[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
…1)Beck claims Holdren advocates forced abortion
2)Holdren does not advocate it, but discusses it as an option, pondering the constitutionality of it. He never advocates it. To advocate is to “speak or write in support of something.” And never once does he indicate he supports it. You say the language is very close. I happen to not give a damn if you think the language is “close” or not (what do you even mean by that? care to explain?). It is his job to discuss and ponder the plausibility, as well as the legal and ethical repercussions, of these actions. If he hurt your feelings by not typing in caps that he didn’t support it, I am sure he is sorry. [/quote]
Click on this link, sport: Implicit Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Now quit the break dancing with semantics.
“It is his job to discuss and ponder the plausibility.” Really now? Let’s examine my portion of the post on this subject: “He presented those options, forced abortions and sterilization, and his language is very, very, very close to advocacy for consideration if not outright support.” [quote]
Also, why the hate of the left wing? [/quote]
Because the left wing (and the mindless Hate-Beck-Just-Because-da-Web-Sites-Tell-Me-To) are the spawn of Satan’s whores from the Lower Side of Hades’ skid row. [quote]
I wouldn’t criticize you for providing a link from Fox News, or even, dare I say, Glenn Beck, if the article seemed like it was factually sound. Skepticism is healthy, but outright dismissal based on a perceived political agenda is a little juvenile. BTW, I love how you don’t actually refute the content of the articles. [/quote]
It’s been done here before, Newb. Most if not all of this anti-beck horseshit has been proven wrong over and over again. Some of it has been outright lies about what Beck said and at the least taken out of context.
BTW, I did refute some of the “articles.” Others I didn’t have time for. (It’s been done before here; google is your friend) I noticed you only copied and pasted “articles” and did not necessarily provide the actual Beck quotes and/or video. You’re far lazier than I am.[quote]
Show’s how right you are.[/quote]
Oh, I’m on the right alright. In more ways than one. I like being there. It’s more comfortable being right and easier to be right when you’re on the right. Right?[quote]
As for the Goldberg book, you must realize that this is not just a mere difference of opinion. He defines fascism so broadly that it becomes meaningless. [/quote]
If he “defines fascism” in a manner that you disagree with (subjectively, or course) and it “becomes meaningless” (subjectively of course) then I believe we do indeed have a “difference of opinion.”
I have studied history. I watched the Beck documentary that included numerous Goldberg references. I thought it was spot on. I’m sure it’s possible to dig up historians that disagree with Goldberg and I am absolutely positive that it’s possible to dig up historians that agree with him. When you have a Mexican standoff like that one…you have a “difference of opinion.” (Is this the appropriate place to return the “retard” insult to you? Let me know; I think so)[quote]
His definition, as Paxton points out, is “any use of state power to make the world better and create a community.” Paxton goes on to point out that liberal fascism is an oxymoron, and states “Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration. His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice. Since the Nazis recruited their first mass following among the economic and social losers of Weimar Germany, they could sound anti-capitalist at the beginning. Goldberg makes a big thing of the early programs of the Nazi and Italian Fascist Parties, and publishes the Nazi Twenty-five Points as an appendix. A closer look would show that the NazisÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? anti-capitalism was a selective affair, opposed to international capital and finance capital, department stores and Jewish businesses, but nowhere opposed to private property per se or favorable to a transfer of all the means of production to public ownership.”[/quote]
Is this all you can do, copy and paste? Can you develop and articulate opinions without this clever tool of the modern computer?[quote]
In fact, businesses, while initially concerned with Hitler, prospered greatly under his rule, as he neatly destroyed all unions and criminalized striking. These business, along with Germany’s socialists (who were placed in concentration camps) would have “found it ludicrous that Hitler, once in power, was on the left.”[/quote]
As Goldberg and Beck so deftly mentioned, Hitler’s actions and outcomes reflected Stalin’s…precisely…and vice versa. Sorry if you couldn’t find Paxton substantiation for this simple fact of history. You might want to grab the copy and paste coattails of some different historians other than the venerable [cough] Senor Paxton.[quote]
By the by, I’m not seventeen either. Don’t read too deeply into signs that aren’t there. Like the roots of liberalism in fascism. And next time, do me a favor and read the links I provide.
[/quote]
I’ll read the links you provide when you have proved yourself a credible PWI poster. It doesn’t matter whether you are a liberal or conservative but you have to be credible for me to invest my time and “do you a favor.”
[/quote]
1)I belive it is thou that art performing the Semantics Electric Boogaloo. You never showed WHERE Holdren advocated forced abortion, and now that you realize he never did, you now claim he IMPLIED advocacy for forced abortion. And yet, you’ve failed to specifically point out where he implies that. By golly, it almost sounds like you’re just making shit up. Huh.
2)Your answer to the left wing hate was cute. It also failed to properly answer the question.
- If the anti-Beck horsehit is, indeed, horseshit, why don’t you provide some proof of the alleged countless examples. Apparently the only ones that have to provide evidence for anything are the ones that don’t have Beck’s cock tickling their tonsils.
By the by, you never “refuted” any of the articles. You said one was “close” to being advocacy (which it was not). And if you don’t have time to refute the articles, shut the hell up. I had the time to post them, and if you have the time to respond, you better have some goddamn evidence backing you.
Further, I explained each article before I posted them. And if you actually looked at the articles, you would see some (perhaps not all, I can’t remember offhand) actually have the originial radio/video clip on the site. That would require you to actually read them, though. And if I’m lazier than you, why am I the only one providing evidence?
-
Oh my fucking God, you moron, you insult the critics of Beck for not providing evidence, and when I provide the evidence for you, you say I’m just mindlessly copying and pasting? I cite the evidence, I give you the link, I EXPLAIN what the article is about, Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ, what the fuck more do you want?
-
Actually, if you agree with Goldberg’s definition of fascism, then essentially every American president ever was a fascist, because every president as engaged in state activism at one point or another, in order to “make the world a better place.” Bush’s attempts to ban gay marriage would have be viewed not as simply conservative, but fascist.
6)Funny, I don’t remember Stalin revitalizing private business in the Soviet Union, like Hitler did for Germany. I rather thought he was against that sort of thing. Must have missed that somehow. The only true “outcomes and actions” that Stalin and Hitler shared were the abhorrent, violent methods they used to suppress dissent. Are you claiming that violent repression is an idea that spawns solely from liberal, progressive thinking?
If so, then every dictator ever was a liberal, regardless of his socioeconomic viewpoints?
7)Actually, dipshit, if you ask for proof, and I give it, you really should read the evidence before you open your mouth. That’s kind of how it works. If you’re not going to give me the courtesy of examining my evidence WHEN YOU ASK FOR IT, then I don’t see how you expect any sort of sensible debate. But I’m guessing you don’t actually want one.