“The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught.”[/quote]
The same thing that was happening in America with Soviet agents and sympathisers infiltrating the Democratic Party was happening in Australia in the Labor Party. It caused the Party to split.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jesus, our progressive tax system, which I prefer to flat tax, is communistic in nature. It attempts to even out the classes, or at the very least takes from the able and gives to the need.
[/quote]
And this is why my counter was both legitimate and necessary. Because you’re using the term in a way that wasn’t previously clear to me. You’re saying that there are things about your own politics that are “communistic in nature.” This changes the argument, because I don’t agree that supporting SNAP, for example, is communist or evidence of communism or communistic in nature, and history/ideology doesn’t either. The criteria of communism are not satisfied simply by a redistributive (and entirely common in hundreds of thousands of direct and oblique ways) formula of [the taxation of private monies] + [the use of a portion of those monies to subsidize low-income people’s participation in various programs], and I’m not interested in arguing about whether or not Obama is a communist vis-a-vis that particular diluted and ahistorical definition of “communist,” because in that case, yeah, he’s definitely a communist, along with everyone else who isn’t a radical libertarian.
I am also not interested in defending Obamacare from any attacks not related to its being more communist than other programs we have, because I agree with many/most of those attacks.
My real point is that if you’d have responded to me with this substantial counter from the beginning, all of this would have happened without any of the vinegar. But I take my share of blame for the vinegar and offer you some soothing oil in the form of The Moment:
My real point is that if you’d have responded to me with this substantial counter from the beginning, all of this would have happened without any of the vinegar. But I take my share of blame for the vinegar and offer you some soothing oil in the form of The Moment:
[/quote]
Yesh, but this conversation isn’t worth it without you getting all worked up.
I’m telling you, we’ve done this at least one if not two other times.
My real point is that if you’d have responded to me with this substantial counter from the beginning, all of this would have happened without any of the vinegar. But I take my share of blame for the vinegar and offer you some soothing oil in the form of The Moment:
[/quote]
Yesh, but this conversation isn’t worth it without you getting all worked up.
I’m telling you, we’ve done this at least one if not two other times. [/quote]
I think you’re misinterpreting my being worked up. Sometimes I like to really launch a ground invasion, for the same personal and professional reasons that we all do it. Sometimes it’s personal; with you, it never is. I just love a good dust-up, a good bare-knuckle brawl, and I love brawling with someone who is good at it, which you are. Anyway, my sincere apologies for any offense.
And I’m sure we’ve done it before. Everything is a blur these days.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. [/quote]
lmao…
Riiigggghhhhttt
Keep telling yourself that. It’s only poppycock I your opinion because your perspective isn’t there. It just isn’t.
Spend the next decade in business, see the world from that perspective. Then re-visit all the points I made and not just some…[/quote]
I gave you reasons, which you ignored. That’s your issue.
I also asked this question twice, and you never answered it: Is the current president pro-tem of the senate a communist? I am actually curious to know how you will answer this (or whether you will).[/quote]
He may not be a communist, yet you say he’s just a democrat following the party line. When did Kennedy, Carter, or Clinton say we should redistribute wealth?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jonny: Sonny, you robbed that bank
Sonny: But 100’s of people have robbed banks before, it has happened all through out history.[/quote]
The holocaust didn’t happen…Hitler didn’t kill a single Jew.
The same way as Obama did not add to incite the Ferguson riots and racial unrest in the country because he did not say “OK burn the town down, guys!!! The President said it’s ok, and if you need some gasoline, I’m buying!”
One need not be so blatant to contribute an event.
um no. You’re pretending talking about welfare or other countries is actually any sort of commentary on Obamacare. It isn’t.
lmao…
[/quote]
lmao indeed, when I bring up other countries to bolster my point, it’s not allowed…
Smh - so, how exactly is Libya in better shape now than before the bombing and death of Qadaffi? You gave figures on how many people died in the civil war against Qadaffi and how many are dying today. I get that. Forget about the revolution.
How many people died in Libya due to civil war from 1969 - March 2011 vs how many people are dying there from October 2011- till present?
So, you really believe a country being over run by Islamists, in the midst of a civil war and with no central government is safe? I’d like a hit of that bong if ya don’t mind.
How? I don’t know. I’d say proficiently. You’re very proficient at being wrong.[/quote]
In your opinion. I say the same thing about you. I bring up a point proving this and you accuse me of asking the same question.
Libya is safer now? Yeah, your right, just tell that to our embassy staff…wasn’t safe for them now was it?
A country has no central government and you say it’s better than one that does?
Just a question: How do you feel about the Iraq war? Should we have gotten involved there? [/quote]
4 deaths in an embassy vs. 25 thousand fewer overall. So no, this doesn’t evidence your claim.
Regarding Libya not having a central government: the country had sunk into violent civil war and failed statehood before our intervention. So, again, no, this doesn’t evidence your claim. And you apparently don’t have even a passing familiarity with the material on which you’re opining.
As for Iraq, I have debated it with worthwhile posters here at great length and more than once. There isn’t a chance I’m getting into it under the present circumstances, particularly after this.
15:14
[/quote]
I am going to regret asking this, I just know it. Why are you quoting scripture at me?[/quote]
â??The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!â??
um no. You’re pretending talking about welfare or other countries is actually any sort of commentary on Obamacare. It isn’t.
lmao…
[/quote]
lmao indeed, when I bring up other countries to bolster my point, it’s not allowed…
Smh - so, how exactly is Libya in better shape now than before the bombing and death of Qadaffi? You gave figures on how many people died in the civil war against Qadaffi and how many are dying today. I get that. Forget about the revolution.
How many people died in Libya due to civil war from 1969 - March 2011 vs how many people are dying there from October 2011- till present?
So, you really believe a country being over run by Islamists, in the midst of a civil war and with no central government is safe? I’d like a hit of that bong if ya don’t mind.[/quote]
I said it was safer than in 2011. And I evidenced this. Refute my numbers, show why they are inferior to some other evidence, or move along. And stop pretending that the civil war was caused by the intervention. I’m not teaching you any more about Libya Without getting paid.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
4 deaths in an embassy vs. 25 thousand fewer overall. So no, this doesn’t evidence your claim.
[/quote]
“According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13.”
We killed quite a lot ourselves didn’t we?
Merely stating the country is unsafe for our embassy staff. Had the bombing been a success and Libya was turned into a Western style democracy there would have been no deaths at our embassy, no current civil war and a central government.
No it didn’t. It had a central government ruled by Qadaffi and he’d probably still be in charge had we not taken out his air force and other military hardware.
Like dodging questions? Iraq war? Pro? Con?
Worthwhile posters? Most of the ones I remember are gone.
I said it was safer than in 2011. And I evidenced this. Refute my numbers, show why they are inferior to some other evidence, or move along. And stop pretending that the civil war was caused by the intervention. I’m not teaching you any more about Libya Without getting paid.[/quote]
Safer than it was in 2011? Not what I’m talking about. I’m saying safer under Qaddafi in general, over the entire time of his rule.
Never said the civil war was started or caused by the intervention. Never said that. If anything it ended it so stop putting words in my mouth.
In the last 42 years, is Libya safer now (to it’s citizens or the world) after Qaddafi or during his rule?
I said it was safer than in 2011. And I evidenced this. Refute my numbers, show why they are inferior to some other evidence, or move along. And stop pretending that the civil war was caused by the intervention. I’m not teaching you any more about Libya Without getting paid.[/quote]
Safer than it was in 2011? Not what I’m talking about. I’m saying safer under Qaddafi in general, over the entire time of his rule.
[/quote]
The intervention came at, and was a response to, a particular time and series of events. Whether it is safer now than at some irrelevant previous time is not a legitimate question vis-a-vis the consequences of the intervention. The legitimate question is whether or not it is safer now than it was under the pre-invasion context. It is, by a factor of more than ten. What you’re trying to do here is not going to work.
[quote]
It had a central government ruled by Qadaffi and he’d probably still be in charge had we not taken out his air force and other military hardware.[/quote]
We don’t know whether he would be or not. We do know that the 2011 civil war would have gone on longer, and would almost certainly still be going on today. And, again, it was ten-fold more violent than any current fighting.
[quote]
Like dodging questions? Iraq war? Pro? Con?[/quote]
I am not dodging anything. I am telling you outright that there isn’t a chance in hell I’m wasting my time talking with you about the Iraq War, because every time I’ve argued something with you, I’ve spent far too much time teaching you things about what you’re trying to argue, and then reiterating simple points ad nauseum while you struggle to convey a single intelligible thought. I pause here to note that yesterday you tried to argue that Obama was inciting violence by citing an article in which he was explicitly said to have pleaded for peace. This is the kind of idiocy that requires a mea culpa or, you know, an explanation, but you just pressed ahead.
I said it was safer than in 2011. And I evidenced this. Refute my numbers, show why they are inferior to some other evidence, or move along. And stop pretending that the civil war was caused by the intervention. I’m not teaching you any more about Libya Without getting paid.[/quote]
Safer than it was in 2011? Not what I’m talking about. I’m saying safer under Qaddafi in general, over the entire time of his rule.
[/quote]
I’d wager transatlantic air travelers and German disco dancers are safer without him, if we are considering “the entire time of his rule.”
