maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Okay, INDY. . .
Bring it.
Bring it.
Guess that settles it. . .
Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation – the core of the British National Party’s plan for rebuilding this nation’s economy after decades of Tory and Labour neglect.
Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them.
“Marketisation,” and particularly the Conservative-created Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes imposed by Gordon Brown, has been a disaster which is saddling Trusts and the taxpayer with enormous debts. We totally reject this attempt to turn the nation’s health service into a private profit centre for giant corporations.
You can't really expect to have a serious debate with the village idiot, right?
Okay, INDY. . .
Bring it.
the German Nazis, Wilson Progressivism?
Who did you wish to begin with? The Italian Fascists, the German Nazis, the Russian Communists or Wilson Progressivism? Or perhaps the myth that fascism and communism are opposites?
An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association are:
- Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.
- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. (This argument is made by the wordplay-prone Sir Humphrey Appleby in the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister).
- Barack Obama does not wear a United States flag lapel pin. A lapel pin represents patriotism. Therefore, Barack Obama is not patriotic.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium (dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is a formal fallacy in logic. The name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.
It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad." For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong." The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses.
It's only not far-fetched in the everything-is-about-race Grievance Factory of the Left. I seem to remember the same thing happening 15 years ago to those crackers from Arkansas that tried a government takeover of heath care.That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.
It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.
And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.
?????????????????????????????????
For starters;I love gymnastics meets. Link these two please.
So did Hitler's anti-Semitism and Martin Luther's (ever read Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies?). You can't draw absolute distinctions between the cumulative expressions of the former ideology and the cultural influence of 400 years of the latter. That's almost always true with totalizing ideological systems; they have precedents both philosophically and culturally, and in breaking them down for analysis, you're inevitably going to find certain components reminiscent of, and in some cases outright lifted from, those precedents.But they do have several underlying philosophies in common.
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.
It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.
And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.
Nancy Pelosi saw Swastikas at townhall meetings
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.
It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.
And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.
Because I'm fine with a president Colin Powell, or a president Condoleeza Rice, or a president JC Watts. So if you think I have a problem with his skin color, I think you owe me the decency of telling me so.
For starters;
Eugenics
Racism (Jews for one, blacks for the other)
Thought children should be raised by the state rather than parents (I'm sure you've heard of John Dewey.)