Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Any example?
    The anti-Kavanaugh Campaign


    Justice On Trial’ Excerpt: Inside The Left’s Coordinated Anti-Kavanaugh Campaign
    A new book on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court reveals the depth of coordination his opponents engaged in to stop the nominee.

    In “Justice on Trial” The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and the Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino write that liberal groups coordinated and paid for the supposedly spontaneous protests in the first round of hearings and that Democratic senators staged Christine Blasey Ford’s hearing to create parallels with Anita Hill.

    Here are two passages from the book, which is out on Tuesday:

    In “Justice on Trial” The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and the Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino write that liberal groups coordinated and paid for the supposedly spontaneous protests in the first round of hearings and that Democratic senators staged Christine Blasey Ford’s hearing to create parallels with Anita Hill.


    Here are two passages from the book, which is out on Tuesday:

    Kavanaugh came into the first day of hearings determined to remain positive, but by the end of the day the hearings had turned hostile. Raj Shah counted sixty-three interruptions from Senate Democrats, mostly related to demands for more of Kavanaugh’s irrelevant paperwork and other trivial delaying tactics that had nothing to do with evaluating his substantive qualifications. More than seventy protesters were arrested. Those protesters didn’t arrive spontaneously. Planned Parenthood Action Fund flew in ‘storytellers’ from as far away as Alaska and North Dakota. Winnie Wong, a senior advisor to the Women’s March, explained their carefully coordinated messages. Members going into the hearing room were given ‘a script where we suggest certain messaging that may resonate more.’ The storytellers’ travel and accommodations were paid for, as were their legal aid and bail if they were arrested, which was generally the goal. Later in the hearings, the organizers of the protesters—the Women’s March and the Center for Popular Democracy— were warning activists that being arrested three times might lead to a night in jail. The group raised sums of more than six figures to finance the protests. ‘This is well-organized and scripted,’ said Wong, ‘This isn’t chaos.’ …

    At this point, [Christine Blasey] Ford reiterated a request for caffeine she had made before she began reading her testimony. Bromwich, seated next to her, added, ‘a Coke or something.’ As they walked out of the hearing room during a later break in Ford’s testimony, multiple staffers heard Senator Hirono tell Senator Harris that it was a great idea to have Ford wear a blue suit and ask for a Coke as a throwback to the Thomas-Hill hearings. One of the unsubstantiated claims Hill had made against Thomas involved a Coke can. Senator Hirono had also mentioned Hill repeatedly in her media appearances as soon as the initial Post report was published.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/08...augh-campaign/

    __________________

    Democrats Have Disgraced Themselves over Brett Kavanaugh
    Ultimately, as public polling suggests, the Democratic Party’s effort to tarnish Kavanaugh’s reputation through insinuation and theatrics has had the intended effect. Support for this nominee now falls squarely along party lines. But the collateral damage Senate Democrats have done to America’s governing institutions amid this scorched-earth campaign could have lasting and terrible consequences for the country.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...vanaugh-shame/

    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well.. yea. They just aren't being targeted by their political opponents in the news.
    Who? and the allegations against Trump aren't gossip.

    ---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post

    Democrats Have Disgraced Themselves over Brett Kavanaugh
    Ultimately, as public polling suggests, the Democratic Party’s effort to tarnish Kavanaugh’s reputation through insinuation and theatrics has had the intended effect. Support for this nominee now falls squarely along party lines. But the collateral damage Senate Democrats have done to America’s governing institutions amid this scorched-earth campaign could have lasting and terrible consequences for the country.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...vanaugh-shame/

    [/INDENT]
    I'd say the Mereck Garland situation was more divisive, possibly even unconstitutional. OP fail.

    ---------- Post added at 08:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------



    Democratic policies ("welcome home") embraced by the politician = not divisive

    Republican policies ("send her back") distanced by the politician* = divisive

    OP fail


    *after being embraced by him at the rally
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Who? and the allegations against Trump aren't gossip.
    First answer the question I offered, then I would be required to answer "who".
    And.. yes, they are gossip, because there is no evidence to support it yet.
    We have accusation, and speculation. That is gossip.
    To serve man.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Now, suppose for a second that Trump is guilty in conjunction with (What's his face with lolita express). ...
    Wouldn't you agree with me that if Trump was the only person to go down, that would be a travesty of justice? Because this guy clearly catered to an elite class of people who all deserve to go to jail for their rolls in abusing children.
    Possibly. It'd depend on the scope of the crime and the available evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 09:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And.. yes, they are gossip, because there is no evidence to support it yet.
    We have accusation, and speculation. That is gossip.
    I'm going to provisionally agree because I think it's be a distraction to go into a discussion as to when we accept something as evidence. Yes, we have people claiming they have evidence and something has been filed - I suppose some type of sworn affidavit to that effect.

    ---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

    "When he came for Barack Obama, Republicans were silent.

    When he came for undocumented immigrants, they were silent.

    When he came for a sitting member of Congress, they were silent.

    Their silence is enabling his hatred and bigotry." Robert Reich

    ...and, therefore, being divisive.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And.. yes, they are gossip, because there is no evidence to support it yet.
    We have accusation, and speculation. That is gossip.
    Please support that that qualifies as gossip.

    I think you are misusing the word "gossip" to mean any and all accusations that have not been verified and that is not the definition of "gossip" that I know. In fact, one can gossip about things that are verified. If you idly chit-chat about your neighbors divorce which you KNOW is happening, that's gossip.

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Clarification of Ibsleb's point - "they described a social system which required two groups of people" - the syatem Marx and Englel's was describing was capitalism, not socialism. Support being given as to the possible kinds of people capitalism produces who are glorified by the right.
    Capitalists didn't label themselves as the proletariat and bourgeois did they? Do you deny that socialism is an analysis of society through the prism of social conflict? What are you trying to rebut and/or argue here? What are the outgroups and ingroups described by capitalism? The system Marx and Engels described was capitalism and they believed that the result would be a revolution where the proletariat overthrew the bourgeois. The ingroup is the proletariat. The outgroup is the bourgeois. Socialism is a description of a process which occurs through revolution. I don't think I am saying anything controversial in the least. This is just socialism 101 so to speak.

    The right does not glorify these labels nor accept Marx's description. That is where you completely go off the rails. Check that. You were already off the rails. This is where you dropped off a cliff.

    ---------- Post added at 09:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    So what?



    Nancy Pelosi's statement condemning Antifa violence in Berkeley.



    'Extreme' is relative. I don't understand the point you're making here.

    Regarding hard core supporters of the Donald, have you ever read r/t_d?
    Good catch. I enjoy being proven wrong from time to time. Now, let's unpack what you've uncovered. Back in 2017, prior to Occasional-Cortex and her Super Friends of Color, the Democratic party was leaning towards socialism with the rise of Uncle Bernie. However, the party was still mostly controlled by its rank and file and was, I'd say center left but moving further left fairly fast. So, in 2017, it was safe for Pelosi to hammer antifa. Certainly, within her own party, the blowback would be minimal and manageable. It was good politics since Pelosi knows the only way she keeps the house is by giving some support to her new members from red states.

    Fast forward to 2019, Occasional-Cortex and her Super Friends of Color have hastened the left-ward lunge begun by Bernie and since 2018, outside of Andrew Yang, I don't think anyone of note in the party has spoken up against antifa and their violence. We can debate whether Yang is noteworthy, but I'm giving him that cache since he did participate in the party debates. They certainly have not made it a point to distance the party from this group. I think, for Pelosi anyhow, she cannot afford any more unnecessary fissures between her and the leftist factions in her party. Of note, of 24 presidential candidates in the Democratic party only one spoke out against the group and its violence which occurred just before the first debate. It should also be noted that the moderators never even asked them to take a position on it. That's another issue for another thread though.

    I bring this up to demonstrate that the Democratic party is heavily entangled with its most radical and socialist members in a way that was not true in 2016 when it was just Uncle Bernie flapping his hands about. Of the 24 Democratic candidates, 23 (I think) support Medicare for All. All of them raised their hands when asked if Medicare for All would be given to illegal immigrants. I believe all support some form of open borders. There are different variations of this, but the position is to decriminalize illegally crossing the border which would de facto create open borders between us and the world. And if we look at the genesis of these views, it is adopted from the policy positions Socialists have held for, well, since they were Socialists. The Socialist position is inherently anti-nation. They believe all workers around the world are a coalition. That is their ingroup, not defined by the state or national borders, but by class, color, and perceived oppression. Marx described dialectics and this is important because that is a theory of conflict. The very base/foundation of socialism is rooted in conflict. It is Hegelian. So, as the Democratic party moves leftward, towards socialism, it is embracing more and more of the dialectic world view and that is a view which defines and demands conflict to resolve whatever ills and injustices exist. And, as of today, the Democrats have no idea when too far is too far.

    ---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The anti-Kavanaugh Campaign
    I think you are getting into a tit-for-tat sort of scoreboard debate when I don't think that is what the OP describes. I mean, I don't think the OP says that the right hasn't done divisive things. Right? It is probably a little vague about what it means by divisive. Technically, anything in politics is divisive, particularly in party politics. I think, rather you should look at the underlying ideologies driving the two parties. The right is driven by liberalism (classical liberalism) and nationalism. That seems obvious enough to me anyhow. On the left, what drives them? They are driven by liberalism and socialism. For both parties, the inheritance of nationalism and socialism can be divisive. It would seem as either party moves towards its not liberal identity it becomes more threatening. However, right now, the Democrats have lurched far-far away from liberalism and towards socialism. The GOP, I think, has a kind of red line that they won't cross. Can this change? Sure. But right now, to me, this is the difference between the two parties. The Democrats are just driving to the left and have nothing in the form of self-regulating behavior. You can read my earlier post where I explain why the Dems leftward lurch is divisive.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    @ mican.
    First you are correct that one can gossip about things that are true.
    The point of using the word "gossip"is not to call a claim false, it is to bring attention to the QUALITY of the claims. Basically a paper is saying "I heard so and so say that so and so did x".
    That is gossip, and it can be dismissed as such. When it comes from political opponents, it should be dismissed.
    Otherwise we end up with things like the steel dossier, which was gossip that was given more coverage and attention that it deserved and turned out to be almost completely false. (Per the FBI spreadsheet on its claims).

    So to answer the challenge. Gossip takes the form of " I heard so and so say such and such about so and so".
    Without further evidence or information this is gossip. Which while it is possible to be true, it doesn't rise to the level of actionable information. Specifically information used to form an opinion. Such opinons are going to be highly questionable.
    Which is the case so far regarding the accusation of child rape by trump.

    The problem is that it is a slight against a legitimate news organization for them to peddle gossip and rumor. Which are typically un-verified. And if it is t verified, then it isn't news. This is exasrerbated by the medias desire to theorize and speculate wildly based on said gossip.
    " What do you think will happen if trump is found guilty of child rape".. o I am an expert at child rape cases and bla bla and I think he would be impeached and sentenced to eternity in jail, America would have taken a hit in the world stage .. bla. Bla. Bla. And on it will go for weeks.
    No "news" only gossip fueled by speculation and unfounded unproven assertions. The whole while presented as news and current events.

    So... Gossip. Idle chatter as news
    To serve man.

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Capitalists didn't label themselves as the proletariat and bourgeois did they? Do you deny that socialism is an analysis of society through the prism of social conflict? What are you trying to rebut and/or argue here? What are the outgroups and ingroups described by capitalism? The system Marx and Engels described was capitalism and they believed that the result would be a revolution where the proletariat overthrew the bourgeois. The ingroup is the proletariat. The outgroup is the bourgeois. Socialism is a description of a process which occurs through revolution. I don't think I am saying anything controversial in the least. This is just socialism 101 so to speak.

    The right does not glorify these labels nor accept Marx's description.
    Well, of course not. Would I expect a slave holding society or an aristocracy to glorify it's lack of social justice?

    The outgroups and ingroups of capitalism would be those with capital and those without - with further subdivisions between how much capital it is you have.

    It's clear what I rebutted.

    ---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    the position is to decriminalize illegally crossing the border which would de facto create open borders between us and the world.
    It already is decriminalized, it's a civil infraction.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'd say the Mereck Garland situation was more divisive,

    Garland and the anti-Kavanaugh campaign are world’s apart.

    The divisive nationally televised strategy to destroy the reputation of an honorable man and his family seemed to stretch the time space continuum, while sanity was suspended by the democrats who “subverted the system, by cynically playing it.”

    Also, a minor little detail that exposes the divisive stragegy: Garland, who served on the same court as Judge Kavanaugh, voted 93 percent of the time with Judge Kavanaugh when they served on the same panel hearing the same cases.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    I think you are getting into a tit-for-tat
    He asked for an example, I provided one.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Garland and the anti-Kavanaugh campaign are world’s apart.
    You're right, there was an actual reason for holding up the Kavauaugh appointment.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ mican.
    First you are correct that one can gossip about things that are true.
    The point of using the word "gossip"is not to call a claim false, it is to bring attention to the QUALITY of the claims. Basically a paper is saying "I heard so and so say that so and so did x".
    So you mean reporting what a source says?

    If a Nazi fugitive is captured and a survivor of the death camps tells a reporter about the brutal treatment of the guard and the reporter reports it, that IS an example of "I heard so and so say that so and so did x". That certainly does not qualify as gossip and should not be considered a "gossip-quality" claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is gossip, and it can be dismissed as such. When it comes from political opponents, it should be dismissed.
    Otherwise we end up with things like the steel dossier, which was gossip that was given more coverage and attention that it deserved and turned out to be almost completely false. (Per the FBI spreadsheet on its claims).
    Well, here's a summary of the dossier via wikipedia. That certainly does not correspond with your claim that the FBI found it mostly false. IF the FBI did find it mostly false, the below link would have said as much (since it did bother to mention that Mueller rejected one allegation).

    "The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier,[1] is a private intelligence report written from June to December 2016 containing allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Government of Russia during the 2016 election. The dossier comprises 17 memos and was authored by Christopher Steele,[2] a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS. The report alleges that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives conspired to interfere in the election to benefit Trump.[3] It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign.[4] The dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10, 2017.[5] Several mainstream media outlets criticized BuzzFeed's decision to release it without verifying its allegations,[6][7] while others defended its release.

    The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations, while Trump has denounced it as fake news.[14] Russian intelligence agencies have sought to create doubt about the veracity of the dossier.[15] The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously.[16] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and spoke with two of Steele's sources.[17] The Mueller Report, a summary of the findings of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.[17] Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[18] however much of the dossier remains unverified. One allegation was rejected by the Mueller Report."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

    And this CERTAINLY does not qualify as gossip. Just like being gossip does not automatically make a claim false, false or unverified statements do not automatically qualify as gossip. Again, gossip is essentially idle chit-chat about others. Whatever is in the dossier was the result of someone intentionally choosing to select information to put in a report. Regardless of how well or poorly he did his job, it's not gossip.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So to answer the challenge. Gossip takes the form of " I heard so and so say such and such about so and so".
    Without further evidence or information this is gossip.
    No, that is not the definition of gossip.

    As you already agreed, even true verified information can be a valid source of gossip. Talking about your neighbors divorce with your friend is gossip and whether the divorce is an unverified rumor ("I hear they are getting a divorce") or is a verified fact ("Did you hear that they are getting a divorce?") makes no difference. So whether it is verified or unverified makes little to no difference in whether the discussion qualifies as gossip.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which while it is possible to be true, it doesn't rise to the level of actionable information. Specifically information used to form an opinion. Such opinons are going to be highly questionable.
    Which is the case so far regarding the accusation of child rape by trump.
    I have no problem with you not accepting the child rape allegation against Trump until you see more conclusive evidence than what already exists. But your argument seems to forwarding that ANY allegation that Trump did do it qualifies as "gossip" and should be automatically discarded for that reason,

    And that argument is flat-out incorrect. While one CAN gossip about the charge, one can also take the charge seriously as well. There IS a lawsuit from a women who claims she was raped by Trump when she was 13. I've seen the document. So I'm discussing the issue right now in this debate. So am I gossiping because I'm talking about it? Of course not. This is a debate, not idle chit-chat and therefore not gossip. And likewise if I were to form an argument that holds that I think he did do it or just state an opinion that I think it's more likely than not that he did it, that is also not gossip.

    It appears to me, from this debate and others, that you tend to take unverified claims and lump them all into the category of "gossip" to hold that they should be discarded and therefore, in this case, hold that we should automatically discard the Trump allegation for that reason and really no discussion should be had about it at all ("we aren't going to even consider gossip here"). And I disagree with both the tactic and the conclusion of that. Extending the definition of "gossip" to all unverified allegations in order to argue that they should all be dismissed is to engage in equivocation (playing around with the very loose definition of "gossip" as a means to shoot down arguments instead of based on their actual merits or lack thereof). And I certainly do not agree that all unverified allegations should be automatically dismissed. While I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Trump is guilty of doing what he's accused of, I am not just going to pretend that the accusation, along with 20+ other accusations of sexual misconduct don't exist because they are "gossip". They aren't gossip. One can gossip about the allegations, sure. But they themselves are not gossip nor is bringing them inherently gossip.

    If you don't want to think about them at all, that's fine. But the fact is the accusations DO exist and it's perfectly fine to ponder why they exist. If they are all BS, then it raises the question of why there's a series of false claims against Trump (it is a conspiracy or do these women expect to individually benefit from their claim? What's going on here?). So even if wants to hold that it's all BS, they are still considering the accusations and likewise is justified in pondering the allegations in that respect. Likewise it's also reasonable to think that it's unlikely that if a man has 20+ allegations of the same activity from 20+ different people, he probably did at least some of the things and one should factor that in in regards to consider other aspects of that person. I don't care to have that debate here, but regardless I have no obligation to blithely dismiss the 20+ accusations on the basis of them being "gossip" because they, in and of themselves, in no way correspond to the definition of "gossip" as I understand it or as it appears in the dictionary.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is that it is a slight against a legitimate news organization for them to peddle gossip and rumor. Which are typically un-verified. And if it is t verified, then it isn't news. This is exasrerbated by the medias desire to theorize and speculate wildly based on said gossip.
    But it's not an unverified rumor that the accusations exist. It is absolutely verified that Trump has been accused of sexual assault by 20+ women.

    And again, it's NOT GOSSIP. Even if a news organization reports a story that is unverified and even ends up with egg on their face when it turns out that they practiced bad journalism and ran with a story that they should have verified better, it still does not qualify as gossip.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    " What do you think will happen if trump is found guilty of child rape".. o I am an expert at child rape cases and bla bla and I think he would be impeached and sentenced to eternity in jail, America would have taken a hit in the world stage .. bla. Bla. Bla. And on it will go for weeks.
    No "news" only gossip fueled by speculation and unfounded unproven assertions. The whole while presented as news and current events.

    So... Gossip. Idle chatter as news
    But then what you are describing doesn't sound like any news source that I know of.

    I mean in my admittedly biased perspective, I would say Fox News is the most gossipy (and feel free to substitute "MSNBC" for "Fox" for your perspective as my point isn't really about Fox per se and could be waged against other news sources that have a similar format which many do). Fox has news panel shows where they discuss issues with various people and I do think those might at times sound like what you are describing and I'll even allow that sometimes they straight-up gossip about news events. But that doesn't meant hat Fox is "all gossip, no news". They spend plenty of time with individual journalists directly reporting the news to the viewer and that IS NOT gossip. Even if they are incorrect or intentionally misleading, it's still not idle chatter and therefore not gossip.

    So while I won't say that there isn't SOME gossip in the news world, that is not primarily what they do.

  12. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're right, there was an actual reason for holding up the Kavauaugh appointment.
    Right, it does take time to plan and orchestrate a circus
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  13. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Right, it does take time to plan and orchestrate a circus
    It's only an unnecessary circus if you don't care whether a SCOTUS candidate committed sexual assault as a teenager and then lied about it. I personally think it's a pretty big deal.

  14. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  15. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you mean reporting what a source says?
    A question is not a rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a Nazi fugitive is captured and a survivor of the death camps tells a reporter about the brutal treatment of the guard and the reporter reports it, that IS an example of "I heard so and so say that so and so did x". That certainly does not qualify as gossip and should not be considered a "gossip-quality" claim.
    Your assuming all of the back drop that makes that not qualify and differentiates itself from the example here.
    So, false analogy.

    Do you need me to explain?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, here's a summary of the dossier via wikipedia. That certainly does not correspond with your claim that the FBI found it mostly false. IF the FBI did find it mostly false, the below link would have said as much (since it did bother to mention that Mueller rejected one allegation).
    I'm not accepting Wiki as a valid source on this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And this CERTAINLY does not qualify as gossip. Just like being gossip does not automatically make a claim false, false or unverified statements do not automatically qualify as gossip. Again, gossip is essentially idle chit-chat about others. Whatever is in the dossier was the result of someone intentionally choosing to select information to put in a report. Regardless of how well or poorly he did his job, it's not gossip.
    So you think steel, listening to someone say something about so and so, and then writing it down with no verification and no evidence to support it.
    Is NOT gossip?

    What is missing.. a picket fence? Is it the idea of being "idle chatter" that is tripping you up? As though writing it down increases it's weight?

    Look at the very least I'm just saying that it is no better than gossip. If writing it down moves it from the realm of "idle chatter" as we typically picture crossing the fence boards. so be it, but it isn't substantively different.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, that is not the definition of gossip.

    As you already agreed, even true verified information can be a valid source of gossip. Talking about your neighbors divorce with your friend is gossip and whether the divorce is an unverified rumor ("I hear they are getting a divorce") or is a verified fact ("Did you hear that they are getting a divorce?") makes no difference. So whether it is verified or unverified makes little to no difference in whether the discussion qualifies as gossip.
    I did not offer it as a definition. I offered it as the form it takes, which you have not really objected to to this point.
    and yes.. it CAN BE, but the nature of gossip doesn't lend itself to that being known.

    What I mean of "without further evidence or information" is not that, that is what makes it gossip. I'm saying that, that is what makes it untrustworthy gossip.
    The point about verified information is not relevant here.. because we are not talking about verified stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have no problem with you not accepting the child rape allegation against Trump until you see more conclusive evidence than what already exists. But your argument seems to forwarding that ANY allegation that Trump did do it qualifies as "gossip" and should be automatically discarded for that reason,
    Not "any".. just what we have so far, and the typical approach of the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that argument is flat-out incorrect.
    I agree.. good-thing that isn't my argument. whew.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    While one CAN gossip about the charge, one can also take the charge seriously as well. There IS a lawsuit from a women who claims she was raped by Trump when she was 13. I've seen the document. So I'm discussing the issue right now in this debate. So am I gossiping because I'm talking about it? Of course not. This is a debate, not idle chit-chat and therefore not gossip. And likewise if I were to form an argument that holds that I think he did do it or just state an opinion that I think it's more likely than not that he did it, that is also not gossip.
    For me it is gossip. I haven't seen it,and I only have your "I heard this" style statement to go on, and for those reasons I'm justified in rejecting your say so and requesting evidence.
    And while that may be fine and acceptable for this debate forum IT ISN'T NEWS!!!!
    That ... is not... how.. news... works..
    News is not a version of what happens across the fence with your maybe divorced neighbors friend. It is a matter of record. If you were offering it as news, then it would have to be sourced, just like if you are offering it as an argument I can demand a link or it is rejected as unsupported.

    I get that you don't think of it as gossip, but there is no substantive difference. That is why in this more formal setting than talking across the fence, claims without evidence can be rejected, dismissed, and there is burden of proof. The news organizations have an even more significant burden of evidence, because they are or should be expected to provide it WITHOUT being asked first.

    So i would say this, if a person makes a claim without any intent to provide evidence and support they are gossiping to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It appears to me, from this debate and others, that you tend to take unverified claims and lump them all into the category of "gossip" to hold that they should be discarded and therefore, in this case, hold that we should automatically discard the Trump allegation for that reason and really no discussion should be had about it at all ("we aren't going to even consider gossip here").
    ABSOLUTELY. we should not consider gossip as serious on a debate site. That is why we have to source our arguments, to raise them above hear say and gossip.

    You do have one thing wrong though, I said when it comes from political opponents it should be discarded. Because the source is biased. Not because it is gossip alone and thus false.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I disagree with both the tactic and the conclusion of that. Extending the definition of "gossip" to all unverified allegations in order to argue that they should all be dismissed is to engage in equivocation (playing around with the very loose definition of "gossip" as a means to shoot down arguments instead of based on their actual merits or lack thereof).
    Wrong, the point about it being gossip is an attack on it's merits. You are here treating it as though it is two different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I certainly do not agree that all unverified allegations should be automatically dismissed. While I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Trump is guilty of doing what he's accused of, I am not just going to pretend that the accusation, along with 20+ other accusations of sexual misconduct don't exist because they are "gossip". They aren't gossip. One can gossip about the allegations, sure. But they themselves are not gossip nor is bringing them inherently gossip.
    The fact the allegation is made... is not gossip. The nature of the allegation IS gossip.
    and without evidence or corroboration, it doesn't get raised out of it. Just because you can quote a person and have it sourced, doesn't change the format of "I heard so and so say such and such".
    Which is typical of Gossip.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you don't want to think about them at all, that's fine. But the fact is the accusations DO exist and it's perfectly fine to ponder why they exist.
    NOT AS NEWS!
    That is actually quite reckless, and why that has typically been left to the gossip rags.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If they are all BS, then it raises the question of why there's a series of false claims against Trump (it is a conspiracy or do these women expect to individually benefit from their claim? What's going on here?). So even if wants to hold that it's all BS, they are still considering the accusations and likewise is justified in pondering the allegations in that respect. Likewise it's also reasonable to think that it's unlikely that if a man has 20+ allegations of the same activity from 20+ different people, he probably did at least some of the things and one should factor that in in regards to consider other aspects of that person. I don't care to have that debate here, but regardless I have no obligation to blithely dismiss the 20+ accusations on the basis of them being "gossip" because they, in and of themselves, in no way correspond to the definition of "gossip" as I understand it or as it appears in the dictionary.
    Right, sure.. but one of those things is not like the others right.
    I mean, your not going to honestly lump child rape in with womanizing? because you seem to be doing that here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And again, it's NOT GOSSIP. Even if a news organization reports a story that is unverified and even ends up with egg on their face when it turns out that they practiced bad journalism and ran with a story that they should have verified better, it still does not qualify as gossip.
    Actually.. it does. it is just a news organization peddling gossip. As though it were a gossip rag passing for legitimate news.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then what you are describing doesn't sound like any news source that I know of.

    I mean in my admittedly biased perspective, I would say Fox News is the most gossipy (and feel free to substitute "MSNBC" for "Fox" for your perspective as my point isn't really about Fox per se and could be waged against other news sources that have a similar format which many do). Fox has news panel shows where they discuss issues with various people and I do think those might at times sound like what you are describing and I'll even allow that sometimes they straight-up gossip about news events. But that doesn't meant hat Fox is "all gossip, no news". They spend plenty of time with individual journalists directly reporting the news to the viewer and that IS NOT gossip. Even if they are incorrect or intentionally misleading, it's still not idle chatter and therefore not gossip.

    So while I won't say that there isn't SOME gossip in the news world, that is not primarily what they do.
    My point is not that news organizations are all gossip all the time.
    I am sure I would disagree with you on the percentage that is actually gossip on all the channels, and I really won't defend fox as being different in anyway in format(only perspective).

    However, I do contend that this is an instance of gossip. The "news stories" generated by this bit of UN-evidenced claim is nothing more than hand wringing over gossip.

    IF news organizations would REALLY get egg on their faces over this kind of stuff turning out false, that would be one thing.
    Then I think I would be more inclined to take a different approach. but come on, a lot of the stuff they do is no different than gossip.
    They "hear" something from "someone" they won't say who... but trust me, it's important and probably true.
    Then they go on a speculate about it for some time.
    Tell me that isn't what happens regularly. and many, many times it comes out as false or only half true.

    How many stories do you hear with an "Anonymous source". I hate to tell you this, but that is a prime indicator that what follows is gossip.
    To serve man.

  16. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    NUTSHELL ARGUMENT - A general response to something that stated numerous times and therefore a response to this argument might cut down on some redundancy in your responses to my redundant rebuttals. But feel free to respond to any and all points below anyway.

    It seems the general issue is that you are using what appears to be a self-made definition of "gossip" as opposed to "gossip" as it is defined in the dictionary and generally used by people. Gossip generally means idle chit-chat about others. It does not correspond to any and all claims that are not backed up with sufficient evidence to convince another that they are true.

    So while I offer a few semi-challenges below (not really leaning on the button yet), you should support that the definition of "gossip" that you are using is correct with a valid external source as opposed to relying solely on how you view the word.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A question is not a rebuttal.
    Then I will rephrase it as a statement.

    What you described is essentially reporting what a source says.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your assuming all of the back drop that makes that not qualify and differentiates itself from the example here.
    So, false analogy.

    Do you need me to explain?
    Yes. Explain how what I described does not qualify as "I heard so and so say that so and so did x"



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not accepting Wiki as a valid source on this issue.
    But I am. So I consider your assessment of the Steele Dossier to be incorrect and therefore reject any argument that has that assessment as its premise (until you provide proper support for it).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So you think steel, listening to someone say something about so and so, and then writing it down with no verification and no evidence to support it.
    Is NOT gossip?
    Since it does not fit the definition of the word "gossip" I hold that it's not gossip.

    That's not to say that you have no basis to argue that the Steele Dossier is questionable or invalid for the reasons you just stated but it still does not qualify as gossip.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is missing.. a picket fence? Is it the idea of being "idle chatter" that is tripping you up? As though writing it down increases it's weight?
    Actually the idle chatter issue is not tripping me up. Idle chatter is pretty much what gossip is. It doesn't matter how much or how little weight the information has. If it is not communicated in a way that fits the definition of "gossip", then it's not gossip.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Look at the very least I'm just saying that it is no better than gossip. If writing it down moves it from the realm of "idle chatter" as we typically picture crossing the fence boards. so be it, but it isn't substantively different.
    Then state what you mean accurately instead of misusing the word "gossip". Gossip has a specific negative connotation and using it where it doesn't apply poisons the well.

    If we are going to have a REAL debate about the Steele Dossier (although I don't seek to do that since it's an example for our debate about "gossip"), it being unverified second-hand information (which seems to be what your are forwarding) is not as bad as being unverified second-hand information that was attained through mere idle chatter (gossip). So all other supposed flaws aside, whether it is or is not gossip is quite pertinent to a debate on the issue and if does not qualify as gossip then it's quite important that it not be called "gossip".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I did not offer it as a definition. I offered it as the form it takes, which you have not really objected to to this point.
    and yes.. it CAN BE, but the nature of gossip doesn't lend itself to that being known.

    What I mean of "without further evidence or information" is not that, that is what makes it gossip.
    But again, that is NOT the definition of gossip so you are incorrect.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not "any".. just what we have so far, and the typical approach of the media.
    I disagree that gossip is the typical approach of the media and therefore will ignore this particular statement until it is supported.

    If you are going to maintain that that is how the media typically approaches such issues, I will ask you to support that assertion in advance.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For me it is gossip. I haven't seen it,and I only have your "I heard this" style statement to go on, and for those reasons I'm justified in rejecting your say so and requesting evidence.
    But I am not telling you it as idle chatter. We are having a debate on whether this issue is gossip or not. And I am in no way presenting it to you in the form of idle chatter. And of course you can reject a claim that Trump did it if there's not enough evidence to make you seriously consider that it did happen. But that does not make it gossip. This is not idle chatter.

    If you are using a loose definition of "gossip" that people don't typically adhere to in order to make a claim seem less solid than it would if it did not qualify as gossip. you are engaging in the equivocation fallacy.

    And I think that is what you are doing. Intentionally or not, when you call a claim "gossip" when it does not technically qualify as gossip, you are indeed equivocating.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And while that may be fine and acceptable for this debate forum IT ISN'T NEWS!!!!
    That ... is not... how.. news... works..
    News is not a version of what happens across the fence with your maybe divorced neighbors friend. It is a matter of record. If you were offering it as news, then it would have to be sourced, just like if you are offering it as an argument I can demand a link or it is rejected as unsupported.

    I get that you don't think of it as gossip, but there is no substantive difference.
    There is a HUGE difference.

    One MAJOR difference is that things that are supported and verified can still qualify as gossip.

    For example, Kevin Spacey has gotten into a lot of trouble because of several sexual transgressions and I can certainly support all of this if I were in need to support it (for sake of argument, pretend that I provided a lot of support). So gossip, gossip, gossip, Kevin Spacey, gossip. So now you have some gossip regarding something that is proven to be true.

    And I wouldn't blame you for not bothering with all this Kevin Spacey gossip because you could say that it's beneath you to engage in idle chatter about KS's sexual indiscretions. Gossip should generally be ignored. But in this situation, it's not being ignored because I was unable to provide solid support that what I said is true.

    So the reason that gossip should be ignored is not because it's uniformly untrue and not supported. It's because it's cheap and undignified and a rather low form of discussion.

    And that is SIGNIFICANTLY different than some other claim that is not supported well enough to be considered true.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is why in this more formal setting than talking across the fence, claims without evidence can be rejected, dismissed, and there is burden of proof. The news organizations have an even more significant burden of evidence, because they are or should be expected to provide it WITHOUT being asked first.

    So i would say this, if a person makes a claim without any intent to provide evidence and support they are gossiping to you.
    And I would say that your definition of "gossip" neither corresponds to how the word is understood by the population at large or the dictionary.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The fact the allegation is made... is not gossip. The nature of the allegation IS gossip.
    and without evidence or corroboration, it doesn't get raised out of it. Just because you can quote a person and have it sourced, doesn't change the format of "I heard so and so say such and such".
    Which is typical of Gossip.
    Once again, you seem to be invoking your own made-up definition of gossip and therefore engaging in equivocation. I'm afraid that this kind of thing will continue unless I get challengey.

    So no button pushing (yet). But I do formally ask that you support or retract that the very nature of the allegation is gossip.

    And please use a valid source for your support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    NOT AS NEWS!
    That is actually quite reckless, and why that has typically been left to the gossip rags.
    I wasn't talking about news. I'm talking about people like you and I.

    So to repeat - If you don't want to think about them at all, that's fine. But the fact is the accusations DO exist and it's perfectly fine to ponder why they exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, sure.. but one of those things is not like the others right.
    I mean, your not going to honestly lump child rape in with womanizing? because you seem to be doing that here.
    I didn't say "womanizing". I said "sexual assault". And yes, I do lump sexual assault in with rape since rape is a form of sexual assault.

    But to be clear, the Trump issue of "for example" and do not seek to actually debate whether he did or didn't here. My point is one can consider the multiple allegations and doing so does not inherently qualify as gossip.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually.. it does. it is just a news organization peddling gossip. As though it were a gossip rag passing for legitimate news.
    Again, not by the common definition of gossip. If we are going by your own made-up definition, then I guess whatever you say is gossip is gossip.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is not that news organizations are all gossip all the time.
    I am sure I would disagree with you on the percentage that is actually gossip on all the channels, and I really won't defend fox as being different in anyway in format(only perspective).

    However, I do contend that this is an instance of gossip. The "news stories" generated by this bit of UN-evidenced claim is nothing more than hand wringing over gossip.
    When you support that, I will consider it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    IF news organizations would REALLY get egg on their faces over this kind of stuff turning out false, that would be one thing.
    Then I think I would be more inclined to take a different approach. but come on, a lot of the stuff they do is no different than gossip.
    They "hear" something from "someone" they won't say who... but trust me, it's important and probably true.
    Then they go on a speculate about it for some time.
    Tell me that isn't what happens regularly. and many, many times it comes out as false or only half true.
    I very much doubt that what you are saying is true. Really, going by your apparent definition of gossip, you are just gossiping about the news. I certainly don't see any support for any of this. So if I am to ignore all that you define as "gossip", then I must ignore this argument without evidence entirely.

    But of course, your argument is not gossip just because you've provided no evidence. But I am going to refrain from commenting on it since it is not supported with any evidence and therefore fails for lack of support.

    Keep in mind, that I am not just being oppositional. I am honest enough to concede points if I sincerely agree with them but there's not much you said that I agree with here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How many stories do you hear with an "Anonymous source". I hate to tell you this, but that is a prime indicator that what follows is gossip.
    I hate to tell you this, but no it's not.

    At least not if we are going to adhere to an accurate definition of "gossip".
    Last edited by mican333; July 21st, 2019 at 02:33 PM.

  17. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  18. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, of course not. Would I expect a slave holding society or an aristocracy to glorify it's lack of social justice?

    The outgroups and ingroups of capitalism would be those with capital and those without - with further subdivisions between how much capital it is you have.

    It's clear what I rebutted.

    ---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------



    It already is decriminalized, it's a civil infraction.
    1) Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups. Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory. That is the point here. Just like nationalism's central construct is based on those who are part of the nation and those who are outside of it. In-groups and out-groups. Capitalist theory describes markets and individual choices within those markets. It is not an argument over whether capitalism is one thing or another. It is an issue of the central beliefs of a given theory.

    2) You are wrong about the border.
    https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...illegally.html
    For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
    For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups. Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory.
    That seems to directly contradict socialism as it is typically defined. Here's a definition.

    "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

    When everything is owned and regulated by the community as a whole, then there clearly is no out-group. So not only is in-groups and out-groups not a central construct of socialism, they are not suppose to exist at all in socialism.
    Last edited by mican333; July 22nd, 2019 at 11:49 AM.

  20. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That seems to directly contradict socialism as it is typically defined. Here's a definition.

    "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

    When everything is owned and regulated by the community as a whole, then there clearly is no out-group. So not only is in-groups and out-groups not a central construct of socialism, they are not suppose to exist at all in socialism.
    Funny that. So, we start with owners and workers and end up with only workers... Hmmmm. Where did that other group go??? Yes, once the out-group has been completely eliminated, no more divisiveness.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  22. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Funny that. So, we start with owners and workers and end up with only workers... Hmmmm. Where did that other group go??? Yes, once the out-group has been completely eliminated, no more divisiveness.
    In theory, yes.

    ---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups.
    Sure it does. Your own stupid propaganda arm is always referring to people in terms of "makers" and "takers". Atlas Shrugged? Hello?

    ---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory.
    Pointing out that conflict occurs isn't advocating for that conflict.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  23. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Funny that. So, we start with owners and workers and end up with only workers... Hmmmm. Where did that other group go??? Yes, once the out-group has been completely eliminated, no more divisiveness.
    Wrong. Under socialism you don't start with owners and workers and then get rid of the owners. There were never any owners to begin with so there was never any out-group to get rid of.

    Or if you mean that if we transitioned from a Capitalist society to a socialist society, then that would create an out-group that would need to be eliminated. Yes, there could be no more owners but of course there's no need to do anything like kill them. The owners would become workers so as individuals, they would leave the out group and join the in group And once the society is probably socialistic, there would be no out group

    But regardless, this in no way rebuts my previous argument so that argument still stands. To repeat:

    According to the DEFINITION of socialism, there would be no out-group since everyone would belong to the one group as far as the economy goes.
    Last edited by mican333; July 22nd, 2019 at 08:00 PM.

  24. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats HR 1 (2019)
    By CowboyX in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 24th, 2019, 08:41 AM
  2. Yay Democrats!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 13th, 2018, 09:35 PM
  3. Who are the Democrats?
    By LagerHead in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  4. Democrats Take The Senate!
    By Yuruusan in forum Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
  5. Cats are democrats
    By tinkerbell in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 15th, 2005, 02:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •