not thrilled with everything Obama is doing either, but I also don’t see the world in the boolean black-vs-white you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mindset that you seem to. So be it. We’re clearly never going to come to agreement.

Getting back to the original post (the discussion of the list), it seems like the author of that list is assuming a TSHTF scenario, why not just say so up front? Not much point in discussing real estate anymore, run for the hills!

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hatfield: Ah, I get it. Because Bush Co. was guilty of demagoguery, Obama can’t be. Wait, do I have that right? That’s your argument, then?
[/quote]

No, that actually wasn’t my argument. That’s *your* argument, a straw man one. Whatever. I’m not thrilled with everything Obama is doing either, but I also don’t see the world in the boolean black-vs-white you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mindset that you seem to. So be it. We’re clearly never going to come to agreement.

Getting back to the original post (the discussion of the list), it seems like the author of that list is assuming a TSHTF scenario, why not just say so up front? Not much point in discussing real estate anymore, run for the hills!

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hatfield: Ah, I get it. Because Bush Co. was guilty of demagoguery, Obama can’t be. Wait, do I have that right? That’s your argument, then?
[/quote]

No, that actually wasn’t my argument. That’s *your* argument, a straw man one. Whatever. I’m not thrilled with everything Obama is doing either, but I also don’t see the world in the boolean black-vs-white you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mindset that you seem to. So be it. We’re clearly never going to come to agreement.

Getting back to the original post (the discussion of the list), it seems like the author of that list is assuming a TSHTF scenario, why not just say so up front? Not much point in discussing real estate anymore, run for the hills!

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Parse the words carefully, amigo, because they mean things.
[/quote]

Maybe you should understand your own words first, amigo.

Demagoguery: a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

Gee, that sounds a lot more like the previous administration than the current one.

[quote=Rt.66]Hatfield, I don’t know if I cherry picked or left anything out. Afterall, I included the link right at the top and encouraged people to “go take a look at http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/20…” before including my snipet of the list. Good job finding those elusive zingers on the list.
[/quote]

Well, I guess I was trying to amplify on a point made earlier – the list does contain a lot of salient & likely outcomes of the current fiasco. But the bullet list is made a lot less compelling with the inclusion of some batshit-crazy notions like “In the future the consequences of unpayable debt could include indentured servitude, debtor’s prison or being drummed into the military” and “Modern healthcare will be largely unavailable and informal care will generally be very basic.” I was half-expecting David Byrne’s “In the future, women will have breasts all over” to make an appearance.

I mean, if the author really believes we are headed inevitably towards the Mad Max scenario, you’d think he’d start with that premise, not bury it in a bullet list which otherwise contains salient predictions. And the list itself is made considerably less compelling as a whole. It’s kind of like the metaphorical crazy guy on the street corner mentioned earlier – if he keeps saying things, some of them are bound to be true. 🙂

BTW, if you’re not subscribed to John Mauldin’s newsletter, I highly recommend it. It’s free, it comes out a couple times per week, features a lot of great guest writers (including Richard Russell) and it does a pretty good analysis of what’s going on right now. And unlike a lot of the free newsletters out there, it’s virtually free of spam or incessent offers to sign up for this, buy that, etc. You can sign up at http://www.johnmauldin.com/

[Hatfield]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Parse the words carefully, amigo, because they mean things.
[/quote]

Maybe you should understand your own words first, amigo.

Demagoguery: a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

Gee, that sounds a lot more like the previous administration than the current one.

[quote=Rt.66]Hatfield, I don’t know if I cherry picked or left anything out. Afterall, I included the link right at the top and encouraged people to “go take a look at http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/20…” before including my snipet of the list. Good job finding those elusive zingers on the list.
[/quote]

Well, I guess I was trying to amplify on a point made earlier – the list does contain a lot of salient & likely outcomes of the current fiasco. But the bullet list is made a lot less compelling with the inclusion of some batshit-crazy notions like “In the future the consequences of unpayable debt could include indentured servitude, debtor’s prison or being drummed into the military” and “Modern healthcare will be largely unavailable and informal care will generally be very basic.” I was half-expecting David Byrne’s “In the future, women will have breasts all over” to make an appearance.

I mean, if the author really believes we are headed inevitably towards the Mad Max scenario, you’d think he’d start with that premise, not bury it in a bullet list which otherwise contains salient predictions. And the list itself is made considerably less compelling as a whole. It’s kind of like the metaphorical crazy guy on the street corner mentioned earlier – if he keeps saying things, some of them are bound to be true. 🙂

BTW, if you’re not subscribed to John Mauldin’s newsletter, I highly recommend it. It’s free, it comes out a couple times per week, features a lot of great guest writers (including Richard Russell) and it does a pretty good analysis of what’s going on right now. And unlike a lot of the free newsletters out there, it’s virtually free of spam or incessent offers to sign up for this, buy that, etc. You can sign up at http://www.johnmauldin.com/

[Author]

Posts