This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging

[shagdrum]

If anybody disagrees with your hard right view points you accuse them of being dishonest and full of fallacies.

I don't simply "accuse". I point out specifically what the fallacy is, usually link to the wiki page on that fallacy, and most often give some indication as to why it is fallacious. In short, I make the case as to why the argument is fallacious. They are free to try and counter it and prove that their argument is not fallacious and I am somehow mistaken if they want.

You have even tried to claim that certain arguments of mine are fallacious before, but can never point out any specifics (what the specific fallacy is, or the specific argument I made that is "fallacious"); you can't make the case that my arguments are fallacious. In short, you are the one to simply "throw out that accusation" to mischaracterize my argument and dishonestly marginalize it.

I only ask for honesty, decency and reason, hardly too much to ask. When someone comes in here lacking any of those, I call them on it and/or treat them with the same level of decency (or lack thereof) they extend to others who disagree with them. You have demonstrated countless times in this forum that you can only argue through dishonesty, rudeness and fallacy.

You post this garbage knowing dam well your going to get called on it.

What "garbage"? I have. as always, logically backed up my arguments. You have mischaracterized them and lied about them. But, it seems honesty and reason are "garbage" to someone who only knows dishonesty, lies, irrationality and vindictive anger.

And now all you can do is repeat someone's misplaced idiom to support your obvious smear attempt. "get over yourself"? That isn't even a valid argument because it cannot be disproven.

you're right shag. is that why you excel at it [making arguments that are dishonest and misleading personal attacks]?

There is nothing dishonest about my arguments and you know it.

My arguments never hinge on personal attacks, insults, or rudeness. Those are separate from the argument and are, most often, conclusions I can reasonably draw from the actions and/or positions the person is taking in making the argument as well as past actions and/or arguments on this forum. Those "personal attacks" and/or "insults" are also, usually reasonable observations that are very relevant to the credibility of the person.

For instance, ford nut has repeatedly claimed that I haven't supported my premise in the original argument I was making (though he never says what premise exactly). The original post was never an argument, so ford nut is perpetuating a mishcaracterization started by foxpaws right there. I was pointing out extreme examples of populist rage. In the tag line, I point out that the populist rage is being encouraged by the left. When foxpaws asked for some clarification as to how that populist rage is being encouraged by the left, I spelled out, citing numerous facts, how that populist rage is being encouraged and even effectively created by the left. In the course of debating her, I spelled it out quite a few more times. Ford nut is ignoring all that and claiming that, "there is nothing that supports your premise" when I have shown that support numerous times. Ford nut is therefore lying, as he usually does when he wants to smear me.

You are mischaracterizing to smear me here as well by implying that my arguments are dishonest, misleading personal attacks, which they clearly are not.

Both ford nut and you are petty, dishonest and vindictive people who only distract from and drag down debates here.

 

[fossten]

Jeez, trolls, knock it off already. Go find a Hello Kitty forum or something. Get a life.

 

[hrmwrm]

Jeez, trolls, knock it off already. Go find a Hello Kitty forum or something. Get a life.

words of wisdom from the toothless wonder?

 

[foxpaws]

Foss, I did say I wasn't for the revolution - I just 'think' that the revolution could be just around the corner. Once again -I am stating what I believe will happen - not what I want to happen.

I don't think the left needs to fan any flames here. People are mad. Plus, if you noticed, the Republicans have done some rallying around this cause as well. In fact, when the news broke about the AIG Bonuses it was the republicans who started to point the fingers at Dodd, et al, playing the 'Democrats are allowing these terrible, unwarranted bonuses to happen' card. The Republicans were quick to link the Democrats to the Bonuses.

Or maybe you are just going with the leader of the Republican party - Rush. Now, since he doesn't vote in congress, or need to worry about re-election, he can say whatever the heck he wants, since his 100 million dollar signing bonus is secure

The house minority whip, Cantor voted for the 'tax bonus' law - saying that “You take money from the government, this is what happens.”

This is across political lines -

Oh, shag, comrade, a much better 'joke'....
“There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse.” John Gardner.

 

[shagdrum]

words of wisdom from the toothless wonder?

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, shag, comrade, a much better 'joke'....
“There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse.” John Gardner.

Comrade! You still need to answer Calabrio's post (#29). Also, I have another joke for you:

Q: What were Mayakovsky's last words before he committed suicide?

A: "Comrades, don't shoot!"

 

[foxpaws]

So, foxpaws, you don't think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story inorder to facilitate greater growth of government?

I mentioned ACORN and the union SEIU, they organized and financed the larger protests, including the ones that harassed citizens in front of their homes. Are either of those two groups associated with conservative causes? I notice they both have strong alliances with not only left-wing politics, but Obama's campaign in particular.

What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?

Acorn is about a lot of things.

Foreclosures, Gulf Coast Recovery, Immigration, Living Wage, Paid Sick Days

And is is also one of biggest community organizations representing low and moderate income people. It made a lot of sense that they would organize low income people to protest the bonuses - it would follow their 'mandate' that they have stated for decades. Their stated 'purpose' long before they added 'voter registration' to the list of things they get involved in, or before they aligned with Obama or Democrats in general.

Not because it is a left issue - but because it is an income issue.

And no, I don't think the left wants any type of economic revolution - both the right and the left loses in an economic revolution.

And once again Shag - the left or the right don't have to fan any flames - the captains of industry have already managed to do that all on their own.

 

[hrmwrm]

i wouldn't want to live across from you shag.

 

[shagdrum]

Acorn is about a lot of things.

Foreclosures, Gulf Coast Recovery, Immigration, Living Wage, Paid Sick Days

And is is also one of biggest community organizations representing low and moderate income people. It made a lot of sense that they would organize low income people to protest the bonuses - it would follow their 'mandate' that they have stated for decades. Their stated 'purpose' long before they added 'voter registration' to the list of things they get involved in, or before they aligned with Obama or Democrats in general.

Not because it is a left issue - but because it is an income issue.

And no, I don't think the left wants any type of economic revolution - both the right and the left loses in an economic revolution.

And once again Shag - the left or the right don't have to fan any flames - the captains of industry have already managed to do that all on their own.

Comrade, you did not answer Cal's question. He wasn't asking if you think they need to use class warfare rhetoric, but weather or not you think those leftist interest groups are using class warfare rhetoric.

What he specifically asked was, "you don't think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story inorder to facilitate greater growth of government?".

He also asked, "What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?"

I also have a question for you concerning what you had to say about ACORN in that last post; Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is? Should we judge them by their stated intentions?

 

[foxpaws]

Comrade, you did not answer Cal's question. He wasn't asking if you think they need to use class warfare rhetoric, but weather or not you think those leftist interest groups are using class warfare rhetoric.

Shag, my fellow Proletariat…
I don't think that Acorn, et al, are using 'rheotric'. I think they are responding to the people they represent, not to outside interests.

So, what those groups trying to achieve? Is Acorn trying to overthrow capitalism? Is that what is the question? Have I gone to an Acorn meeting lately – no, Ever – no. I don’t ‘know’ what their motivation is. I would imagine it draws from their ‘mission statement’.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority constituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

Maybe they feel discriminated against – I really don’t know – I haven’t seen anyone from ACORN interviewed on this. I wouldn’t know if the government is exploiting this group – I haven’t seen anything regarding that. Have you shag?

And do we judge them by their mission statement? Well, I won’t judge them on some supposition that they have been coerced by the Democratic party to start a class war, without good hard evidence, Shag. I believe these are community activists that are representing the people named in their mission statement. People who are angry at the system, not aligning themselves with a political party. I think they are upset with not only with 'unfairness' they are perceiving regarding the salaries and bonuses in question, but they are also getting angry with politicians in general.

He also asked, "What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?"

If you take out the word ‘rhetoric’ in the last statement, you are probably close. I believe those people feel ‘used’ by the capitalist system. Some of those bonuses are far more than the people that ACORN represents will make in their entire lifetime. I believe that you are starting to see those people rise up, and make their voices heard. Not because of some political leaning, but because of economic want. In the news how often do we see how much some of these men made, or will make. The paper had how much Wagoner could expect when he leaves GM – 23 million, his pension amount plus some stock options and deferred salary. I think when someone who might not understand golden parachutes and large pensions sees that (who perhaps is part of ACORNs constituency), they get angry. They don’t need any political rhetoric.

People are angry- they don’t need any ‘side’ to fan the flames – the champions of free enterprise have done a darn good job. As long as things were going along fairly smoothly – employment numbers fairly high, no large businesses failing, the ‘everyday man’ was content to keep his nose to the grindstone. I don’t think that most people mind that presidents and CEOs make a lot of money. But I do think that when that number rises to 400 times what they make, they start to question the system. Now, as unemployment rises and the news is full of how much money is involved, people are paying attention and asking ‘why’. And since free enterprise doesn’t have a great answer currently… and the perception is that certain people have taken advantage of a ‘system’, you will probably see a ‘backlash’ against the system.

I also think that we know more than we did even 10 years ago. I don’t think that most people knew how much presidents or CEOs of large companies were being compensated at. Now it seems to be readily available. I think also that before you had an atmosphere of ‘well, if the president of the company makes 1 million dollars a year – and I make $50,000, that doesn’t seem like such a huge difference (20 times). But, if the president of the company makes 20 million dollars a year (400 times), and the company is failing – I think people question that. That is what capitalism is up against. The system created the economic gap between ‘average’ worker and ‘average’ CEO, and maybe this is the bill that is becoming due.

Once again, I think there are many CEOs that are worth the very large salaries that they get paid. But, lately the news has been full of CEOs that perhaps weren’t worth their inflated salaries… that news sells.

 

[shagdrum]

"Class warfare", in the modern political lexicon, refers to a type of political/social rhetoric and/or policies. Liberals have called conservative tax cuts "class warfare" and conservatives have thrown the charge out at liberals. Class warfare is different from class struggle or class conflict. We are not talking about any struggle or conflict here, simply the rhetoric.

The first question is a yes/no question. Could you simply give a yes or no in response and try not to (or appear to be trying to) redefine the question in some fashion (like putting quotes around "rhetoric")? If you don't want to answer it, then please say so.

And you still haven't answered my question; Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is; should we judge them by their stated intentions?

As to the second question, there is always going to be some envy and resentment of the most successful by the less successful. But simply having a negative emotional reaction is a long way from out and out conflict and/or struggle. A difference in income has only produced envy and resentment in America, historically. By itself, that doesn't lead to anger given voice through threats and harassment. What, specifically do you think caused it to escalate to the point of anger leading to threats and harassment? In short, what is the basis for the anger, not the envy?

So we have three questions that only need simple answers:

• Do you think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story in order to facilitate greater growth of government? (yes or no)
• What is the basis of their anger (not envy)?
• Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is; should we judge them by their stated intentions? (yes or no)

 

[hrmwrm]

1. no,
2. outrage. e.g., in the case of aig, if it was left to fail, the bonuses wouldn't have been paid. but it was bailed out, which irrelevent of contractual obligations, changes the basis of operation. people are pissed that workers are being payed bonuses essentially for failure, by government money.
3. i'll leave this one alone.

 

[shagdrum]

fox, I didn't realize you have become such a hateful atheist.

Here ya go hrmwrm

 

[ford nut]

I suppose the nasty left encouraged this too.

 

[hrmwrm]

"Class warfare", in the modern political lexicon, refers to a type of political/social rhetoric and/or policies. Liberals have called conservative tax cuts "class warfare" and conservatives have thrown the charge out at liberals. Class warfare is different from class struggle or class conflict. We are not talking about any struggle or conflict here, simply the rhetoric.

The first question is a yes/no question. Could you simply give a yes or no in response and try not to (or appear to be trying to) redefine the question in some fashion (like putting quotes around "rhetoric")? If you don't want to answer it, then please say so.

And you still haven't answered my question; Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is; should we judge them by their stated intentions?

As to the second question, there is always going to be some envy and resentment of the most successful by the less successful. But simply having a negative emotional reaction is a long way from out and out conflict and/or struggle. A difference in income has only produced envy and resentment in America, historically. By itself, that doesn't lead to anger given voice through threats and harassment. What, specifically do you think caused it to escalate to the point of anger leading to threats and harassment? In short, what is the basis for the anger, not the envy?

So we have three questions that only need simple answers:

• Do you think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story in order to facilitate greater growth of government? (yes or no)
• What is the basis of their anger (not envy)?
• Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is; should we judge them by their stated intentions? (yes or no)

specific name where?

 

[hrmwrm]

congratulations. here's your reward.

 

[ford nut]

congratulations. here's your reward.

Shaggie jumps into threads all the time.
Likes to back up his buddies.

You do it hrmwrm and your a Troll

I am used to the Double standard of the shag hole

 

[foxpaws]

fox, I didn't realize you have become such a hateful atheist.

I realize that is a weak attempt at sarcasm - but, shag - I almost didn't answer your questions - you are fostering a double standard here. You obviously jump in (a few threads ago where Cal and I were discussing something) and I didn't spank you, just ignored you, for a bit - why are you going after hrmwrm?

So, shag - they really aren't 'yes or no' questions - but, here goes...

Do you think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story in order to facilitate greater growth of government? (yes or no)

This story - the story that is posted at post #1? No, I don't believe that this story, regarding the threatening phone calls and emails, is being used by the left to further some sort of class warfare rhetoric. - this question doesn't make much sense -

What is the basis of their anger (not envy)?

Again, the people in the story in post #1? I believe that they feel (the people making the phone calls/writing the emails) the AIG executives are getting US government tax money (in effect, their money) for a job 'not well done'. That is the basis of their anger.

Should we judge organizations by what their mandate or "mission statement" is; should we judge them by their stated intentions? (yes or no)

No - actions speak louder than words - however, when in doubt, you start at 'mission statements'.

 

[shagdrum]

This story - the story that is posted at post #1? No, I don't believe that this story, regarding the threatening phone calls and emails, is being used by the left to further some sort of class warfare rhetoric. - this question doesn't make much sense -

That does not answer the question asked by Cal. Here is what Cal posted:

So, foxpaws, you don't think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story in order to facilitate greater growth of government?

I mentioned ACORN and the union SEIU, they organized and financed the larger protests, including the ones that harassed citizens in front of their homes. Are either of those two groups associated with conservative causes? I notice they both have strong alliances with not only left-wing politics, but Obama's campaign in particular.

What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?
​

Cal was clearly not referring to this specific article, but the bigger story of the AIG bonus payments. He mentions ACORN and SEIU which are not mentioned anywhere in the article. If fact, Cal was the first to mention those two organizations in this thread (post number 4). He mentioned them again in post number 29; where these questions came from.

In fact, your initial argument in this thread hinges on the fact that no leftist group of Democrat is mentioned in the article.

Would you please honestly answer the question and not change part of it first?

Do you think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story inorder to facilitate greater growth of government?

Again, the people in the story in post #1? I believe that they feel (the people making the phone calls/writing the emails) the AIG executives are getting US government tax money (in effect, their money) for a job 'not well done'. That is the basis of their anger.

Again, the question was not about the people in this specific story, but the populist rage in general aimed at AIG. Read the original post Cal made; it is rather clear that it is not simply about the specific instances spelled out in the article in post #1.

Again, can you please honestly answer the question and not change part of it first?

What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?

No - actions speak louder than words - however, when in doubt, you start at 'mission statements'.

...what "doubt" are you talking about? Do you doubt that these are leftist interest groups?

So, you still have three questions to answer; two old, one new:

• Do you think that leftist "interest groups" are using class warfare rhetoric right now and trying to exploit this story in order to facilitate greater growth of government? (yes or no)
• What is the basis of their anger? Wasteful government spending, or is it because of the rhetoric of class warfare?
• What "doubt" are you refering to when you say, "actions speak louder than words - however, when in doubt, you start at 'mission statements'"?

Please honestly answer the questions as clearly as possible without redefining the question first.

 

[Glenn]

After following this thread for some time I thought I would try to get an idea of where shagdrums perspective came from. Being from Canada I did not know where Topeka was so I Googled it thinking maybe there was a regional component to his perspective. Unfortunately this was all I could find.

 

[nightriddah]

After following this thread for some time I thought I would try to get an idea of where shagdrums perspective came from. Being from Canada I did not know where Topeka was so I Googled it thinking maybe there was a regional component to his perspective. Unfortunately this was all I could find.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - I believe Cal is talking about the story in the first post - specifically. There is no other 'story' mentioned before post #29 - so to say 'this' when referring to 'story' is pretty telling.

But, let's wait and see what he has to say - Unlike you, I won't let my 'assumptions' get in the way.

This entire thread has been about 'assumptions'... Maybe we should learn to set them aside Shag...

I also believe he was specifically referring to the people mentioned in post #1 when he asked about the basis for their anger - his question follows a very pointed reference to the protesters... But once again - I'll wait.

The last question - Example...

A group states that they are going to be champions for the poor within their 30-year-old mission statement, and they go out one afternoon and protest the rich.

I would believe that group is following their mission statement and not some strange concept that they are at the beck and call of a political group that is 'using' them to further an agenda of their own. I would go by what I saw, and read, rather than a conspiracy theory. If hard evidence (not hearsay) were to surface that proved differently, then that is a different case. But without hard evidence, I would defer to the mission statement.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I believe Cal is talking about the story in the first post - specifically. There is no other 'story' mentioned before post #29 - so to say 'this' when referring to 'story' is pretty telling.

But, let's wait and see what he has to say - Unlike you, I won't let my 'assumptions' get in the way.

This entire thread has been about 'assumptions'... Maybe we should learn to set them aside Shag...

I also believe he was specifically referring to the people mentioned in post #1 when he asked about the basis for their anger - his question follows a very pointed reference to the protesters... But once again - I'll wait.

Fair enough. Cal hasn't been online since Tuesday the 28th. I guess we wait.

The last question - Example...

A group states that they are going to be champions for the poor within their 30-year-old mission statement, and they go out one afternoon and protest the rich.

I would believe that group is following their mission statement and not some strange concept that they are at the beck and call of a political group that is 'using' them to further an agenda of their own. I would go by what I saw, and read, rather than a conspiracy theory. If hard evidence (not hearsay) were to surface that proved differently, then that is a different case. But without hard evidence, I would defer to the mission statement.

Can an organization be following their mission statement and be working with a political group? Can they follow their mission statement and further a political agenda?

Can an organization be dishonest, deceptive and/or otherwise unethical in following their mission statement?

 

[ford nut]

It means nothing.....

You have no proof the left is encouraging death threats.
Or that people should go after childern...none shag.

Is it in ACORNs mission statement to kill the rich ?

OBTW your troll spray is working....fossten is gone.

 

[Glenn]

OBTW your troll spray is working....fossten is gone.

I was starting to think that the Rapture had taken him