Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - wrhssaxensemble

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
51
First, Bush's malapropisms and gaffes make him a perfect target for insults.

Second, Clinton was insulted more than anyone during the 90s.

Third, there is no way to say which side insults more, but one thing is for sure, the right is way better at distracting people from the issues by labeling someone an elitist, or *gasp* muslim.

1. I am not saying Bush is a genius, but he is far from an idiot. Yet you never hear about the malapropisms and gaffes liberal politicans make. How many people have called Obama an idiot because he said he was going to win all 57 states or because he is awful without a teleprompter in front of him? Even if he is elected president and they continue, he will still be called a moron.

2. Clinton was picked on for being a "pervert" which is an individualized trait. In calling him that, they were not insuating that all who think like him are idiots. However, they often do that with those who agree with Bush etc. The term idiot has been used to take on a larger context and they have tried to apply it to all conservatives or Republicans.

3. No it is the Left who pulls all the tricks. They are lucky enough to have the media on their side so they never get called on it. Even just the recent Dem primaries should show this. Obama won more delegates even though Clinton won the popular vote and most of the Left is fine with it, even though they are the same ones who claim Bush stole the election in 2000 by winning the electoral vote while Gore got the popular. The Left is who made a huge story out of Cheney's daughter being a lesbian etc. to keep eyes off of what they were actually doing at the time. Clinton bombed Iraq to keep people less focused on his impeachment. 

52

julie wrong, confusing first post with this claptrap:

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.


Ultimately I see the political spectrum from left to right as:

Fascists and Communists---- Socialist---- Leftist/American Liberal--- Moderate Left---Center---Moderate Right---Rightwing/Classical Liberal/American Conservative--- Far-Right--- Anarchists--- Klansman etc.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right




Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth.  Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs.  It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum.  Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left.  Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.

Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and Salazar
Creepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.

Edit:  I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.

The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.

53
there no talking with you wingnuts, only defeating you.

In other words, you are too scared to debate. Either that or you are just too stupid to realize that you defeat the other side by outwitting them which is often done in a debate.

btw, I think you are the perfect representation of the modern liberal voter. Stupid and too scared to debate the issues so they instead just hurl insults.

That's ironic, insulting the liberal voter by saying they insult people?  Come on.  You know this isn't true. 

The truth is that McCain is just more Bush, and people are tired of the Iraq war and fear-mongering.

Also, when does the war on terrorism end?

Finally, the current state of politics is all about mud slinging, swiftboating, and mischaracterizing the other side, just consider the way the term "elite" is being used to disparage Obama.  I mean, since when is being "elite" a bad thing, except to those who couldnt make the cut?




Both sides do it but the left is far worse about it. Reagan, Quayle, and Bush have all been called dumb and made fun of constantly. Have you ever heard anyone call Obama, the Clintons, Howard Dean, Pelosi, Webb or Reid that? Of course not. I watched this weekend "I love the new millenium" on VH1 and it was constantly making fun of Bush. They never made fun of Clinton with the 90's but instead poked fun at people like Ken Starr. The media and the left hurl insults far more than the right does. Thats not to say the right doesn't do it. For example, I did insult her and the liberals but it is because (s)he acts like practically every other liberal and simply refuses to debate. I can't help it if the views of the left are so incoherent that they refuse to present them in a debate. I will point it out though.

54

julie wrong, confusing first post with this claptrap:

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.


Ultimately I see the political spectrum from left to right as:

Fascists and Communists---- Socialist---- Leftist/American Liberal--- Moderate Left---Center---Moderate Right---Rightwing/Classical Liberal/American Conservative--- Far-Right--- Anarchists--- Klansman etc.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right




Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

55
oh my.  you hurt julie's feelings.

maybe you should go back trying get someone discuss your poll, which any competent seventh-grader could tear apart.

Which poll? to my knowledge, I have never made a poll on here.

56
there no talking with you wingnuts, only defeating you.

In other words, you are too scared to debate. Either that or you are just too stupid to realize that you defeat the other side by outwitting them which is often done in a debate.

btw, I think you are the perfect representation of the modern liberal voter. Stupid and too scared to debate the issues so they instead just hurl insults.

57
did you wash hands?

No idea what you are talking about, but yes I wash my hands. But again,  you are avoiding the real issue here.

58
just like conservative, want boss somebody around.  you got something write, forrest, write it.  funny how you seem feel need confront julie.  do somebody need feel little better about self?

How is asking you to debate me "bossing you around"? Just like you to avoid the real issue at hand. If you read what I wrote, I said I want you to debate me. I am not forcing your or anything else that could be viewed as coercive. I guess you already realize you would lose that debate then. Again, its funny how you claim that I feel a "need" to confront you. I am the one who constantly harasses people on these boards to the point where there is a movement to oust me. Oh, wait, actually, that is you. You are the one who harasses, bosses and confronts everyone else. All I asked for was a policy debate. It is not an attempt to make myself feel better but just to expose you for what you really are so hopefully you won't keep harassing everyone who doesn't agree with you.

59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Vice Presidents
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:03:45 AM »
republicans got no good choices, which why should go with romney.  he be whatever voters want him be.

And, he's pretty hot, especially for a Republican. 

I wouldn't mind seeing him on TV the next five months, I won't lie...

I have a very hard time seeing Obamatards embracing someone like Webb.  He seems to be the antithesis of everything they've celebrated the past year.  He's also only been in the Senate for two years, right?  I would think Obama needs someone who's been around the block a few times. 

Thats true, I see Obama going for someone older, more moderate, and more experienced. The only problem with this though is that someone might liken it to Bush and Cheney, but since the media seems to worship Obama, I doubt that will end up happening. I think McCain in contrast will try to find someone young (or at least seems youthful, like Romney who seems a lot younger than he is)and conservative.

60
not mock handicapped, shitbreath.

I am not. Last I heard there is no such handicap as speaking like a caveman and in the 3rd person. I am "mocking" an arrogant far-left flaming jerk who pretends to be handicapped so he/she can make others feel bad about themselves. In other words, you see it as a way to attack anyone you want but try to keep others from responding. Stop pretending you have a handicap. There is a huge difference between the mentally retarded and most people (including idiots like yourself).

You seem to be very passionate about your political beliefs, whatever they are exactly, why not act like an adult and debate someone who disagrees? Take this as an offer. I will debate you on any political topic anytime anywhere (preferably on this board somewhere so others can see). Only rules are you cannot pretend to have a handicap, have to write coherently, and cannot attack anyone. I am game if you are. I highly doubt, however, that you will take me up on this offer.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16