|
Post by Galadon on Nov 16, 2004 16:53:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 26, 2004 17:32:18 GMT -5
Maybe this topic is a little to close to the truth about liberals. That's why they avoid it. Except for blaming Republicans for it.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 27, 2004 10:29:51 GMT -5
Wow. Now that's impressive. This wingnut has managed to compare Kerry to Marx AND Bin Laden all in the same breath without his head exploding. On the mark? What are you smoking and can I have some? Thanks for the giggle though. I needed that.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 28, 2004 0:37:06 GMT -5
See, Gal, the reason I find this article so amusing is that Sowell knows a little history but he doesn't take his thoughts to their logical conclusion. He stops in mid thought and tries to make it sound like he's made a very profound point, when, in reality, his point is meaningless.
Sowell's point is that revolutionary leaders, those leaders who proportedly speak for the little guy, come from priveleged backgrounds and are out of touch with the people they supposedly speak for. That Liberal, left wing or extremist leaders wanting to start revolutions have no clue about what it means to be oppressed.
However, to that list, you would also have to add ANY revolutionary leader (which I would certainly not include John Kerry as). Revolutionary leaders throughout history have NEVER come from the poor, uneducated classes. There's a reason for this. When you're poor and uneducated, you don't have time to start revolutions, you're too busy trying to get by. Pick ANY revolutionary leader in history, and you are guaranteed to find an individual who is educated and wealthy.
So, to the list of Bin Laden and Karl Marx, as examples of revolutionary or extremist leaders who are priveleged and educated, you have to add the following people: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther, Dr. Martin Luther King, etc. etc.
Sowell is trying to say that if you don't come from the people you claim to represent, then you cannot represent them. However, NO ONE has EVER come from the class they claim to represent, simply because, if they belonged to that down trodden and oppressed class, they wouldn't have the ability, education or money to lead.
This isn't even close to being factual. This is pure fiction. And you want people to take you seriously when you present something like this as anything other than propoganda? What are you thinking? Dude, at least Liberals tend to admit when they are being extremely biased. Even Michael Moore has more intellectual credibility than this and Moore's an idiot. This isn't polemical, this is outright lying. Anyone with more than a basic grasp of history should be able to see how flawed this concept is.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 28, 2004 16:59:42 GMT -5
You speak of embarassing, I do hope your not trying to say Kerry is in touch with the common person.
So your saying that Thomas Sowell is wrong all all counts?
Just want to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 28, 2004 23:49:58 GMT -5
Interesting article. I believe his facts are reasonably correct, but the conclusions he draws from them are somewhat mistaken. As Hussar said, most, if not all, revolution starters are reasonably well off. This is an inevitability of history because the poor, down-trodden masses are not allowed the luxury of free time and other resources necessary to start a revolution. You seem to have a taste for polemical sort of writing. What are your thoughts on mine?
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 29, 2004 8:46:33 GMT -5
*Takes a minute to reread what he said*
HUH? Show me ONE PLACE where I defended Kerry or even mentioned him, other than in my first post where I was laughing too hard to really type. Show me. I would really like to know.
Sowell's facts are indeed, factual. The conclusions he reaches, as Khyron and I both pointed out, are entirely fallacious. Good grief, writers like this give the right a bad name. At least make a slight attempt to not make an ass of yourself on paper before publishing things for everyone to see. This isn't even high school level writing. Bring me something meaty to talk about, I'm getting tired of wading through all this puff pastry stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Jan 2, 2005 14:44:34 GMT -5
A fine example of liberal speak,
Your fact are all correct but your still wrong.
Amazing, and liberals wonder why they will continue to slide down to the point of being below third party status.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Jan 2, 2005 21:37:26 GMT -5
Well, how's this for using facts?
Bush has completely failed to complete one single goal he has set. Thus he is the worst president America has ever had.
See, my facts are correct. Bush has not completed any of his tasks. He has not stopped terrorism, he has not made the world safer, nor has he won the war in Iraq. So, my facts stand, therefore, I guess my conclusions should also.
Now, we both know that what I've written here is complete nonsense. It's not true. It IS factual, but that's not the same. Just because the facts are there, doesn't make a statement true. Look at the evidence for global warming.
Fact: The ten warmest years on record have all occured in the last 20 years.
Fact: Man made greenhouse gases have been found in the upper atmosphere.
Conclusion: Global warming is the direct result of man made efforts.
Again, my facts are correct. However, the conclusion I draw from those facts is wrong.
Just because you have the right facts does not mean that your conclusion is also true. There are numerous examples of this from both sides of the street. Moore uses exactly the same tactics to attack Bush. Most of what Moore says is factual. Some of it might be shady, but it's still pretty solid. Most of it is pretty solid. But, his conclusions are so biased that they are not the whole truth.
Think about it for a moment. Can you with a straight face compare Kerry with Marx or Bin Laden? Come on. That's just as bad as comparing Bush with Hitler. You cannot decry the tactics of the other side when you use the exact same tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Jan 3, 2005 18:28:57 GMT -5
Quote the stupid white guy Moore. Do you how fast your credit as a thinking person will drop if you believe his waste of film ideas.
Interesting not one goal. So I guess the Taliban is still the government of Afganhistan.
Shall I continue......... sorry I don't speak liberal.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Jan 4, 2005 5:07:42 GMT -5
Wow, nice revisionist history there. The removal of the Taliban was never a stated goal of the Bush administration. The goal was to capture Bin Laden, if I remember correctly. And, hey, look, he's still not captured.
The point still remains, when writing in this fashion with such obvious bias, there is absolutely no difference between Moore and Sowell. Both are playing very fast and loose with the truth in order to push an agenda. Just because someone agrees with an agenda doesn't matter.
See, the trick here is assumptions. Galadon has assumed that the opposite of the far right is the far left. That is not true. The far right and the far left are simply sides of the same coin. Both are absolutely convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The opposite of Moore or Sowell or Limbaugh or any of the other polemical talking heads is the moderate. Those that can look at an issue without being completely railroaded by their own political bias.
See, I can agree with Bush's policies on occasion. Not because I'm conservative, but because he has a valid point. The invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly justified and I have no problems with it. On the other hand, I disagree with most of Bush's subsequent actions since I see them as destabilizing and futile. Again, not because I'm liberal or conservative, but because I can step away from blindly following those in my own camp and examine the actions of others.
Moore or Sowell cannot. They can no more agree with the policies of the other side than they could sprout wings. They have taken an extreme position which necessitates believing that they are 100% right and the opposition is 100% wrong. The problem is, no one, or at least very very few, are ever 100% wrong. It's almost impossible to come up with a supportable idea that's completely wrong. Because they have taken these extreme positions though, to admit that the other side has a point, would mean that they would have to abandon their own position. This just isn't going to happen.
As I said, the opposite of Sowell is not Michael Moore. Both are the same thing. Fatuous windbags completely convinced of thier own ideas and so far out of touch with reality that it's not even funny. The opposite of these morons is someone who can look at the facts of the situation and, as much as possible, come up with an idea which has the least political slant as possible. It's very easy to preach from soapboxes, but, that sort of thing is good for one thing, starting discussion. No solutions will ever be found with extremists.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Jan 5, 2005 16:28:20 GMT -5
I'm looking for this list I asked Hussar for. The list of goals PRESIDENT Bush has failed to do. hmmmmm, but of course it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Jan 5, 2005 16:30:53 GMT -5
lol
Come on Galadon
Afganistan was about Bin Lardin who got away
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Jan 6, 2005 0:14:17 GMT -5
Ya wanna list?
Capture Bin Laden - Fail Remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq - Fail Stop terrorism - Fail (terror attacks have nearly doubled according the the State department since the War on Terror began) Fix the economy - Fail Create Jobs - Fail
So, how about a list of Bush's successes in his stated goals.
Anyway, that's besides the point. You began with an article comparing Kerry with Marx and Bin Laden and tried to state that it made sense. Let's stick to the topic at hand shall we? Sowell makes absolutely no sense with this article.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Jan 6, 2005 17:25:52 GMT -5
Well it took long enough. I see a bit of commentary in that list. A list you want, do I get as much time as you took, snicker, snicker. Just kidding. he he he . Since liberals are still whinning about AlGore not being able to steal the election. I can give you a list but if you believe it, well that remains to be seen.
|
|