or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The American Left Slides Into Psychosis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The American Left Slides Into Psychosis - Page 9

post #321 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well I only have to link to the obscure stuff. There are plenty of mainstream quotes from Democratic leadership claiming the American people are too stupid to manage themselves.

You can find those yourself though.

Here is a large cookie for you.

Now find some quotes where these people are talking about eugenics. About how they will manage the American gene pool through the practice of eugenics.

I repeat. You've won the election. Now you can go for a long cycle ride, put your up, have a glass of port, or whatever you do to relax, and stop the hysterical fear-mongering pants pissing rape of reality. You have WON. American politicians are not talking about eugenics. You can stop lying now.
post #322 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Here is a large cookie for you.

Now find some quotes where these people are talking about eugenics. About how they will manage the American gene pool through the practice of eugenics.

.....

Didn't we go through this before? Ain't going to happen.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #323 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Here is a large cookie for you.

Now find some quotes where these people are talking about eugenics. About how they will manage the American gene pool through the practice of eugenics.

I repeat. You've won the election. Now you can go for a long cycle ride, put your up, have a glass of port, or whatever you do to relax, and stop the hysterical fear-mongering pants pissing rape of reality. You have WON. American politicians are not talking about eugenics. You can stop lying now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Didn't we go through this before? Ain't going to happen.

I'll ask you both a question. Can you find me quotes where Hitler said, "Oh and btw, while we are on the subject, I'll be marching a few million Jews off to be killed."

The speeches did no such thing. The speeches were for defining the philosophy, not the actions.

Democratic speech has defined their philosophy. Their philosophy denotes superior and inferior and desires to grants rights accordingly.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #324 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll ask you both a question. Can you find me quotes where Hitler said, "Oh and btw, while we are on the subject, I'll be marching a few million Jews off to be killed."

The speeches did no such thing. The speeches were for defining the philosophy, not the actions.

Democratic speech has defined their philosophy. Their philosophy denotes superior and inferior and desires to grants rights accordingly.

The Democrats are like the Nazis.

Got you.

YOU WON. YOU CAN STOP NOW.
post #325 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll ask you both a question. Can you find me quotes where Hitler said, "Oh and btw, while we are on the subject, I'll be marching a few million Jews off to be killed."

The speeches did no such thing. The speeches were for defining the philosophy, not the actions.

Democratic speech has defined their philosophy. Their philosophy denotes superior and inferior and desires to grants rights accordingly.

Changing the burden of answering the original question, doesn't answer what was asked of you. I'm willing to move on since you have obviously decided not to answer it. You have asked me to comment on the links that I have provided in this thread. I was criticized for the lengthy quotes from the links, I will shorten the quotes in the future. I was also criticized for lack of comments about the link. The links I provided speak for themselves and were on point to the issue being addressed so no comments were necessary. You may read them or ignore them, but they provided information that reflected that eugenics was of interest to the Republican Right Wingers. You have yet to provide the links to support your argument that this was an issue of the Democrats.

OBTW, Hitler, or what be believed, said or did has nothing to do with this thread. Nice try tm, move on, I have.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #326 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The Democrats are like the Nazis.

Got you.

YOU WON. YOU CAN STOP NOW.

MJ, the question we asked will never be answered. Let's move on. It will remain one of the mysterious and unanswered or unanswerable questions in this thread. I'm done and moving on.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #327 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll ask you both a question. Can you find me quotes where Hitler said, "Oh and btw, while we are on the subject, I'll be marching a few million Jews off to be killed."

The speeches did no such thing. The speeches were for defining the philosophy, not the actions.

Democratic speech has defined their philosophy. Their philosophy denotes superior and inferior and desires to grants rights accordingly.

I have a question. It's philosophical so you might want to sit down for a while.

I'd appreciate an answer though and just for you we'll make it simple. You can choose:

A) Yes

B) No


Now here is the question:

Quote:
If, with hindsight, one knew Hitler was going to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and - theoretically - one could turn back the clock to stop him being born or even perhaps abort or extinguish him shortly after birth, would you TRUMPY, support that?

Remember...A or B...yes or no...

I appreciate you'll need time to digest and chug the old cogs into gear but don't take too long...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #328 of 824
Expect an answer to your question when

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #329 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The Democrats are like the Nazis.

Got you.

YOU WON. YOU CAN STOP NOW.

The point remains the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Changing the burden of answering the original question, doesn't answer what was asked of you. I'm willing to move on since you have obviously decided not to answer it. You have asked me to comment on the links that I have provided in this thread. I was criticized for the lengthy quotes from the links, I will shorten the quotes in the future. I was also criticized for lack of comments about the link. The links I provided speak for themselves and were on point to the issue being addressed so no comments were necessary. You may read them or ignore them, but they provided information that reflected that eugenics was of interest to the Republican Right Wingers. You have yet to provide the links to support your argument that this was an issue of the Democrats.

OBTW, Hitler, or what be believed, said or did has nothing to do with this thread. Nice try tm, move on, I have.

You've moved on except for this new reply you mean.

FT, did any of your links advocate for murdering or exterminating millions of people or entire "races" however they may be defined?

No they didn't. They largely hit matters of belief or philosophy. You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.

So someone says people ought not marry outside of their race as an example. I asked you a dozen times to clarify if this made one a eugenicst. You wouldn't touch it. If you would confirm it then I'll be glad to find the same thing but I'm not going to watch people be hypocritical and apply double-standards. I'm not going to let you post your link, go find the same thing and then you or MJ complain that it's not the same.

The left deals almost exclusively with intent. I'll deal with you and others when you will nail down actions and label them. I won't let the labels change after I find the actions due to you liking the intent of the parties taking those actions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #330 of 824
Oh dear.....more questions Trumpy refuses to answer.

I wonder...are we perhaps being uncharitable? Perhaps he does want to answer...

Maybe he just doesn't understand the questions...

Seems plausible.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #331 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Oh dear.....more questions Trumpy refuses to answer.

I wonder...are we perhaps being uncharitable? Perhaps he does want to answer...

Maybe he just doesn't understand the questions...

Seems plausible.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between asking for evidence to prove an answer and the answer itself.

Please feel free to requote any question you think I have not answered. If someone demands prove it but refuses to define proof, then they can go suck eggs. How does one prove that which is undefined?

In the meantime though we have the actual thread topic which coincidentally is not grumpy lefties who ignore the point. It is the American Left sliding into psychosis.

Vanity Fair

Quote:
A distinguished colleague of mine likens the wiggy mood of the nation to that of a hormonal teenager. What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged. Is voting for a deranged Tea Party candidate such as Christine ODonnell, who has no demonstrable talent for lawmaking, or much else, so different from shouting Whatever! and slamming the bedroom door? Is moaning that Obama doesnt emote enough or get sufficiently angry so different from screaming, You dont understand!!!

Gee, do we grant hormonal teenagers the same rights as adults? Some of you will like the rest. It's full of the same silly caricatures that pass for leftist thought, but don't need any statistics to back them up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #332 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Please feel free to requote any question you think I have not answered.

Ok. Here we go:

Quote:
If, with hindsight, one knew Hitler was going to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and - theoretically - one could turn back the clock to stop him being born or even perhaps abort or extinguish him shortly after birth, would you TRUMPY, support that?


A) Yes

B) No
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #333 of 824
Yes, the "point remains,"

None of your quotes prove that Democrats are suggesting a programme of managing the American gene pool.

They are not like Hitler, who came to power on the back of literally hundreds of speeches in which he compared Jews to "rats" and "vermin" who should "be exterminated" and a dedicated propaganda campaign paid for by the state in which posters of Jews literally baking bread from the blood of gentile children were put up in the streets.

You might better compare Glenn Beck calling "progressives" a "cancer". Which is apparently fine with you.

You are a teacher. You are not a history teacher. That is clear.

Your point is absurd, and offensive, and childish, and you are wrong, and you can stop now, because you did well in the election, and you're not supposed to get high on your own supply.
post #334 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yes, the "point remains,"

None of your quotes prove that Democrats are suggesting a programme of managing the American gene pool.

They are not like Hitler, who came to power on the back of literally hundreds of speeches in which he compared Jews to "rats" and "vermin" who should "be exterminated" and a dedicated propaganda campaign paid for by the state in which posters of Jews literally baking bread from the blood of gentile children were put up in the streets.

You might better compare Glenn Beck calling "progressives" a "cancer". Which is apparently fine with you.

You are a teacher. You are not a history teacher. That is clear.

Your point is absurd, and offensive, and childish, and you are wrong, and you can stop now, because you did well in the election, and you're not supposed to get high on your own supply.

Your reasoning is hilarious MJ. After the last election, we were supposed to shut up because we lost. The loss was proof that conservatives beliefs were extremist, fringe and proof that we were now going to be governing from a permanent minority (and that minority would be shrinking of course as we died off) position.

Now the reasoning is... well you won so now shut up.

Damned if you do or don't I guess. The hypocrisy is rather fun to watch though.

What are you a teacher of again MJ?

You aren't seriously suggesting I can't find speeches or imagery where liberals and their leaders have made claims of impending violence and harm that is going to be caused by conservatives due to their nature.

I mean seriously. You can't be making that claim. That is ALWAYS the claim of leftists. Seg is a walking, talking example of that as is BR. Their seething raging tirades on here are all about the supposed seething, raging hypothetical violence and harmful and oppressive scenarios that conservatives are going to unleash on everyone REAL SOON NOW. That and they are already responsible for all the regular events that go on anyway. A liberal goes on a violent shooting rampage. It's not really their fault. They only had the gun in the first place due to paranoid, bloodthirsty conservatives who want your child to blow their brains out so they can feel like Rambo.

See I've read so much of it, that it isn't even hard to do.

You've clearly gone off the deep end. You open your mouth and end up doing nothing but proving my point completely right. If liberals were merely airing disagreements with conservatives, then your point would be completely true and I would be making shit up. However the reality is that liberals continually demonize conservatives. They are all rich, white men (often southern men) but they are also all ignorant and the poorest among us and they are too stupid to vote for their own self interests and thus they and their views are a danger and harmful to society. They want your daughters to die in a back alley. They want to shoot the doctor who would help her. They want to kill Muslims and anyone brown, etc. etc. etc.

Those caricatures and the limited thoughts behind them are like a tape loop(showing my age there) both here and in the leftist realm of thought in general.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #335 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I have a question. It's philosophical so you might want to sit down for a while.
I'd appreciate an answer though and just for you we'll make it simple. You can choose:

A) Yes

B) No


Now here is the question:

"If, with hindsight, one knew Hitler was going to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and - theoretically - one could turn back the clock to stop him being born or even perhaps abort or extinguish him shortly after birth, would you TRUMPY, support that?"

Remember...A or B...yes or no...
I appreciate you'll need time to digest and chug the old cogs into gear but don't take too long...

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Oh dear.....more questions Trumpy refuses to answer.
I wonder...are we perhaps being uncharitable? Perhaps he does want to answer...
Maybe he just doesn't understand the questions...
Seems plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yes, the "point remains,"

None of your quotes prove that Democrats are suggesting a programme of managing the American gene pool..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

......You aren't seriously suggesting I can't find speeches or imagery where liberals and their leaders have made claims of impending violence and harm that is going to be caused by conservatives due to their nature.
I mean seriously. You can't be making that claim. ....seething raging tirades on here ......

You didn't answer MJ's question, you responded, but you didn't answer it. As I said above I have moved on from this because I know you aren't going to answer it.

Sego's question that you have totally ignored is an A or B answer.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #336 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Changing the burden of answering the original question, doesn't answer what was asked of you. I'm willing to move on since you have obviously decided not to answer it. You have asked me to comment on the links that I have provided in this thread. I was criticized for the lengthy quotes from the links, I will shorten the quotes in the future. I was also criticized for lack of comments about the link. The links I provided speak for themselves and were on point to the issue being addressed so no comments were necessary. You may read them or ignore them, but they provided information that reflected that eugenics was of interest to the Republican Right Wingers. You have yet to provide the links to support your argument that this was an issue of the Democrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

FT, did any of your links advocate for murdering or exterminating millions of people or entire "races" however they may be defined?

No they didn't. They largely hit matters of belief or philosophy. You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.

So someone says people ought not marry outside of their race as an example. I asked you a dozen times to clarify if this made one a eugenicst. You wouldn't touch it. If you would confirm it then I'll be glad to find the same thing but I'm not going to watch people be hypocritical and apply double-standards. I'm not going to let you post your link, go find the same thing and then you or MJ complain that it's not the same.

The left deals almost exclusively with intent. I'll deal with you and others when you will nail down actions and label them. I won't let the labels change after I find the actions due to you liking the intent of the parties taking those actions.

First, let's go back to the original question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So says the guy who wrote that if the Democrats werent successful in the November elections they would begin to talk about eugenics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

They already are talking about eugenics. The American people are now too stupid and thus are incapable of self-government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

When you say that senior members of the Democratic Party have been talking about eugenics? That is a lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is the truth. The examples have been noted and are easy to find in media accounts. Your screaming denials don't change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Eugenics.
WHATEVER the definition. Senior figures in the Democratic party are not talking about eugenics.
You wrote this.
You wrote a lie.
You have provided no evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm trying to see where you are coming from. I'm not sure what case you are presenting with regard to the Beck link.
Quote:
Eugenics is broadly defined as promoting the use of practices that you believe will improve the genetic composition of a population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Ok, lets roll with your definition then. Now you have no reason not to provide the information that I and mj asked for, do you----let's not concern ourselves what mj's definition of eugenics are, I'm sure mj won't object about the semantics.

You were asked the question, you provided the definition and all you had to do was to answer it. Simple provide links that reflects the fact that Democrats were advocating eugenics. You kept changing the parameters to a very simple question. The question did not ask if the Democrats were practicing eugenics, whether they were murdering or committing violence---just whether there is evidence that they advocated it.

The links that I provided, and was criticized for omitting comments (I incorrectly made the assumption that you could understand the point of the articles) reflected viewpoints and beliefs of some right winger Republicans. I do not believe that this is the basis for most right wingers, but a few influential ones none the less.

If I was criticized for not making comments to the links and quotes I provided how can you make the accusation that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.

Clearly another one of your tactics in not answering a question and accusing your opponent of stating or declaring something that was never said, and all the time avoiding the question.

It was not my question to answer, however I chose to give examples of Republicans who backed or supported eugenics----not implying mass extermination or murdering.

Now Sego has asked a simple question, and made it simple---either an A or B. Your choice, you can ignore or dismiss it or chose to provide an answer.

Some comments in this thread regarding your tactics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I'm wondering Trumpy....do you actually ever feel like contributing anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ya, do what Trump does. Spam the forum with no links, no quotes, AND no thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Given Trumpy's re-defining of what dialogue and discourse are (a natural progression from his previous redefining of 'truth' and 'facts') I too - like FT - am going to be 'improved by him' and learn at the feet of the master.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

We all know them by know, but as you seem to have conveniently forgotten, now the thread has a new page, and everything, you can just click on the link above (as can everyone else) for a reminder.

So. Eugenics. You have claimed that senior Democrats are "talking about eugenics." This is a direct quote. They are "already talking about eugenics." These were your words.

Where. Please find me a quote. One. One quote where senior democrats are seriously considering, suggesting, weighing or even DISCUSSING the subject of eugenics.
You seem to be the only person in a nation of millions who has found evidence of this. This should turn American and world politics on its head. So find a quote. This is dynamite. Find a quote. A quote.

TRUMPTMAN IS PLAYING THE INTENT GAME.

EUGENICS. DEMOCRATS. EUGENICS.

Return to MJ's Post:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...47#post1748347
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #337 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Your reasoning is hilarious MJ. After the last election, we were supposed to shut up because we lost. The loss was proof that conservatives beliefs were extremist, fringe and proof that we were now going to be governing from a permanent minority (and that minority would be shrinking of course as we died off) position.

Now th

snip

poorest among us and they are too stupid to vote for their own self interests and thus they and their views are a danger and harmful to society. They want your daughters to die in a back alley. They want to shoot the doctor who would help her. They want to kill Muslims and anyone brown, etc. etc. etc.

Those caricatures and the limited thoughts behind them are like a tape loop(showing my age there) both here and in the leftist realm of thought in general.

Eugenics.

Instead of simply showing how those quotes mean that Democrats want to begin a programme of eugenics, you seem to have launched a huge rant full of ad hominem attacks against me.

I understand why. You have lost this argument, because your original point was absurd, and when you made an offensive comparison you were shown how the comparison was absolutely wrong by historical example.

You took some quotes out of context. You could have said "Look, these people are arrogant." But you had to claim that these quotes meant that Democrats want to manage the American gene pool with a programme of eugenics. Even though they didn't say that.

You constantly whine about THE INTENT GAME, but hey look. It's totally fine when you do it.

If Democrats were planning a programme of eugenics it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. It is not. It is on this forum in your posts. And nowhere else.

YOU DID WELL IN THE ELECTION. Now you can stop talking shit. You can stop lying and trying to make people scared and a debate on the issues impossible. Now you can stop playing THE INTENT GAME.

Democrats are not proposing eugenics. That is a stupid, offensive, childish and completely bullshit suggestion with no evidence. Mr Intent Game.
post #338 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Eugenics.

Instead of simply showing how those quotes mean that Democrats want to begin a programme of eugenics, you seem to have launched a huge rant full of ad hominem attacks against me.

I understand why. You have lost this argument, because your original point was absurd, and when you made an offensive comparison you were shown how the comparison was absolutely wrong by historical example.

You took some quotes out of context. You could have said "Look, these people are arrogant." But you had to claim that these quotes meant that Democrats want to manage the American gene pool with a programme of eugenics. Even though they didn't say that.

You constantly whine about THE INTENT GAME, but hey look. It's totally fine when you do it.

If Democrats were planning a programme of eugenics it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. It is not. It is on this forum in your posts. And nowhere else.

YOU DID WELL IN THE ELECTION. Now you can stop talking shit. You can stop lying and trying to make people scared and a debate on the issues impossible. Now you can stop playing THE INTENT GAME.

Democrats are not proposing eugenics. That is a stupid, offensive, childish and completely bullshit suggestion with no evidence. Mr Intent Game.



Good post and good points. I can see that not much has changed here.

I just love this quote from trumpy :

Quote:
Those caricatures and the limited thoughts behind them are like a tape loop(showing my age there) both here and in the leftist realm of thought in general


OOOOOOOO! You're so old!

Careful trumpy! The youngin's here will start blaming you for everything!

Well Mumbo it's good to read your timely posts and logical reply's to the usual illogic. Not much will ever change with this one. I haven't been posting much lately because I just don't have much time these days for the psychosis on parade that we have here.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #339 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Avoidance, obfuscation, running away, circumvention, delay, departure, dodge, dodging, elusion, escape, escapism, eschewal, evasion, flight, non-participation, passive resistance, recoil, retreat, run-around, shirking, shunning, steering clear of, scamper off, sneak off, shuffle off, sheer off, turn tail, turn one's back; take to one's heels; runaway, run for one's life; cut and run; be off like a shot; fly, flee; fly away, flee away, run away from, avoiding; neutral, shy of (unwilling) [more]; elusive, evasive; fugitive, runaway; shy, wild., lest, in order to avoid.

Confucius he say:

No answer is in itself an answer
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #340 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Avoidance, obfuscation, running away, circumvention, delay, departure, dodge, dodging, elusion, escape, escapism, eschewal, evasion, flight, non-participation, passive resistance, recoil, retreat, run-around, shirking, shunning, steering clear of, scamper off, sneak off, shuffle off, sheer off, turn tail, turn one's back; take to one's heels; runaway, run for one's life; cut and run; be off like a shot; fly, flee; fly away, flee away, run away from, avoiding; neutral, shy of (unwilling) [more]; elusive, evasive; fugitive, runaway; shy, wild., lest, in order to avoid.

Confucius he say:

No answer is in itself an answer

[/QUOTE]

Surely you didn't expect an answer from tm---did you?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #341 of 824

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #342 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Keith Olbermann - A Memorial Tribute

MSNBC Suspends Keith Olbermann for Donating to Democrats

Quote:
Keith Olbermann, an unabashed liberal who hosted the prime time talk show "Countdown" on MSNBC, was suspended indefinitely by the cable network Friday for contributing thousands of dollars to three Democratic congressional candidates.

The donations, first reported by Politico, violate MSNBC's rule barring employees from giving to political campaigns. Most news organizations have similar policies as it's considered a breach of journalistic ethics to support candidates that a reporter or news person might cover.

Plain enough, guess Keith didn't read the fine print in his contract.

Quote:
Olbermann, in a statement forwarded to Politico by MSNBC, acknowledged the contributions, and said "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level." But he has been a critic of the $1 million donation made by Fox News' parent company, News Corp., to the Republican Governors Association, a group that worked to defeat Democrats in the midterm election.

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #343 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

First, let's go back to the original question:

You can't seriously be dense enough to notice that there is no question in there.

There is however a strident declaration, aka a statement on my part. We would call this "THE ANSWER."

They already are talking about eugenics. The American people are now too stupid and thus are incapable of self-government.

Mumbo calls it a lie.

It is the truth. The examples have been noted and are easy to find in media accounts. Your screaming denials don't change that.

I have stated my view of the fact. My version of the events. My belief in what is true aka MY ANSWER and I have done so multiple times.

MJ states that I have provided no evidence for my answer (and that it is a lie, etc.)
Quote:
You were asked the question, you provided the definition and all you had to do was to answer it.

Actually the quotes from you show the following. Someone made a snide aside about Republicans and talk of Eugenics. (Aka so says the guy who....)

I ran with it and said they in fact were already using language that denotes eugenic beliefs and practices. That is my conclusion. That is my answer. There was no question but I provided my statement about it anyway.

Quote:
Simple provide links that reflects the fact that Democrats were advocating eugenics.

You really have some comprehension problems here. On asks for proof for an assertion, a hypothesis or a claim. You have complained that I won't make a claim aka provide an answer. I have done exactly that. I've strongly asserted what I think on this matter.

Quote:
You kept changing the parameters to a very simple question. The question did not ask if the Democrats were practicing eugenics, whether they were murdering or committing violence---just whether there is evidence that they advocated it.

I didn't change the question. I clearly stated that eugenics did not involving purely committing murder or violence. I purposefully stated this fact and linked to a definition of that point. I also stated that there was evidence of their statements. These are both statements or "answers" to unasked questions.

Quote:
The links that I provided, and was criticized for omitting comments (I incorrectly made the assumption that you could understand the point of the articles) reflected viewpoints and beliefs of some right winger Republicans. I do not believe that this is the basis for most right wingers, but a few influential ones none the less.

You weren't criticized for omitting comments. You were criticized for not making any statements that your linking to the articles supported. You do this often and the point is understood. You don't have to defend what you won't state. Likewise people can't criticized you for a position that you won't take. You prefer to let people project their views aka assume or infer what you might be trying to say. This tactic is easily understood and much like how a politician who doesn't answer a question should have it put to them again, you have been asked to state your position aka provide an answer.

If someone asks you if you support a carbon tax, they don't want ten links with full quotations to articles that show alternative energy programs and their benefits. They want to know your answer. When asked to support your answer or PROVE it, then you can support it with the links and quotes.
Quote:
If I was criticized for not making comments to the links and quotes I provided how can you make the accusation that:


You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.


I can do that because you expressly asked for me to infer your beliefs since you don't care to state them.

Quote:
Clearly another one of your tactics in not answering a question and accusing your opponent of stating or declaring something that was never said, and all the time avoiding the question.

Clearly you have some serious problem understand logic and argumentation. I've stated multiple conclusions even when not asked a question. Your own quotations show this quite clearly. I've stated that Democratic leaders use language that denotes a belief in eugenics. I've stated the proof is easily found. I've stated and linked to a definition of eugenics that reflects my view of eugenics.

What I have "avoid(ed)" per your claims is proof or links to support those claims aka those answers.

Quote:
It was not my question to answer, however I chose to give examples of Republicans who backed or supported eugenics----not implying mass extermination or murdering.

You linked to certain practices but wouldn't do what you just now did. You would not say if those links were proof of an assertion that some Republicans back or support eugenics via those linked practices. You've done that now so thanks. I asked you several times what answer your "proof" was supporting since you wouldn't state it. I asked you about what claim you were supporting with the links. I asked if racism is proof of eugenics. You wouldn't make any statement aka provide any answer.

Quote:
Now Sego has asked a simple question, and made it simple---either an A or B. Your choice, you can ignore or dismiss it or chose to provide an answer.

I saw this the second time it was posted. I'd ask Sego to answer his poised question first and state the purposes of reviewing the hypothetical question. I'd also ask why it is not open ended for a hypothetical question. It is possible not to desire A or B there.
Quote:
Some comments in this thread regarding your tactics:

I could care less about those. Stupid people bleating on about their ignorance does nothing to me. Your attempt to use shame in a discussion of logic is odd.

MJ has been banned from these forums multiple times because his thinking is not at all lucid and he misreads pretty much everything that passes before his eyes. In this thread for example I asked him expressly to explain how someone who owns something and denies you use of it with a claim is somehow "proven" right by simply owning it. He just disappeared for long enough for your spamming to push it down a couple pages. I occasionally have fun reflecting his own logic back at him and watching him blow a gasket or two, but other than that he's pretty useless for discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good post and good points. I can see that not much has changed here.

I just love this quote from trumpy :

OOOOOOOO! You're so old!

If generational accounting shows my generation is causing harm, I'll gladly slap some heads together. In the meantime most people my age are on 401k's, not pensions, they are receiving and trying to get ahead after the Boomer bubbles, not crafting them. Finally you're right, I'm getting older as all people do. You've likely noticed me posting a bit less on here and I've done a couple century bike rides, a half marathon and several smaller events in my desire to put a downpayment on 40 related to my own health. I'm not expecting my kids to buy me new knees and or pills because obesity is the new 60. I'll gladly be held to my own credo thanks.

FT, If I can find three people who disagree with what you are doing, then what does that prove right or wrong? These are questions, along with many others you don't answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

MSNBC Suspends Keith Olbermann for Donating to Democrats

Plain enough, guess Keith didn't read the fine print in his contract.

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

He clearly understood what he was doing. He knew it was a breach of journalistic ethics and his own statement notes his prior lack of this behavior I guess as some lame attempt to rationalize this breach of ethics. It's no different than a cheating husband declaring he had been faithful for the first 10 years of his marriage or a murderer or thief declaring they hadn't engaged in those crimes for any number of years.

It wasn't the fine print in his contract either, but the fine print in every contract. It is a standard journalistic practice.

The donations, first reported by Politico, violate MSNBC's rule barring employees from giving to political campaigns. Most news organizations have similar policies as it's considered a breach of journalistic ethics to support candidates that a reporter or news person might cover.

We know what the answer would be if this were perceived or real Republican corruption. More regulation and oversight. Clearly that is what MSNBC and KO need!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #344 of 824
Eugenics.

You have not provided any quotes that prove that senior Democrats want to manage the American gene pool through a programme of genetics.

You have provided some (out of context) quotes that you could argue show some people being arrogant.

Now prove your utterly absurd claim that these quotes are anything to do with eugenics. Eugenics.
post #345 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Eugenics.

They already are talking about eugenics. The American people are now too stupid and thus are incapable of self-government.

Firstly, no-one has ever said this.

This is some shit you have made up.

Secondly, when Glenn Beck said that progressives were a cancer that should be eradicated, he was proposing that people take up arms and kill liberals in concentration camps.

I think this was bad. Do you think this was bad?
post #346 of 824
Glenn Beck wants to put progressives in concentration camps and "eradicate" them in their millions.

http://www.examiner.com/cable-news-i...-be-eradicated

He said it.

Are you OK with this, trumptman? He plainly said it. He wants to put progressives on trains to concentration camps, where they will be murdered. That's EXACTLY what he said. Totally.

That's his programme. It's as clear as day.

Are you cool with this?

Eugenics. Intent game. Eugenics. trumptman. Eugenics. trumptman thinks the democrats want to begin a programme of eugenics. Eugenics.

Meanwhile Glenn Beck wants to KILL MILLIONS OF AMERICANS and is probably already buying trains and showerheads!!!!!!1!!!!!!! Eugenics. Eugenics. Intent game. Eugenics.
post #347 of 824
You don't get it MJ - there's no point entering such a dialogue unless you grasp one thing.

Trumpy follows an ideological belief system that ACTUALLY DOES those things.

They will accuse the left of Eugenics just like they would accuse them of torture and concentration camps. But they ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN.

That's what you are failing to grasp - the point of accusing others of doing such things is to make a smoke-screen to hide the fact that they want to do them.

If there was a suitable social climate they would even admit it - you'll soon see the true colours if there's another large scale US terror attack: the last one gave us waterboarding, torture and kids in concentration camps. All brought to you by the RIght.

If you think they care or even feel any moral compunction you are barking up the wrong tree.

They just can't say it.

Yet.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #348 of 824
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Mumbo Jumbo;1748200]Eugenics.

You have not provided any quotes that prove that senior Democrats want to manage the American gene pool through a programme of genetics.

This is really becoming like shooting fish in a barrel. Please show how your strawman above and this, they already are talking about eugenics, my actual statement are the same.

Talking about eugenics, and having eugenics beliefs is now managing the gene pools through a program?

FT didn't claim that either. He linked to some articles that we can INFER are understood to mean that being a racist is the same thing as having eugenic views.

Quote:
You have provided some (out of context) quotes that you could argue show some people being arrogant.

They go well beyond I'm smarter and you are dumber. They state clearly that the American people need to be protected from themselves (by the superior), that they are harming themselves and that they are a danger because they will harm the superior as well. This great unwashed masses damaging or overwhelming the "fittest" so to speak is exactly what eugenics beliefs are about.
Quote:
Now prove your utterly absurd claim that these quotes are anything to do with eugenics. Eugenics.

I just did thanks. I also had a rather nice post on these points (with links) here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Firstly, no-one has ever said this.

This is some shit you have made up.

Of course I made it up. The quote is from me and thus the words and phrases were concocted aka formed and made up by me. I can't pay a staff of writers you know. I have to write my own thoughts thanks. No all of us has ghostwriters like yourself writing your views under a number of pseudonyms.
Quote:
Secondly, when Glenn Beck said that progressives were a cancer that should be eradicated, he was proposing that people take up arms and kill liberals in concentration camps.

I think this was bad. Do you think this was bad?

Can you provide the quote in context? If I provide a similar example of a liberal using that type of analogy about conservatives, then is it also bad and also eugenics because similar quotes have already been dismissed by you as being merely "arrogant." Why is there a double-standard here and why should I work hard to provide more material for you to dismiss with this double-standard? Can you explain how Beck is a Republican "leader" while not elected to anything?

You've very much (yet again) proven my point. If people won't agree to a definition of proof, then why bother with your demands of proof because you'll be hypocritical and dismiss the work. You already have done so. Republican analogies = eugenics. Liberal analogies = arrogant.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #349 of 824
Heheh...

Dems = Literal Truth

Repubs = See In Context

Pathetic....

And still no answer to my question.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #350 of 824
[QUOTE=trumptman;1748205]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Eugenics.

You have not provided any quotes that prove that senior Democrats want to manage the American gene pool through a programme of genetics.

This is really becoming like shooting fish in a barrel. Please show how your strawman above and this, they already are talking about eugenics, my actual statement are the same.

Talking about eugenics, and having eugenics beliefs is now managing the gene pools through a program?

FT didn't claim that either. He linked to some articles that we can INFER are understood to mean that being a racist is the same thing as having eugenic views.



They go well beyond I'm smarter and you are dumber. They state clearly that the American people need to be protected from themselves (by the superior), that they are harming themselves and that they are a danger because they will harm the superior as well. This great unwashed masses damaging or overwhelming the "fittest" so to speak is exactly what eugenics beliefs are about.


I just did thanks. I also had a rather nice post on these points (with links) here.



Of course I made it up. The quote is from me and thus the words and phrases were concocted aka formed and made up by me. I can't pay a staff of writers you know. I have to write my own thoughts thanks. No all of us has ghostwriters like yourself writing your views under a number of pseudonyms.


Can you provide the quote in context? If I provide a similar example of a liberal using that type of analogy about conservatives, then is it also bad and also eugenics because similar quotes have already been dismissed by you as being merely "arrogant." Why is there a double-standard here and why should I work hard to provide more material for you to dismiss with this double-standard? Can you explain how Beck is a Republican "leader" while not elected to anything?

You've very much (yet again) proven my point. If people won't agree to a definition of proof, then why bother with your demands of proof because you'll be hypocritical and dismiss the work. You already have done so. Republican analogies = eugenics. Liberal analogies = arrogant.

Eugenics.

None of your quotes have anything at all to do with eugenics. They have nothing at all to do with any desire whatsoever to manage the American genepool.

Absolutely none.

Unless you are playing THE INTENT GAME.

None of these quotes have anything to do with eugenics. Nothing. Absolutely none. Zero.

You have not demonstrated a damn thing. You have merely made some ad hominem attacks on me and taken some quotes out of context and made some absurd, childish and provocative interpretation about them that isn't supported by any facts, context, wider political context, history, policy or reality.

All you've done is quote. And make a conclusion that isn't supported by the facts.

If you believe your own words, you cannot possibly be taken seriously by anyone who follows contemporary politics, because your analysis is so absurd. If you don't believe your own words, you're just lying. And you can stop, because the election's over.

Eugenics. Eugenics, trumptman. Provide some quotes that ACTUALLY talk about eugenics.

Mr Intent Game.
post #351 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Heheh...

Dems = Literal Truth

Repubs = See In Context

Pathetic....

And still no answer to my question.



Actually you were told that I wanted to know why it basically wasn't a true hypothetical question and instead is a false dilemma fallacy posing as a hypothetical question.


The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two" and "lemma" meaning (in this context) "possibilites." When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omissionpossibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorancerather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")


I gave you the chance to fix this omission. Now we have to presume you merely have some ulterior motive when posing a question that is a logical fallacy.

Also yourself and a few others haven't been so keen on hypothetical questions aka thought experiments in the past. Are you more open to them now?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #352 of 824
God, Trumpy....you're actually MAD aren't you???

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #353 of 824
It just occurred to me that this is like the time that trumptman said that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I posted video and audio and half a dozen different transcripts to show conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected, and we argued for pages and pages, him saying that conservatives didn't, me saying "look, here's a video!". And so on.



Ah.

Now, here's trumptman arguing that

-Democrats are considering a programme of eugenics
-With no evidence apart from some quotes that have nothing to do with eugenics

and when called on it he says "Well, that's what they mean"

...but when Glenn Beck says "progressives" are "a cancer" that must be "eradicated" suddenly context is everything.

EUGENICS. EUGENICS, trumptman. EUGENICS.
post #354 of 824

In trumptman's war on reality, the biggest losers are logic and the English language.

CLASSIC.

Trumptman, be a darling and find some quotes where senior Democrats are proposing, considering or discussing eugenics.

Without playing THE INTENT GAME.

INTENT GAAAAAAAAAAAAME.
post #355 of 824
post #356 of 824
I talk to the trees....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #357 of 824
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

God, Trumpy....you're actually MAD aren't you???


Wait are we on to rhetorical questions now or are we still talking hypothetically?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It just occurred to me that this is like the time that trumptman said that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I posted video and audio and half a dozen different transcripts to show conservatives celebrating when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected, and we argued for pages and pages, him saying that conservatives didn't, me saying "look, here's a video!". And so on.



Ah.

Now, here's trumptman arguing that

-Democrats are considering a programme of eugenics
-With no evidence apart from some quotes that have nothing to do with eugenics

and when called on it he says "Well, that's what they mean"

...but when Glenn Beck says "progressives" are "a cancer" that must be "eradicated" suddenly context is everything.

EUGENICS. EUGENICS, trumptman. EUGENICS.

I think if anyone read that link, they'd understand much about you and your games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

In trumptman's war on reality, the biggest losers are logic and the English language.

CLASSIC.

Trumptman, be a darling and find some quotes where senior Democrats are proposing, considering or discussing eugenics.

Without playing THE INTENT GAME.

INTENT GAAAAAAAAAAAAME.

The war on reality starts with hypothetical questions. I'm apparently more profound than I realized.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I talk to the trees....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #358 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm apparently more profound than I realized.

The saddest thing is this is quite probably true...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #359 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You can't seriously be dense enough to notice that there is no question in there.

There is however a strident declaration, aka a statement on my part. We would call this "THE ANSWER."

They already are talking about eugenics. The American people are now too stupid and thus are incapable of self-government.

Mumbo calls it a lie.

It is the truth. The examples have been noted and are easy to find in media accounts. Your screaming denials don't change that.

I have stated my view of the fact. My version of the events. My belief in what is true aka MY ANSWER and I have done so multiple times.

MJ states that I have provided no evidence for my answer (and that it is a lie, etc.)


Actually the quotes from you show the following. Someone made a snide aside about Republicans and talk of Eugenics. (Aka so says the guy who....)

I ran with it and said they in fact were already using language that denotes eugenic beliefs and practices. That is my conclusion. That is my answer. There was no question but I provided my statement about it anyway.



You really have some comprehension problems here. On asks for proof for an assertion, a hypothesis or a claim. You have complained that I won't make a claim aka provide an answer. I have done exactly that. I've strongly asserted what I think on this matter.



I didn't change the question. I clearly stated that eugenics did not involving purely committing murder or violence. I purposefully stated this fact and linked to a definition of that point. I also stated that there was evidence of their statements. These are both statements or "answers" to unasked questions.



You weren't criticized for omitting comments. You were criticized for not making any statements that your linking to the articles supported. You do this often and the point is understood. You don't have to defend what you won't state. Likewise people can't criticized you for a position that you won't take. You prefer to let people project their views aka assume or infer what you might be trying to say. This tactic is easily understood and much like how a politician who doesn't answer a question should have it put to them again, you have been asked to state your position aka provide an answer.

If someone asks you if you support a carbon tax, they don't want ten links with full quotations to articles that show alternative energy programs and their benefits. They want to know your answer. When asked to support your answer or PROVE it, then you can support it with the links and quotes.


You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.


I can do that because you expressly asked for me to infer your beliefs since you don't care to state them.



Clearly you have some serious problem understand logic and argumentation. I've stated multiple conclusions even when not asked a question. Your own quotations show this quite clearly. I've stated that Democratic leaders use language that denotes a belief in eugenics. I've stated the proof is easily found. I've stated and linked to a definition of eugenics that reflects my view of eugenics.

What I have "avoid(ed)" per your claims is proof or links to support those claims aka those answers.



You linked to certain practices but wouldn't do what you just now did. You would not say if those links were proof of an assertion that some Republicans back or support eugenics via those linked practices. You've done that now so thanks. I asked you several times what answer your "proof" was supporting since you wouldn't state it. I asked you about what claim you were supporting with the links. I asked if racism is proof of eugenics. You wouldn't make any statement aka provide any answer.



I saw this the second time it was posted. I'd ask Sego to answer his poised question first and state the purposes of reviewing the hypothetical question. I'd also ask why it is not open ended for a hypothetical question. It is possible not to desire A or B there.


I could care less about those. Stupid people bleating on about their ignorance does nothing to me. Your attempt to use shame in a discussion of logic is odd.

MJ has been banned from these forums multiple times because his thinking is not at all lucid and he misreads pretty much everything that passes before his eyes. In this thread for example I asked him expressly to explain how someone who owns something and denies you use of it with a claim is somehow "proven" right by simply owning it. He just disappeared for long enough for your spamming to push it down a couple pages. I occasionally have fun reflecting his own logic back at him and watching him blow a gasket or two, but other than that he's pretty useless for discussion.



If generational accounting shows my generation is causing harm, I'll gladly slap some heads together. In the meantime most people my age are on 401k's, not pensions, they are receiving and trying to get ahead after the Boomer bubbles, not crafting them. Finally you're right, I'm getting older as all people do. You've likely noticed me posting a bit less on here and I've done a couple century bike rides, a half marathon and several smaller events in my desire to put a downpayment on 40 related to my own health. I'm not expecting my kids to buy me new knees and or pills because obesity is the new 60. I'll gladly be held to my own credo thanks.

FT, If I can find three people who disagree with what you are doing, then what does that prove right or wrong? These are questions, along with many others you don't answer.



He clearly understood what he was doing. He knew it was a breach of journalistic ethics and his own statement notes his prior lack of this behavior I guess as some lame attempt to rationalize this breach of ethics. It's no different than a cheating husband declaring he had been faithful for the first 10 years of his marriage or a murderer or thief declaring they hadn't engaged in those crimes for any number of years.

It wasn't the fine print in his contract either, but the fine print in every contract. It is a standard journalistic practice.

The donations, first reported by Politico, violate MSNBC's rule barring employees from giving to political campaigns. Most news organizations have similar policies as it's considered a breach of journalistic ethics to support candidates that a reporter or news person might cover.

We know what the answer would be if this were perceived or real Republican corruption. More regulation and oversight. Clearly that is what MSNBC and KO need!

Another tirade by tm.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #360 of 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Eugenics.

You have not provided any quotes that prove that senior Democrats want to manage the American gene pool through a programme of genetics.

You have provided some (out of context) quotes that you could argue show some people being arrogant.

Now prove your utterly absurd claim that these quotes are anything to do with eugenics. Eugenics.

MJ, you surely did not expect an answer---did you?? You've dealt with tm longer than I have. I only wanted an answer to the original question--not to go through 2 pages of dialogue with the end result of the question not being answered and ending up on Nixon---errr tm's enemies list.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The American Left Slides Into Psychosis