Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on September 09, 2008, 05:33:18 AM
-
September 9, 2008
Hold Your Heads Up
By BOB HERBERT
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.
Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.
So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.
Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.
“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”
Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.
There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.
Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.
The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.
“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”
Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.
When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”
Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”
Scary.
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).
Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.
It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.
Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.
Liberals need to get over it.
-
Liberal drivel.....as usual.
Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program...ur kidding right. Government sponsored hand outs designed to maintain a voting block.
-
blah, blah,blah you could piece together a novel out of 5 of your posts.
-
There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.
That's liberal propaganda in form.
-
lol, you know it's lost when a liberal titles an article "hold your head up"
-
It should be titled..hang yourself now before its to late..
-
This is no different than many of the other slanted right wing trash articles that get posted here from time to time.
You could almost just substitute words and turn it in to one of them.
-
Liberal drivel.....as usual.
Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program...ur kidding right. Government sponsored hand outs designed to maintain a voting block.
blah, blah,blah you could piece together a novel out of 5 of your posts.
That's liberal propaganda in form.
...dismissal does NOT constitute debate.
I'm a relatively impartial European, completely removed from the American political system (living in Ireland)... yet even I know that there is NOTHING untrue in that article: not one false assertion, not one misconstrued fact.
From an outside observers viewpoint America currently has no proper left wing... Ralph Nader is slightly left wing/liberal... the Democratic Party are slightly right-leaning centrists.... however the GOP (Republican Party) are out and out unabashed theocratic fascists.
This isn't really in dispute... anyone who thinks differently has been indoctrinated either unconsciously or consciously.
If you are inherently averse to liberalism/socialism/communism (or atheism for that matter) you should consider why you know all the words to your national anthem... why you stand stand hand on heart upon hearing it... why you know the pledge of allegiance by rote... why you believe America is number one...?
For the record, truly liberal inclusively socialist countries (the Scandinavian countries etc) have surpassed (and considerably overtaken) America in every positive living index over the last two decades.
Brainwashing begins at home.
Awaiting moronic dismissals...
The Luke
-
I'm a relatively impartial European,
That is all you had to say, bye.
-
...dismissal does NOT constitute debate.
I'm a relatively impartial European, completely removed from the American political system (living in Ireland)... yet even I know that there is NOTHING untrue in that article: not one false assertion, not one misconstrued fact.
..
The Luke
September 9, 2008
Hold Your Heads Up
By BOB HERBERT
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Do they ridicule all things liberal? What are all things liberal?
Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.
This leads the reader to think no one on the right lives in reality and backs it up by implying no one on the right believes in evolution or the danger of global warming.
I suppose i could go on. But there's some good propaganda to to start off with it.
:)
-
Do they ridicule all things liberal? What are all things liberal?
...when "liberal" and "French" are used as pejoratives by anchors and political experts (read: corporate shills) on a news network that defines itself as "Fair and Balanced"... then yes, I would say all things liberal are being ridiculed.
By the way, FOX News can't be broadcast here in Europe (we can get Al Jazeera) as independent assessments have concluded that FOX fails to meet basic journalistic standards and is best classified as propaganda. (Before anyone attacks this point, in the international journalistic community Al Jazeera is considered completely impartial and holds itself to factual and journalistic standards just as high as those the BBC (used to) employ).
Let's get simple here for the benefit of our simpler readers... if you voted for the current administration you simply do not meet the standard of "informed voter".
Should uninformed or ill-informed voters be entitled to vote?
The Luke
-
...when "liberal" and "French" are used as pejoratives by anchors and political experts (read: corporate shills) on a news network that defines itself as "Fair and Balanced"... then yes, I would say all things liberal are being ridiculed.
By the way, FOX News can't be broadcast here in Europe (we can get Al Jazeera) as independent assessments have concluded that FOX fails to meet basic journalistic standards and is best classified as propaganda. (Before anyone attacks this point, in the international journalistic community Al Jazeera is considered completely impartial and holds itself to factual and journalistic standards just as high as those the BBC (used to) employ).
Let's get simple here for the benefit of our simpler readers... if you voted for the current administration you simply do not meet the standard of "informed voter".
Should uninformed or ill-informed voters be entitled to vote?
The Luke
I not arguing whether or not FOX news is bias or mostly propaganda. I agree it is. It's Blatant.
BTW is the G.O.P. Fox news? They are 2 different things that share similar views.
My contention is that this article is not 100% factual as you assert it is but instead filled with propaganda.
I cited 2 examples in the first 6 sentences of the article.
-
Ozmo,
If that article is considered propaganda, then by that same standard FOX News would not be propaganda or even "blatant" propaganda as you describe it... it would be properly classified as "State Brainwashing".
That is what leads on from your standard of what constitutes propaganda.
But you did not identify propaganda in the article, you cited one ostensibly accurate generalization and misconstrued the context. The phrase "Hold Your Heads Up" is not propaganda... FOX's "Fair and Balanced" is propaganda.
For the record, FOX News IS the public relations arm of the Republican Party.
The Luke
-
Ozmo,
If that article is considered propaganda, then by that same standard FOX News would not be propaganda or even "blatant" propaganda as you describe it... it would be properly classified as "State Brainwashing".
That is what leads on from your standard of what constitutes propaganda.
But you did not identify propaganda in the article, you cited one ostensibly accurate generalization and misconstrued the context. The phrase "Hold Your Heads Up" is not propaganda... FOX's "Fair and Balanced" is propaganda.
For the record, FOX News IS the public relations arm of the Republican Party.
The Luke
OK, just taking the wikipedia definition of propaganda:
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
That's what the article is doing. Using generalizations and stereotypes is a good tool for propaganda.
I believe you see the term propaganda in it's most negative of connotations. I see propaganda as a persuasive device used in many things.
Dictionary.com says it this way:
prop·a·gan·da Audio Help /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
Both those definitions apply to that article especially those 2 examples i cited.
And again, I'm NOT talking about the title of the article or FOX news.
-
Both those definitions apply to that article especially those 2 examples i cited.
And again, I'm NOT talking about the title of the article or FOX news.
...then please define the two examples you gave and explicitly explain your reasoning.
From my careful reading of that article and your responses I believe you have miscomprehended the syntax.
The Luke
-
...then please define the two examples you gave and explicitly explain your reasoning.
From my careful reading of that article and your responses I believe you have miscomprehended the syntax.
The Luke
It's possible that i have, but here's my reasoning....(again)
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Do they ridicule all things liberal? What are all things liberal? How can you define all things liberal? And how can you prove the GOP has ridiculed all of them? And does that include all the things both liberal and conservative that are the same?
The word "all" is key here. It's like when your wife tells you something like "we always do this" or "this happens every time". It's simply too general of a word to use when making an accusation about everyhting that a political party is.
"Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination."
This leads the reader to think no one on the right lives in reality and backs it up by implying no one on the right believes in evolution or the danger of global warming.
-
It's possible that i have, but here's my reasoning....(again)
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Do they ridicule all things liberal? What are all things liberal? How can you define all things liberal? And how can you prove the GOP has ridiculed all of them? And does that include all the things both liberal and conservative that are the same?
The word "all" is key here. It's like when your wife tells you something like "we always do this" or "this happens every time". It's simply too general of a word to use when making an accusation about everyhting that a political party is.
...yeah, I think you have misinterpreted this.
The author is simply referring to the fact that "liberal" is now used as a pejorative... doing so, by definition ridicules ALL things liberal. Consider the way people like Romney and Giuliani use the word "French", or the way McCarthyists used the word "Red", or even how Islamic fundamentalists use the word "American"... it's a form of deliberate false correlation.
"Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination."
This leads the reader to think no one on the right lives in reality and backs it up by implying no one on the right believes in evolution or the danger of global warming.
...another syntax misinterpretation.
The subject of the contentious sentence you quoted is "Troglodytes"... YOU are the one who has specified the implication, there is no such inference in the language of the article as the group is explicitly identified. YOU have extended the identification.
I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece. You, perhaps subconsciously, wanted the article to be logically inconsistent so that you could label it propaganda and dismiss it... that's not proper debate.
The Luke
-
...yeah, I think you have misinterpreted this.
The author is simply referring to the fact that "liberal" is now used as a pejorative... doing so, by definition ridicules ALL things liberal. Consider the way people like Romney and Giuliani use the word "French", or the way McCarthyists used the word "Red", or even how Islamic fundamentalists use the word "American"... it's a form of deliberate false correlation.
Perhaps that's what the author meant but that's not the what author says as you have added much to a simple sentence.
I agree however, that's what liberal bashing has come too.
...another syntax misinterpretation.
The subject of the contentious sentence you quoted is "Troglodytes"... YOU are the one who has specified the implication, there is no such inference in the language of the article as the group is explicitly identified. YOU have extended the identification.
I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece. You, perhaps subconsciously, wanted the article to be logically inconsistent so that you could label it propaganda and dismiss it... that's not proper debate.
It is logically inconsistent as I've pointed out. The propaganda here is about what those sentences imply to the reader. My assessment is correct. I get what you are saying regarding "Troglodytes" and it is correct. But, people who read it won't interpret it that way. They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.
-
It is logically inconsistent as I've pointed out. The propaganda here is about what those sentences imply. My assessment is correct.
...Nope.
The author made a comment referring to "Troglodytes on the right..." (that's pretty specific and explicit), however you contend that the comment is invalid/illogical as it does not extend to "Everyone on the right" (your words). YOU are the one who extended the "Troglodytes on the right..." into "Everyone on the right".
If I commented that "Stalin was a bastard" does that extend to ALL people; or ALL communists; or ALL those with mustaches... or ALL bastards?
You've either misread the article or don't comprehend the concept of the grammatical subjective...
This is a common mistake; a piece of text makes a statement/comment that either does or does not make an implication, the reader makes their inference and then conflates their particular (possibly incorrect) inference and the (usually less explicit) textual implication.
YOU have made an incorrect inference, no such implication is present in the text. Re-read the article.
The Luke
-
...Nope.
The author made a comment referring to "Troglodytes on the right..." (that's pretty specific and explicit), however you contend that the comment is invalid/illogical as it does not extend to "Everyone on the right" (your words). YOU are the one who extended the "Troglodytes on the right..." into "Everyone on the right".
If I commented that "Stalin was a bastard" does that extend to ALL people; or ALL communists; or ALL those with mustaches... or ALL bastards?
You've either misread the article or don't comprehend the concept of the grammatical subjective...
This is a common mistake; a piece of text makes a statement/comment that either does or does not make an implication, the reader makes their inference and then conflates their particular (possibly incorrect) inference and the (usually less explicit) textual implication.
YOU have made an incorrect inference, no such implication is present in the text. Re-read the article.
The Luke
Stalin is a single individual, Troglodytes is a group or type of people. Using Troglodytes implies "all republicans" when in fact it is not true.
I get what you are saying regarding "Troglodytes" and it is correct. But, people who read it won't interpret it that way. They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.
-
Teh Luke brings the intellectual thunder from across the pond! ;D
Notice it is the smallest of details being feebly debated...not the primary points consisting of the benefits of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Woman's Suffrage Movement. You know, all those horrible social programs and advances from the depths of deeply rooted racism and sexism. ::)
Go easy on 'em brother, for they listen but cannot hear. ;)
-
Teh Luke brings the intellectual thunder from across the pond! ;D
Notice it is the smallest of details being feebly debated...not the primary points consisting of the benefits of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Woman's Suffrage Movement. You know, all those horrible social programs and advances from the depths of deeply rooted racism and sexism. ::)
Go easy on 'em brother, for they listen but cannot hear. ;)
You should scroll up and re-read. My point is only that the article is filled with propaganda. Not that some of the points in the article aren't true or bad.
Those small details seed the reader's mind with falsities before those primary points are made. No need for it.
-
You should scroll up and re-read. My point is only that the article is filled with propaganda. Not that some of the points in the article aren't true or bad.
Those small details seed the reader's mind with falsities before those primary points are made. No need for it.
I don't need to re-read shit. My man Bob Herbert does not write "propaganda."
Do you avoid op-ed pages of the newspaper, the most intellectual thought provoking and stimulating part of the newspaper, or do you stick to the sports and the funny pages? ::) Are all op-ed writers agents of propaganda? You could make that argument (I suppose), however, I would prefer to engage the writing on its merits and the truths and/or untruths in which they espouse. The op-ed page is the one place where you can read points of view that differ than your own written in a scholarly manner (assuming you are reading a halfway decent newspaper.)
yet even I know that there is NOTHING untrue in that article: not one false assertion, not one misconstrued fact.
-
I don't need to re-read shit. My man Bob Herbert does not write "propaganda."
Do you avoid op-ed pages of the newspaper, the most intellectual thought provoking and stimulating part of the newspaper, or do you stick to the sports and the funny pages? ::) Are all op-ed writers agents of propaganda? You could make that argument (I suppose), however, I would prefer to engage the writing on its merits and the truths and/or untruths in which they espouse. The op-ed page is the one place where you can read points of view that differ than your own written in a scholarly manner (assuming you are reading a halfway decent newspaper.)
Here you go with your ad-hom again.
Hard to have a conversation with someone like that.
But i'll hang with it a bit longer.
BOB Herbert does write propaganda and that has nothing to do with what op-ed peices are written anywhere.
and if you don't feel you should re-read, then don't bother responding, becuase we have little to discuss.
Other than that, what's your take on Obama's recent poll numbers?
-
Further more, I read/watch all kinds of crap in newspapers, internet and TV. The difference is, I don't let my political views get manipulated by falling prey to propaganda crap when i read/watch them.
I guess you do.
-
You should scroll up and re-read. My point is only that the article is filled with propaganda. Not that some of the points in the article aren't true or bad.
Those small details seed the reader's mind with falsities before those primary points are made. No need for it.
...you claimed there were several instances of propaganda, but referenced only the troglodytes comment and the title of the piece.
Then you rescinded using the title as an instance of propaganda, yet asserted that the troglodyte comment was illogical/untrue so long as the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." is replaced with the phrase "All republicans...".
Now you concede that the troglodyte comment (your only example) is NOT propaganda... but that the article is still full of propaganda?
But... doesn't that mean that you can't find ANY instances of propaganda in this propaganda laden propaganda article that you object to?
Ozmo... is the truth propaganda?
The Luke
-
...you claimed there were several instances of propaganda, but referenced only the troglodytes comment and the title of the piece.
Then you rescinded using the title as an instance of propaganda, yet asserted that the troglodyte comment was illogical/untrue so long as the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." is replaced with the phrase "All republicans...".
Now you concede that the troglodyte comment (your only example) is NOT propaganda... but that the article is still full of propaganda?
But... doesn't that mean that you can't find ANY instances of propaganda in this propaganda laden propaganda article that you object to?
Ozmo... is the truth propaganda?
The Luke
When did i say the Troglodyte statement is NOT propaganda?
What are you talking about?
I could find more instances I'm sure. I only started with the first 2 i saw. 6 sentences into the article.
-
Liberals include republicans and democrats.
Liberals have brought this to the table:
women’s rights,civil rights, Voting Rights Act, regulation of banks and stock brokerage firms, a minimum wage, Child Labor Act, regulation of the stock exchanges, labor rights - collective bargaining, National Parks and monuments -Death Valley, Everglades, Blue Ridge, Boulder Dam, Bull Run, Mount Rushmore, Cape Cod, Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural electrification, the GI Bill providing education to thousands upon thousands of veterans, Housing loans for vets, FHA housing loans, The SBA (Small Business Administration), Unemployment insurance, Medicare, Peace Corp, Social Security, National Endowment for the Arts, & LEGAL ALCOHOL!
http://sonofbillbrasky.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/liberal-accomplishments/
Needless to say, it was the rightwing that opposed all of the above.
Child labor builds character!
-
When did i say the Troglodyte statement is NOT propaganda?
What are you talking about?
...here you go:
I get what you are saying regarding "Troglodytes" and it is correct. But, people who read it won't interpret it that way. They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.
...you agreed with my contention that the statement is not propaganda, after I explained your error.
I could find more instances I'm sure. I only started with the first 2 i saw. 6 sentences into the article.
....you didn't find a first one. You cited the title and the troglodyte comment, now you concede neither could objectively be considered propaganda.
This brings us back to my original point... dismissal does NOT constitute debate...
Ozmo, is the truth propaganda?
The Luke
-
...here you go:...you agreed with my contention that the statement is not propaganda, after I explained your error.
....you didn't find a first one. You cited the title and the troglodyte comment, now you concede neither could objectively be considered propaganda.
I agreed that your contention based on direct English & grammar was correct NOT that it wasn't propaganda.
How do you conclude that i agreed it was not propaganda?
You also likened Stalin, to make a point, which was singular to Troglodytes which identifies a group of people such as conservatives.
Notice the writer did not write: "A" Troglodyte. He wrote "Troglodytes"
I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece. ;)
The article is filled with fact i suppose (only because i don't want to take the time to check them out, so I'll assume they are), but it is filled with what can be classified as propaganda based on the definition.
-
I agreed that your contention based on direct English & grammar was correct NOT that it wasn't propaganda.
How do you contend that i agreed it was not propaganda?
...this is nonsense.
You also likened Stalin, to make a point, which was singular to Troglodytes which identifies a group of people such as conservatives.
...no I didn't, you have poor reading comprehension.
Notice the writer did not write: "A" Troglodyte. He wrote "Troglodytes"
I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece. ;)
...no-sequitur.
The article is filled with fact i suppose (only because i don't want to take to check them out, so I'll assume they are), but it is filled with what can be classified as propaganda based on the definition.
...if it is true, (as you concede), then how is it propaganda?
If it is propaganda... then why can't you identify any propaganda within the article?
How did you get to be a moderator on the Political Board with such poor comprehension?
The Luke
-
...this is nonsense.
...no I didn't, you have poor reading comprehension.
...no-sequitur.
...if it is true, (as you concede), then how is it propaganda?
If it is propaganda... then why can't you identify any propaganda within the article?
How did you get to be a moderator on the Political Board with such poor comprehension?
The Luke
I'm at the point where I'm repeating myself. Why bother saying the same thing over and over again to show how it's propaganda? I provided the accepted definitions and supported my arguments. It's pretty straight forward. You obviously have a lacking in understanding implied meaning as it relates persuasive sentences while at the same time have some knowledge in english grammar even though you don't seem to understand plural, singular and difference between types of nouns. You also don't seem to be able, which is similar to what i just said, to understand the difference between what is being said and what a person is saying. English is obviously your second language.
It took 3 posts before you could even address my original contention about the first 6 sentences. You went on and on about Fox news and the title. This is more evidence of either an inability to comprehend english or a stubbornness to see the article for what it REALLY is. You are after all liberal. And it seems, you are one who is not at all objective to anything outside you ideology which in my book makes something on the level of what many liberals complain about in conservatives.
So now you have regressed into attacking my position as a moderator on the political board. Do you even know what moderators are for on the boards, at least this one? I doubt it. New evidence of your character which is now slipping close to Ad-hom attacks.
I had hoped you'd be a person i could have had a conversation with, without slipping into name calling or attacks. You didn't have to agree with my assessment. You didn't have to disagree and act like a jackass about it either.
But it's all good, because i now know what the "The Luke" is all about.
PS: Are conservatives or republicans:
1. a prehistoric cave dweller?
2. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character?
3. a person living in seclusion?
4. a person unacquainted with affairs of the world?
5. an animal living underground?
6. all the above?
;)
-
Facts are facts Ozmo.
You contend the article is propaganda, yet can't identify one instance of propaganda (well, not an instance you haven't then recanted when confronted).
Claiming the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." constitutes propaganda if you substitute it for the phrase "Everyone on the right..." is patently ridiculous. That's not what the article says, that is YOUR prejudiced false inference.
Claiming...
I get what you are saying regarding "Troglodytes" and it is correct. But, people who read it won't interpret it that way. They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.
...is equally ridiculous.
In effect you are insisting that the article is propaganda because those who misinterpret the way you chose to could interpret it that way... that's weak, and obviously a desperate backpedal from your original argument because you CANNOT cite any propaganda in the article (there isn't any).
Facts are facts... there are no lies or factual errors in any of the assertion in the article...
...and by definition, the truth can not be propaganda.
Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?
I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?
The Luke
-
Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?
No, you are not alone. ;)
-
There's so much of it he doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.
-
Facts are facts Ozmo.
You contend the article is propaganda, yet can't identify one instance of propaganda (well, not an instance you haven't then recanted when confronted).
Claiming the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." constitutes propaganda if you substitute it for the phrase "Everyone on the right..." is patently ridiculous. That's not what the article says, that is YOUR prejudiced false inference.
Claiming......is equally ridiculous.
In effect you are insisting that the article is propaganda because those who misinterpret the way you chose to could interpret it that way... that's weak, and obviously a desperate backpedal from your original argument because you CANNOT cite any propaganda in the article (there isn't any).
Facts are facts... there are no lies or factual errors in any of the assertion in the article...
...and by definition, the truth can not be propaganda.
Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?
I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?
The Luke
Yawn.
-
Yawn.
...some excellent points Ozmo.
The Luke
-
Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?
I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?
The Luke
No Luke, you're not the only one.
I think OzmO misinterpreted the term "troglodytes on the right" as meaning "ALL on the right are troglodytes".
I don't think that was the author's intent, and I understood his comment to mean exactly what he wrote "troglodytes on the right". Perhaps if the author had included a sentence about how the voices of rational thinking conservatives was being drowned out by the army of troglodytes on the right, OzmO might have had a clearer understanding of what was infact said.
-
No Luke, you're not the only one.
I think OzmO misinterpreted the term "troglodytes on the right" as meaning "ALL on the right are troglodytes".
I don't think that was the author's intent, and I understood his comment to mean exactly what he wrote "troglodytes on the right". Perhaps if the author had included a sentence about how the voices of rational thinking conservatives was being drowned out by the army of troglodytes on the right, OzmO might have had a clearer understanding of what was infact said.
Jag it's not about what the sentence says in black and white with the exception of likening some or all of conservatives as cave men. It's about what the sentence implies in context with the sentences before and after it.
Surely you understand the difference don't you?
if you want pure fact, Decker's post is much closer to it.
-
Jag it's not about what the sentence says in black and white with the exception of likening some or all of conservatives as cave men. It's about what the sentence implies in context with the sentences before and after it.
Surely you understand the difference don't you?
if you want pure fact, Decker's post is much closer to it.
Wise men make decisions based on solid fact, ...not assumption or nebulous subjective interpretations. 8)
-
Wise men make decisions based on solid fact, ...not assumption or nebulous subjective interpretations. 8)
Since when do the masses act like wise men? 8)
Additionally, since when do wise men fail to recognized BS? :D