Republicans are sore losers. - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-30-2010, 10:50 AM

o please. don't be absurd. you're making a ridiculous point based on your confusion over a pronoun (whether it was used in a singular or plural sense) in the context of a thread that had devolved onto a series of assertions of a false equivalence from some of the more conservative folk who have participated. the restatement i made of the dunedan's point simply pushed it into the overall train of argument, such as it is, from the more conservative posters. in doing that, all i did was restate the false equivalence that the dunedan's post was about.

there is no particular logic problem, nor is there are reading problem.
it is not a great concern to me whether you like the argument or not, fool them all. it really isn't.

it is, however, a bit of a concern that you try to pull some cheap move* regarding the fact that i am a mod.
when i act in moderator-mode, you will know.
otherwise i participate in threads like any other member.

if you have a problem with that, take it up with me or another staff person by pm.

* later: i removed an intensifier. it wasn't necessary.

FoolThemAll · 03-30-2010, 02:05 PM

Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here.

Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense.

I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often.

The_Dunedan · 03-30-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

You've missed my point entirely.

Likewise.

Quote:

I'm saying there's no goose and gander. There's goose and tomahawk missile. There's no kick in the teeth vs punch in the balls. It's kick in the teeth vs knife through the heart.

I disagree.

Quote:

I reject entirely that there's ANY equivalency between what's being said about Obama and what was said about Bush, and I assert that an attempt to create an equivalency both minimizes the disaster Bush was, and rationalizes away the damage these sore losing tea partiers are doing.

And -I- reject entirely that there is any workable difference between the two, -or- what was said about them, -or- the damage they have done and will continue to do to this country. Bush fucked the economy (more). Obama took that fucked-up economy, propped up the people who fucked it up, and nationalized a significant portion thereof, thereby hitching my (and everyone else's) collective wagon to that enormous collection of bipartisan up-fuckery for the rest of forever whether we wished it or supported it or no. Two roads are being taken to the same horrible destination; stagflation, loss of national and international prestige and influence, eroded personal, economic, and civil liberties, devalued currency...I can go on, but won't.

Mr. Bush started wars under false pretenses.
Mr. Obama is continuing those wars, under equally false pretenses.

Mr. Bush fucked up the economy and nationalised the results, what several Wall Street Journal commentators at the time referred to as "Socialization Of Debt."
Mr. Obama has instituted steps that will, I believe, -further- fuck up the economy, nationalised much thereof, and will further nationalise any further up-fuckery just as his predecessor did.
Both people carried out these actions at the behest of vested-interest parties only out to aggrandize their power and enlarge their purses. Mr. Bush made his payments in deference to various Wall Street banks and multinational trading conglomerates, Mr. Obama to leftist pressure groups and Unions. Both sold their constituents a bill of goods in order to pass favours to the people who both got them elected and pull their strings.

Mr. Bush was a right-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.
Mr. Obama is a left-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.

Given that collectivism in general is built upon the premise that "the needs of the many (no matter how many) outweigh the needs of the few (no matter how few, and no matter the needs)," I do not trust collectivists with their thumbs on buttons to not destroy the world. If a large/persuasive enough collective wants some destructive act to occur, collectivism guarantees that it will occur. I have been "reminded" here repeatedly that "there is no right or wrong; political consensus is all that's required." I do not trust that mentality, whencever it springs, with the power to destroy.

pan6467 · 03-30-2010, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here.

Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense.

I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often.

Attack the writer or some minute detail rather than debate what was written. Classic tactic used by those who wrote here to defend Bush and now those writing to defend Obama.

dc_dux · 03-30-2010, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Attack the writer or some minute detail rather than debate what was written. Classic tactic used by those who wrote here to defend Bush and now those writing to defend Obama.

pan, speaking only for myself, I try to defend the facts and debunk the myths and I have seen you characterize that defense of the facts as a defense of Obama.

I think you often see what you want and not what is written.

pan6467 · 03-30-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think you often see what you want and not what is written.

We ALL do. We see things from our perspective and life experiences and apply them to our posts and how we interact on here and IRL. It's the way the human condition is.

dc_dux · 03-31-2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

We ALL do. We see things from our perspective and life experiences and apply them to our posts and how we interact on here and IRL. It's the way the human condition is.

I would agree to some extent. But some, more than others, let their emotions override the facts far more frequently.

03-30-2010, 10:50 AM	#121 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	o please. don't be absurd. you're making a ridiculous point based on your confusion over a pronoun (whether it was used in a singular or plural sense) in the context of a thread that had devolved onto a series of assertions of a false equivalence from some of the more conservative folk who have participated. the restatement i made of the dunedan's point simply pushed it into the overall train of argument, such as it is, from the more conservative posters. in doing that, all i did was restate the false equivalence that the dunedan's post was about. there is no particular logic problem, nor is there are reading problem. it is not a great concern to me whether you like the argument or not, fool them all. it really isn't. it is, however, a bit of a concern that you try to pull some cheap move* regarding the fact that i am a mod. when i act in moderator-mode, you will know. otherwise i participate in threads like any other member. if you have a problem with that, take it up with me or another staff person by pm. * later: i removed an intensifier. it wasn't necessary. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-30-2010 at 11:37 AM..

03-30-2010, 02:05 PM	#122 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here. Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense. I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.