John F. Kennedy and Madness of the American Left
slats
Anthony Marsh
> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
Or is it now called The Tea Party.
Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
John Blubaugh
> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
I think all of the madness is on the American right and so does the
rest of the world.
JB
slats
@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>
>
> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
Ad hominems do not count as arguments or refutations, Tony.
> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
That would be "The New American."
> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
Something tells me The Tea Party is living in your head 24-7, rent-free.
> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
Extreme, left-wing (excuse the redundancy) billionaire George Soros could
not be reached for comment.
Chuck Schuyler
There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
you content to put up your strawman distractions?
I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
dose of skepticism. He's ill.
It hurts to see how quickly the Left moved to blame talk radio, Sarah
Palin, the Tea Party, etc. for this crime. With the long history of
left-on-left and left-on-anyone-else violence in this country, you'd think
the Krugmans and Bobby Kennedy Jr's of the world would be more
careful--the victim's bodies weren't room temperature before people in the
mainstream media started blaming "the Right."
The Left seems to feel that democracy is a neat concept provided THEIR
ideals are being advanced without question. The Left divides people on
race and income issues to carve out groups they can pit against each other
for narrow electoral victories. More government. More taxes. More power.
All done under the guise that they know better than us, and all done under
the falsehood of justice for the little guy.
All dictatorships flow from the Left. Fascism, Socialism, Marxism and
Communism are all different combinations of numbers on the same set of
dice. Dreamy eyed Lefties like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times openly
wonder what Obama would be able to "accomplish" if he were dictator for a
day. Darn democracy! Foiled again!
The Left know they rolled snake-eyes on November 2nd. Damn the facts about
the shooter. Loughner is their chance to pit people against each other
again and revisit that pesky out-of-date, hard to understand US
Constitution's First and Second Amendment thingy.
slats
1de453...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
uh huh
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-
illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
slats
news:ec5c401e-c3be-44d1...@y31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
For almost 50 years, the Left has been trying (in vain) to disown Oswald
and pin the assassination on the Right. Fast forward to Tucson and the
insidious game plan remains the same, as poor Sarah Palin and the Tea
Partiers discovered. I mean, why blame a mentally ill college dropout when
you can smear your ideological adversaries of being accomplices to mass
murder? Somewhere, Evelyn Lincoln is silently nodding in approval.
bigdog
> John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b66f305c-52b3-408c-8641-
> 1de4533e3...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 19, 12:10 am, slats <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
> > I think all of the madness is on the American right and so does the
> > rest of the world.
>
> > JB
>
> uh huh
>
> http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-
> illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
>
> http://climateofhate.blogspot.com/
And let's not forget MSNBC's venom spewing Keith Olberman and his nightly
Worst Persons in the World award, invariably given to whatever
conservatives made headlines on a particular day. Nothing like taking the
high road. He was finally shamed into dropping that feature by none other
than Jon Stewart, one of the few rational liberals in the public eye.
Anthony Marsh
Good point about Keith and he has vowed to turn down the rhetoric. But
he is not calling for people to be killed.
He plans to change the Worst Persons in the World.
But there must be strong Liberal voices to counter the rightwing kooks.
Anthony Marsh
So to prove our points for us you cite blogs written by rightwing nuts?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 19, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>>
>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>
>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
>> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
>> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
>
> There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
> comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
> you content to put up your strawman distractions?
>
No, I don't care to dignify his rightwing rhetoric with comments on his
points, because he didn't make any points.
> I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
> was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
> anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
> dose of skepticism. He's ill.
>
I said nothing about anything he said about his reason for shooting
Giffords and NO ONE has, because he has not yet said anything.
> It hurts to see how quickly the Left moved to blame talk radio, Sarah
> Palin, the Tea Party, etc. for this crime. With the long history of
> left-on-left and left-on-anyone-else violence in this country, you'd think
> the Krugmans and Bobby Kennedy Jr's of the world would be more
> careful--the victim's bodies weren't room temperature before people in the
> mainstream media started blaming "the Right."
>
Try to make a case for blaming the Left for the shooting. I double dare
you. Maybe you think it was a protest against our support for gun
control laws. Come on now, you can think up some lame theory.
> The Left seems to feel that democracy is a neat concept provided THEIR
> ideals are being advanced without question. The Left divides people on
> race and income issues to carve out groups they can pit against each other
> for narrow electoral victories. More government. More taxes. More power.
You are describing Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
> All done under the guise that they know better than us, and all done under
> the falsehood of justice for the little guy.
>
> All dictatorships flow from the Left. Fascism, Socialism, Marxism and
> Communism are all different combinations of numbers on the same set of
> dice. Dreamy eyed Lefties like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times openly
If you think that Fascism is a form of Communism then you have a screw
loose. I have never advocated Socialism, Marxism or Communism and neither
has President Obama. Your favorite rightwing pundits call him those names
to stir up hate and make a lot of money for themselves. Your heroes.
So, how is your Tea Party coming? Where are the jobs?
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:4d370a01$1
> @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>>
>>
>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>
> Ad hominems do not count as arguments or refutations, Tony.
>
In classical Latin rhetoric it is called Argumentum ad hominem. That's
where it comes from. An ARGUMENT against the person. My point is to
consider the source. Why should we pay any attention to drivel coming from
the John Birch Society?
>> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
>
> That would be "The New American."
>
>> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
>
> Something tells me The Tea Party is living in your head 24-7, rent-free.
>
I am reminded of it every day by the rightwingers here.
slats
> On 1/19/2011 6:41 PM, slats wrote:
>> John Blubaugh<jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:b66f305c-52b3-408c-8641-
>> 1de453...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 12:10 am, slats<o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-
>>>> of/
>>>
>>> I think all of the madness is on the American right and so does the
>>> rest of the world.
>>>
>>>
>>> JB
>>
>> uh huh
>>
>> http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-a
>> n- illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
>>
>> http://climateofhate.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> So to prove our points for us you cite blogs written by rightwing
> nuts?
>
Apologies to Prof. McAdams but, "Sashay!" Tony can't refute the message,
so he attacks the messengers. Lame.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 1/19/2011 4:27 PM, slats wrote:
>
> > @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
> >> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
> >>>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
> >> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>
> > Ad hominems do not count as arguments or refutations, Tony.
>
> In classical Latin rhetoric it is called Argumentum ad hominem. That's
> where it comes from. An ARGUMENT against the person. My point is to
> consider the source. Why should we pay any attention to drivel coming from
> the John Birch Society?
>
Wrong.
To "consider the source" is precisely an argumentum ad hominem.
"ad-" does to mean "against".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<< An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad
hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a
characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad
hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in
some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc.,
are legitimate and relevant to the issue. >>
/sandy
Bud
Chuck Schuyler
> On 1/19/2011 4:28 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>
> >>>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
> >> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
> >> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
> >> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
> >> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
>
> > There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
> > comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
> > you content to put up your strawman distractions?
>
> No, I don't care to dignify his rightwing rhetoric with comments on his
> points, because he didn't make any points.
He did. Reread it.
>
> > I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
> > was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
> > anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
> > dose of skepticism. He's ill.
>
> I said nothing about anything he said about his reason for shooting
> Giffords and NO ONE has, because he has not yet said anything.
As I wrote, I'd take anything this guy said with a dose of skepticism.
>
> > It hurts to see how quickly the Left moved to blame talk radio, Sarah
> > Palin, the Tea Party, etc. for this crime. With the long history of
> > left-on-left and left-on-anyone-else violence in this country, you'd think
> > the Krugmans and Bobby Kennedy Jr's of the world would be more
> > careful--the victim's bodies weren't room temperature before people in the
> > mainstream media started blaming "the Right."
>
> Try to make a case for blaming the Left for the shooting. I double dare
> you. Maybe you think it was a protest against our support for gun
> control laws. Come on now, you can think up some lame theory.
You don't read, do you? I don't think anyone can be blamed other than
Loughner--and it may turn out that he's mentally ill enough to avoid
getting the death penalty. He certainly seems to share more traits in
common with what would broadly be described as the Left. A Bush hating,
pot smoking, anti-religious 9/11 Troofer. Doesn't sound like a Tea Party
guy to me.
And I don't blame anything he read or heard or saw for what happened at
that shopping mall. He's probably mentally ill. The Left jumped to
conclusions with their little Reichstag moment and used it to bludgeon the
'Evil Right,' before the bodies were cold.
>
> > The Left seems to feel that democracy is a neat concept provided THEIR
> > ideals are being advanced without question. The Left divides people on
> > race and income issues to carve out groups they can pit against each other
> > for narrow electoral victories. More government. More taxes. More power.
>
> You are describing Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
Reagan and Bush were in favor of more government, more taxes, etc. than
pols like Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Clinton, Frank, etc.? You can't be serious.
>
> > All done under the guise that they know better than us, and all done under
> > the falsehood of justice for the little guy.
>
> > All dictatorships flow from the Left. Fascism, Socialism, Marxism and
> > Communism are all different combinations of numbers on the same set of
> > dice. Dreamy eyed Lefties like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times openly
>
> If you think that Fascism is a form of Communism then you have a screw
> loose. I have never advocated Socialism, Marxism or Communism and neither
> has President Obama.
Did I write that? I wrote that all dictatorships flow from the left and
are different combinations of numbers on the same set of dice. I stand by
it. They all share a desire for control over the individual and primacy of
the State. I favor maximum freedom in all its messy glory.
Your favorite rightwing pundits call him those names
> to stir up hate and make a lot of money for themselves.
So what? Another sensitive CT. I don't recall these same levels of
sensitivity by your 'side' when Bush was being called a war criminal. Darn
First Amendment again! That old Constitution needs to be rewritten.
Reinterpreted. Modernized.
And who are these guys to make money off of their opinions, websites,
radio shows and books? Why...that's sooo gosh darn Un-American!!
> Your heroes.
My heroes are the men and women who get up and try and create jobs, live
productive lives and leave the world a better place. Your heroes seem to
be those who want to take the private property from others under the force
of law for your vision of a more fair society.
>
> So, how is your Tea Party coming? Where are the jobs?
Still clueless about how jobs are created, I see.
We could start by cutting taxes. Like John F. Kennedy did.
Sandy McCroskey
> On Jan 21, 12:21 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1/19/2011 4:27 PM, slats wrote:
>
> > > Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in news:4d370a01$1
> > > @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
> > >> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
> > >>>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
> > >> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>
> > > Ad hominems do not count as arguments or refutations, Tony.
>
> > In classical Latin rhetoric it is called Argumentum ad hominem. That's
> > where it comes from. An ARGUMENT against the person. My point is to
> > consider the source. Why should we pay any attention to drivel coming from
> > the John Birch Society?
>
> Wrong.
> To "consider the source" is precisely an argumentum ad hominem.
> "ad-" does to mean "against".
Typo. "ad-" does not mean "against."
/sm
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 21, 12:21 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2011 4:27 PM, slats wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in news:4d370a01$1
>>> @mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>>
>>>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>>>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>
>>>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>>
>>> Ad hominems do not count as arguments or refutations, Tony.
>>
>> In classical Latin rhetoric it is called Argumentum ad hominem. That's
>> where it comes from. An ARGUMENT against the person. My point is to
>> consider the source. Why should we pay any attention to drivel coming from
>> the John Birch Society?
>>
>
> Wrong.
> To "consider the source" is precisely an argumentum ad hominem.
> "ad-" does to mean "against".
>
Yes, but it's an ARGUMENT. That's why it's called Argumentum ad Hominem.
I did not specify what personality trait invalidates the source.
Anthony Marsh
Literally it means "to" as in going to a place.
But when explaining it in English for the benefit of those not fluent in
Latin it is translated as against for this phrase.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 20, 11:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2011 4:28 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>
>>>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>>>> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
>>>> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
>>>> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
>>
>>> There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
>>> comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
>>> you content to put up your strawman distractions?
>>
>> No, I don't care to dignify his rightwing rhetoric with comments on his
>> points, because he didn't make any points.
>
> He did. Reread it.
>
Baloney. RIghtwing rants are not points.
You'd say that Orly Tates makes points about Obama not being a US citizen.
>>
>>> I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
>>> was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
>>> anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
>>> dose of skepticism. He's ill.
>>
>> I said nothing about anything he said about his reason for shooting
>> Giffords and NO ONE has, because he has not yet said anything.
>
> As I wrote, I'd take anything this guy said with a dose of skepticism.
>
Silly, he hasn't said anything.
I am describing what they did, not what they said.
>>
>>> All done under the guise that they know better than us, and all done under
>>> the falsehood of justice for the little guy.
>>
>>> All dictatorships flow from the Left. Fascism, Socialism, Marxism and
>>> Communism are all different combinations of numbers on the same set of
>>> dice. Dreamy eyed Lefties like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times openly
>>
>> If you think that Fascism is a form of Communism then you have a screw
>> loose. I have never advocated Socialism, Marxism or Communism and neither
>> has President Obama.
>
> Did I write that? I wrote that all dictatorships flow from the left and
> are different combinations of numbers on the same set of dice. I stand by
> it. They all share a desire for control over the individual and primacy of
> the State. I favor maximum freedom in all its messy glory.
>
You included Fascism as flowing from the left. That is nuts. Typical Tea
Party confusion.
> Your favorite rightwing pundits call him those names
>> to stir up hate and make a lot of money for themselves.
>
> So what? Another sensitive CT. I don't recall these same levels of
> sensitivity by your 'side' when Bush was being called a war criminal. Darn
> First Amendment again! That old Constitution needs to be rewritten.
> Reinterpreted. Modernized.
>
So you don't believe in the Constitution. Why am I not surprised?
> And who are these guys to make money off of their opinions, websites,
> radio shows and books? Why...that's sooo gosh darn Un-American!!
>
Both sides.
>> Your heroes.
>
> My heroes are the men and women who get up and try and create jobs, live
So tell me Mr. Tea Party, where are the jobs you promised? Exactly how
many jobs have you created?
> productive lives and leave the world a better place. Your heroes seem to
> be those who want to take the private property from others under the force
> of law for your vision of a more fair society.
>
I believe in progressive taxation, not regressive taxation.
The rich are not not paying their fair share, in some cases not paying
anything at all. That puts a repressive burden on the lower class.
>>
>> So, how is your Tea Party coming? Where are the jobs?
>
> Still clueless about how jobs are created, I see.
>
You promised jobs, so where are these jobs?
> We could start by cutting taxes. Like John F. Kennedy did.
>
>
We tried that under Bush, giving the billions more billions. So how did
that work out? Is that how we got out of the Great Depression?
Chuck Schuyler
> On 1/22/2011 1:06 AM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 11:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/19/2011 4:28 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 19, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>
> >>>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
> >>>> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
> >>>> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
> >>>> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
>
> >>> There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
> >>> comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
> >>> you content to put up your strawman distractions?
>
> >> No, I don't care to dignify his rightwing rhetoric with comments on his
> >> points, because he didn't make any points.
>
> > He did. Reread it.
>
> Baloney. RIghtwing rants are not points.
> You'd say that Orly Tates makes points about Obama not being a US citizen.
The Obama isn't a citizen stuff originally came from the Left--Hillary
Clinton's campaign. I believe Obama is a citizen. I don't know who Orly
Tate is.
> >
>
> >>> I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
> >>> was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
> >>> anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
> >>> dose of skepticism. He's ill.
>
> >> I said nothing about anything he said about his reason for shooting
> >> Giffords and NO ONE has, because he has not yet said anything.
>
> > As I wrote, I'd take anything this guy said with a dose of skepticism.
>
> Silly, he hasn't said anything.
Silly, he posted YouTube videos outlining his odd "beliefs" and we've also
heard from his friends about his views. Do try and keep up.
Yeah, that Reagan had some "narrow electoral victory," he won 49 out
of 50 states in 1984.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> All done under the guise that they know better than us, and all done under
> >>> the falsehood of justice for the little guy.
>
> >>> All dictatorships flow from the Left. Fascism, Socialism, Marxism and
> >>> Communism are all different combinations of numbers on the same set of
> >>> dice. Dreamy eyed Lefties like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times openly
>
> >> If you think that Fascism is a form of Communism then you have a screw
> >> loose. I have never advocated Socialism, Marxism or Communism and neither
> >> has President Obama.
>
> > Did I write that? I wrote that all dictatorships flow from the left and
> > are different combinations of numbers on the same set of dice. I stand by
> > it. They all share a desire for control over the individual and primacy of
> > the State. I favor maximum freedom in all its messy glory.
>
> You included Fascism as flowing from the left. That is nuts. Typical Tea
> Party confusion.
The most famous Fascist, Adolph Hitler, was a Jew hating anti- Christian
Lefty Socialist. Nazi is short for National Socialist German Worker's
Party. He'd probably feel right at home on many US college campuses.
>
> > Your favorite rightwing pundits call him those names
> >> to stir up hate and make a lot of money for themselves.
>
> > So what? Another sensitive CT. I don't recall these same levels of
> > sensitivity by your 'side' when Bush was being called a war criminal. Darn
> > First Amendment again! That old Constitution needs to be rewritten.
> > Reinterpreted. Modernized.
>
> So you don't believe in the Constitution. Why am I not surprised?
Is that how you interpret what I wrote?
>
> > And who are these guys to make money off of their opinions, websites,
> > radio shows and books? Why...that's sooo gosh darn Un-American!!
>
> Both sides.
Bless 'em.
>
> >> Your heroes.
>
> > My heroes are the men and women who get up and try and create jobs, live
>
> So tell me Mr. Tea Party, where are the jobs you promised? Exactly how
> many jobs have you created?
I'm sorry, but the Repubs have a majority in just the House, not the
Senate. It's been, what...less than three weeks?
Marsh wants to progressively tax, tax, spend, spend, regulate, regulate
and then is surprised that jobs producers create vanish or move to other
countries. Here's an idea, Tony: Think of it as vast Socialism. We're
"spreading the wealth" to China and India. You should be in favor of
joblessness, decreased US stature in the world, defeat in our wars, lower
GDP, etc. It takes America down a few notches--just what your side
not-so-secretly wants and hopes for.
>
> > productive lives and leave the world a better place. Your heroes seem to
> > be those who want to take the private property from others under the force
> > of law for your vision of a more fair society.
>
> I believe in progressive taxation, not regressive taxation.
> The rich are not not paying their fair share, in some cases not paying
> anything at all. That puts a repressive burden on the lower class.
Cite?
Define rich, please.
The rich pay most of the taxes. Around 40% of Americans pay no Federal
income taxes.
>
>
>
> >> So, how is your Tea Party coming? Where are the jobs?
>
> > Still clueless about how jobs are created, I see.
>
> You promised jobs, so where are these jobs?
>
> > We could start by cutting taxes. Like John F. Kennedy did.
>
> We tried that under Bush, giving the billions more billions. So how did
> that work out?
Bush was a big spender. Obama's spending is bringing us close to ruin.
Is that how we got out of the Great Depression?
FDR worsened the Depression. Read The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes.
Marsh, we've had 80 plus years of profligate spending--Dems and Repubs.
The chickens are coming home to roost, whether you want to admit it or
not. We need to drastically chop spending and drastically take the
shackles off our economy if we're going get things moving again. Go ahead
and keep your head buried in the sand, but I'm speaking the ttruth, and
more and more people are waking up to this fact.
Sandy McCroskey
I suppose that's why *you* translate it as "against."
But it's not arguing against the man, it's arguing against an argument
by pointing TO the man making it.
/sm
John Blubaugh
>
Yes, President Hoover.........
JB
Anthony Marsh
It's sidestepping the argument by attacking the person.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 22, 9:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2011 1:06 AM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 11:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2011 4:28 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 11:19 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/19/2011 12:10 AM, slats wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/18/john-f-kennedy-and-madness-of/
>>
>>>>>> Ah, The American Spectator rears its ugly head again.
>>>>>> Isn't that the official publication of the John Birch Society?
>>>>>> Or is it now called The Tea Party.
>>>>>> Either way financed by extreme right-wing billionaire David Kock.
>>
>>>>> There's good old Tony Marsh, changing the subject. Again (yawn). Care to
>>>>> comment on the points the author made in the article, Cliff Clavin, or are
>>>>> you content to put up your strawman distractions?
>>
>>>> No, I don't care to dignify his rightwing rhetoric with comments on his
>>>> points, because he didn't make any points.
>>
>>> He did. Reread it.
>>
>> Baloney. RIghtwing rants are not points.
>> You'd say that Orly Tates makes points about Obama not being a US citizen.
>
> The Obama isn't a citizen stuff originally came from the Left--Hillary
> Clinton's campaign. I believe Obama is a citizen. I don't know who Orly
> Tate is.
>
Typical campaign trick. Like Johnson bringing up JFK's Addison's Disease.
>>>
>>
>>>>> I actually don't think there was too much about the Tuscon shootings that
>>>>> was political in nature. Loughner is clearly unstable and I'd take
>>>>> anything he said about his reason for shooting Giffords with a healthy
>>>>> dose of skepticism. He's ill.
>>
>>>> I said nothing about anything he said about his reason for shooting
>>>> Giffords and NO ONE has, because he has not yet said anything.
>>
>>> As I wrote, I'd take anything this guy said with a dose of skepticism.
>>
>> Silly, he hasn't said anything.
>
> Silly, he posted YouTube videos outlining his odd "beliefs" and we've also
> heard from his friends about his views. Do try and keep up.
>
He hasn't said anything about the shooting.
Sandy McCroskey
I used the words "arguing against" only because you said (above):
"Yes, but it's an ARGUMENT. That's why it's called Argumentum ad
Hominem."
Most usually it's an evasion of the issue at hand. But occasionally
it's relevant.
/sm