Ah, so now we move to the phase in which you, unable to respond to an argument built on data incorporating tens of thousands of casualties, begin Googling and posting news reports with lines like “13 dead.” You are a walking encyclopedia of fallacy.[/quote]
All you’ve given us over the last half a dozen pages is a mouthful of Greek salad; semantic games about “Communists”, straw men. And you ignored my specific question: Is there any doubt in your mind that the administration got together and decided to pretend the latest attacks in France were “random” and to specifically avoid identifying who the targets were? Given the enormous outbreak of anti-Semitism in France; an outbreak even acknowledged by their socialist president, an outbreak requiring 10,000 law enforcement officers specifically assigned to protect them, 7000 fleeing the country in the last 12 months - given all of that, don’t you have serious concerns about your President literally white washing it whilst drumming up anti-white, anti-police sentiment domestically and so on? Doesn’t this sort of behaviour accord more with a “new left”, Western Marxist ideology than a run of the mill, centre-left Democrat? No? You only have semantic games to play with the word “Communist?” Really?
Ah, so now we move to the phase in which you, unable to respond to an argument built on data incorporating tens of thousands of casualties, begin Googling and posting news reports with lines like “13 dead.” You are a walking encyclopedia of fallacy.[/quote]
All you’ve given us over the last half a dozen pages is a mouthful of Greek salad; semantic games about “Communists”, straw men. [/quote]
Semantic games like, talking about what something actually means. The horror, the fucking horror.
You’re a Muslim. Don’t you play semantic games with me about what that means.
[quote]
And you ignored my specific question: Is there any doubt in your mind that the administration got together and decided to pretend the latest attacks in France were “random” and to specifically avoid identifying who the targets were? Given the enormous outbreak of anti-Semitism in France; an outbreak even acknowledged by their socialist president, an outbreak requiring 10,000 law enforcement officers specifically assigned to protect them, 7000 fleeing the country in the last 12 months - given all of that, don’t you have serious concerns about your President literally white washing it[/quote]
I gave my view of this pages ago. You must have ignored that.
[quote]
whilst drumming up anti-white, anti-police sentiment domestically and so on? Doesn’t this sort of behaviour accord more with a “new left”, Western Marxist ideology than a run of the mill, centre-left Democrat? No? You only have semantic games to play with the word “Communist?” Really?[/quote]
Again with this arrant nonsense. You linked to this…
…in evidence or explanation. A selection from your source: “…implement a broad range of reforms on issues such as gay rights, abortion, gender roles, and drugs.” You want to call that communist, in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the ideological principles or historical meaning of the term? Go ahead. Call it communistigikistorstatleblug. Call it football or hunting or golf. Call it whatever you want. You’ll be the one playing semantic games.
Ah, so now we move to the phase in which you, unable to respond to an argument built on data incorporating tens of thousands of casualties, begin Googling and posting news reports with lines like “13 dead.” You are a walking encyclopedia of fallacy.[/quote]
All you’ve given us over the last half a dozen pages is a mouthful of Greek salad; semantic games about “Communists”, straw men. [/quote]
Semantic games like, talking about what something actually means. The horror, the fucking horror.
You’re a Muslim. Don’t you play semantic games with me about what that means.
[quote]
And you ignored my specific question: Is there any doubt in your mind that the administration got together and decided to pretend the latest attacks in France were “random” and to specifically avoid identifying who the targets were? Given the enormous outbreak of anti-Semitism in France; an outbreak even acknowledged by their socialist president, an outbreak requiring 10,000 law enforcement officers specifically assigned to protect them, 7000 fleeing the country in the last 12 months - given all of that, don’t you have serious concerns about your President literally white washing it[/quote]
I gave my view of this pages ago. You must have ignored that.
[quote]
whilst drumming up anti-white, anti-police sentiment domestically and so on? Doesn’t this sort of behaviour accord more with a “new left”, Western Marxist ideology than a run of the mill, centre-left Democrat? No? You only have semantic games to play with the word “Communist?” Really?[/quote]
Again with this arrant nonsense. You linked to this…
…in evidence. A selection from your source: “…implement a broad range of reforms on issues such as gay rights, abortion, gender roles, and drugs.” You want to call that communist, in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with the ideological principles or historical meaning of the term? Go ahead. Call it communistigikistorstatleblug. Call it football or hunting or golf. Call it whatever you want. You’ll be the one playing semantic games.
Edited.[/quote]
I’m going to have to go back to find your opinion on your President’s white washing the pogroms in Europe because I honestly don’t remember it. I just remember pages of arguing about “Communist” as if that’s got anything to do with the specific accusations that started all of this; the substance of the criticism. The hard-left French President has acknowledged the convergence of Islamic fundamentalism and historic domestic anti-Semitism and the rising wave of anti-Semitic attacks; the burning down of synagogues, the attacks on Jews in the streets, the pro-Palestinian protests that usually end in arson, riots and assaults etc. Yet your President is ignoring it, insisting that the latest attack was not a targeted attack on Jews, and all this in an atmosphere of a drummed up diplomatic crisis(turns out Obama was advised in advance and didn’t respond), a boycott of Netanyahu’s speech about the existential crisis confronting his state, not to mention this “Onevoice” / v15 group that just happens to be staffed by most of Obama’s top campaigners and was getting State Dept funds up until 3 months ago by their own admission.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh, and find me a straw man I created. One. Please, really. An actual strawman.[/quote]
You’ve been caricaturing my position by pretending I said he was a traditional “Communist” intent on a vanguard economic revolution via nationalisation of most the country’s means of production and mass expropriation of private wealth and so on. This is the straw man you constructed. You then proceeded to scoff when other posters pointed out the socialist tendencies of your Commander in Chief.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just remember pages of arguing about “Communist” as if that’s got anything to do with the specific accusations that started all of this[/quote]
You used the term incorrectly, I said so and why. Others joined in, and it went off. You don’t want to continue arguing about it, that’s fine. Nobody is forcing you.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh, and find me a straw man I created. One. Please, really. An actual strawman.[/quote]
You’ve been caricaturing my position by pretending I said he was a traditional “Communist” intent on a vanguard economic revolution via nationalisation of most the country’s means of production and mass expropriation of private wealth and so on. This is the straw man you constructed. You then proceeded to scoff when other posters pointed out the socialist tendencies of your Commander in Chief.[/quote]
Except that that’s what communism is, and you said he was a communist. You apparently meant something other than “communist.” That’s not my problem, and it’s not a straw man in any possible universe.
And once you said you hadn’t meant communist, I was arguing about it with Beans, and it went on. I never mischaracterized anything you said. You used the term, I attacked it, you backtracked, and then Beans and I continued the original argument. That’s what happened, and there isn’t a straw within a hundred miles.
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. I have detailed Obama’s ideology many times. You already know my position about Obama’s ideology and you know you can’t ignore it because it’s all true. You can fan dance around and say that was 25 years ago or whatever. Or mischaracterise my position because I used the word “Communist” once. But that doesn’t account for the pages that followed after my immediate clarification. The substance of all the criticism remains. Your President is a disgrace. He’s the worst president in US history bar none. Last week he’s lecturing us about the crusades at a Christian prayer meeting. This week he’s white washing an IslamoNazi genocidal attack on Jews. All in this atmosphere of open hostility and backstabbing of Israel and Netanyahu. He(Obama) really is a lowlife reptile. I don’t care if he’s a Communist, a Muslim or whatever he is. Even Francois Hollande isn’t as low as Obama.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just remember pages of arguing about “Communist” as if that’s got anything to do with the specific accusations that started all of this[/quote]
You used the term incorrectly, I said so and why. Others joined in, and it went off. You don’t want to continue arguing about it, that’s fine. Nobody is forcing you.[/quote]
Point is, he’s not concerned with the definition of a term, he’s concerned with “rising wave of anti-Semitic attacks; the burning down of synagogues, the attacks on Jews in the streets, the pro-Palestinian protests that usually end in arson, riots and assaults etc. Yet your President is ignoring it”
A much larger issue.
And, the last thing I’m going to say about Qadaffi and Lybia since I posted articles about ISIS trying in vain to bring this thread back to it’s original point, if what you say is true, (links?) and half of Lybia was conquered by rebels, rebels the leader claimed were al-qaeda terrorists, you know the guys we are AT WAR WITH…,.
anyway half of the country had fallen, Qadaffi was no longer in charge, according to you and Biz, (Links?)
so what was the point of the bombing campaign? It accomplished nothing other than disposing a dictator who had agreed to play ball with the West by doing away with his nuclear program, arresting terror suspects and waging war against al-qaeda and delivered a country which had half way already fallen, clearly and cleanly into the hands of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. What was the point of it if the country was bound to fail anyhow?
So getting back to the original point of the argument before we started bickering about “safety” I feel that Obama’s bombing of Libya was a foreign policy failure, among many others that you refused to talk about.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your President is a disgrace. He’s the worst president in US history bar none. Last week he’s lecturing us about the crusades at a Christian prayer meeting. This week he’s white washing an IslamoNazi genocidal attack on Jews. All in this atmosphere of open hostility and backstabbing of Israel and Netanyahu. He(Obama) really is a lowlife reptile. I don’t care if he’s a Communist, a Muslim or whatever he is. Even Francois Hollande isn’t as low as Obama.[/quote]
Bravo.
(Maybe you’re right…he’s a reptilion!)
(oh Christ, now we’re gonna argue about the difference between Greys, reptillions and Nordics!!)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.
Yes as soon as I posted that I thought of the “reptilians”. I’ve been meaning to start a thread about conspiracy theories for some time. It’s a very interesting and ancient phenomena. There’s always a certain percentage of the population who believe in that sort of stuff and they’re always exploited to political and violent ends. The modern conspiracy theories began after the French Revolution and claimed that either Jews, Freemasons or Papists had conspired to bring about the revolution and were conspiring to take over the world. It was within this subculture that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was forged and disseminated. The Nazis disseminated these conspiracy theories and blood libels and helped foster them in the Arab world.
You lost this on literally every front, and every time you did, you just tried something new. And now you need a link for the basic shit we said about the state of Libya at the time of the intervention?
…So you don’t have a fucking clue about this thing you’ve been wasting my time arguing for the last day?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.[/quote]
I think beans was just pointing out his socialist tendencies too. Besides, it’s not “evolving right-wing terminology”. It’s quite correct to identify socialism as a form of Communism. It’s Communism lite. It’s a semantic game whoever you are arguing with. He’s a Commie. A Western Marxist and a European socialist constitute Commies in my book and always have.
When Mike Brown gets shot legitimately by a brave police officer the whole nation has a problem with racism and we have to put Wilson and all the police on trial for racism. But when four Jews are executed for being Jews they “weren’t targeted because of who they were” - actual quote. They were just a “random bunch of folk”. Just a bunch if folk. It’s sick. There is something wrong with the man.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.[/quote]
I think beans was just pointing out his socialist tendencies too. Besides, it’s not “evolving right-wing terminology”. It’s quite correct to identify socialism as a form of Communism. It’s Communism lite. It’s a semantic game whoever you are arguing with. He’s a Commie. A Western Marxist and a European socialist constitute Commies in my book and always have.[/quote]
I don’t care about your personal terminology any more than I care about the Left’s. That;s why when you “clarified,” I stopped addressing you on this issue. You’re saying “he’s a commie, but oh I use the term commie to mean something that it doesn’t from any legitimate historical or ideological perspective.” Go ahead.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.[/quote]
I think beans was just pointing out his socialist tendencies too. Besides, it’s not “evolving right-wing terminology”. It’s quite correct to identify socialism as a form of Communism. It’s Communism lite. It’s a semantic game whoever you are arguing with. He’s a Commie. A Western Marxist and a European socialist constitute Commies in my book and always have.[/quote]
I don’t care about your personal terminology any more than I care about the Left’s. That;s why when you “clarified,” I stopped addressing you on this issue. You’re saying “he’s a commie, but oh I use the term commie to mean something that it doesn’t from any legitimate historical or ideological perspective.” Go ahead.[/quote]
I am using the correct historical terminology. When I say Commie I mean the same damn thing that Joe McCarthy meant and he was right as I explained earlier in this thread.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I immediately clarified that statement by saying he’s a “Western Marxist”. [/quote]
Whatever you meant, it wasn’t communism. I don’t care about amorphous, evolving Right-wing terminology. All it does is obfuscate. I don’t want to argue about it, so I didn’t and won’t. So once you “clarified,” I never said another word about your having (mis) used the term. Beans took up the original cause. I never mischaracterized anything you wrote, and never made use of any straw man.[/quote]
I think beans was just pointing out his socialist tendencies too. Besides, it’s not “evolving right-wing terminology”. It’s quite correct to identify socialism as a form of Communism. It’s Communism lite. It’s a semantic game whoever you are arguing with. He’s a Commie. A Western Marxist and a European socialist constitute Commies in my book and always have.[/quote]
I don’t care about your personal terminology any more than I care about the Left’s. That;s why when you “clarified,” I stopped addressing you on this issue. You’re saying “he’s a commie, but oh I use the term commie to mean something that it doesn’t from any legitimate historical or ideological perspective.” Go ahead.[/quote]
I am using the correct historical terminology. When I say Commie I mean the same damn thing that Joe McCarthy meant and he was right as I explained earlier in this thread.[/quote]
No, you aren’t using it remotely correctly, and no, you dont mean the same thing he did. He was talking about Commmunism. This is a ludicrous post and the end of my involvement here.