Democrats are afraid of violent backlash

[dburkhead]

a) you just committed selection bias, go read the entire thread and my repeated explanation of the difference between the textbook definition and what we can plainly see demonstrated.

That would be the "call a tail a leg" fallacy.

Just because the media calls Republicans "conservative" doesn't make it so. Words have meanings. Although, admittedly the Left does like to play Humpty Dumpty with word meanings.

BTW, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a special case of the "convenient definition" fallacy--where one takes or creates a non-standard definition of a word in order to make their supposed claim "true". The latter is what you, and the media, are engaging in. Conservative has a meaning. Define a "new"meaning where "Conservative" means "Republican" despite the fact that it is completely contrary to and, in fact, has little to no connection with the existing definition but which is a convenient to the supposed "point" one is trying to make.

It's an attempt to substitute verbal games for actual content. Style over substance. That may work over on the Huffington Post or the Democratic Underground but people will call you on it here.

BTW, even if the argument that Republicans = conservatives did hold, using it would simply be the fallacy of Ad hominem tu quoque

quote]b) i didn't call "slippery slope" a logical fallacy. it's an argument style.

Weren't you going to explain to me how entertaining my misuse of debate tactics was?[/quote]

See above.

Once again... back to the OP. Please, by all means... if it helps you sleep at night to think that I love Obama and I buy Democratic propaganda, have at it. Go kill politicians and see how far it advances our national interests. Debate isn't your strong point, perhaps shooting a target is?

And shall we count the logical fallacies in this paragraph? You say "Debate isn't your strong point." I refer you to the following:

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/ame]

 

[dross]

You wax poetic about the vast difference between Republican and Conservative, yet every gun show I attend... they are one and the same. Shirts that glorify Bush and the "conservative Repub" agenda. Bumper stickers that demonize "liberal Dems."

For someone of your truly amazing intellect who likes to reference logical fallacies, you've committed a big one here. First, someone may call themselves "conservative" and not be conservative. For instance, you called yourself "fiscally conservative" and yet your positions show that you are not. Others may call someone "conservative" and yet that person may not be conservative. Conservatives may elect someone who is not conservative simply because they think that's the best choice on the table. Your argument is silly.

No need to point out the technical difference in the definitions of the words from dictionary.google.com to me, believe me... I get it. However, you can't say one thing and then *do* something completely different. Your actions lead me to believe that my claims of a logical fallacy are watertight. You *say* you want something (who knows what that is) and yet your vote and political groups demonstrate something else.

For someone of your superior intellect and education, you keep stepping into false arguments. In this case you've presented a false dilemna. I do want something different. I'd like a libertarian to be elected. Yet, in close election I might vote for a Republican because I might believe that a vote for a Libertarian would cause a Democrat to be elected. You might disagree with my strategy, but there is no way you can call it illogical. But perhaps your amazing mental abilities are just too far advanced for my more modest brain "power."

I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think Bill Clinton proposed the first balanced budget in nearly 50 years. How do those fit into your categories?

Gosh, as smart and amazing as you are, I'm surprised that you don't know that the budget Clinton proposed spent much more than the Republican controlled congress forced him to finally accept. I'm also surprised that you don't know that the budget wasn't actually balanced at all, but that most of the largest ticket items were excluded from the budget calculations. Another example of something being called "balanced," when it was far from it.

Also, arguing for huge extensions of entitlement programs goes against every known definition of "fiscally conservative." Unless there's some big brain way of defining the term that only you know.

You directly state that "compassionate" is the opposite of "fiscally conservative." That makes absolutely no sense.

Either you are committing a semantic fallacy, or you are ignorant of recent political history. Either way, I'm totally confused, since your obvious off-the-charts intellect precludes either possibility.

Compassionate conservative was a political slogan that meant Bush was willing to spend more on domestic programs than previous Republicans. That's why the terms are opposite. But surely you already knew that? If a simple creature like myself knew that, surely someone of your superior abilities already knew that.

It is incumbent upon the collective of our elected officials to vote their conscience and be true to their moral compass. It is a fallacy to assume that because 51% of the people in their district favor or oppose something, they are obligated to vote in that direction.

Gee, I thought is was incumbent upon our elected officials (I don't think I'm smart or educated enough to understand your use of the word "collective" in this context) to vote according to the authority granted to them by the Constitution.

And again, I'm confused. Someone with your mad logic skills should know that there's a difference between a fallacious argument and one you just happen to disagree with. It's a perfectly valid argument that a representative should vote according to his constituents' views. I don't agree with it, but it's not fallacious. Or perhaps you're so smart that by definition anything you disagree with must be fallacious. Yes, that's probably it.

I've never seen such a massive inability to use simple logic on one thread.

I'm forced to agree with you on this. But I'm not sure I'm thinking of the same examples you are.

I guess that's what I get for posting on a forum meant to discuss firearms, not higher education.

Oh thank you kind sir! Thank you for honoring we simpletons with your highly-evolved pontifications! I just hope some of your amazing smartness stuff rubs off on me. Before you came along, I was laboring under the illusion that I was a pretty smart guy, but you've cleared that up for me. Now could you please educate dburkheand and CarmelHP for me? Those drooling idiots are in dire need of some edu-macation! And I can tell from reading your posts, you're just the man to give it to them.

Maybe this will give you a simple breakdown of why both sides are stupid in this debate, but that doing something was better than the alternative:

Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"
Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"

......snip....
Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"
Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"

If I didn't already know how crazy smart you were, this post cleared it up for me. Really. I'm being serious. Wow. What an argument. You sure do seem to have the finer points of this issue all figured out. I stand in awe. Really.

The math is fuzzy on the final cost. We're being led to believe that there will be massive cost savings, but no one can predict that. The truth is probably closer to breaking even.. but at the very least insurance companies can't deny pre-existing coverage, etc. Basic reforms that any common person can appreciate, unless I'm the only person in this forum that isn't independently wealthy.

It's easy to predict. Every single entitlement program costs hundreds of times more than the projected amount.

I see no reforms in this bill. I see government intrusion based on the premise that the market isn't working in this area, when actually the main issues wrong with healthcare in this country are caused by the regulation that already exists. Government intruding to fix what they already broke.

If we want to halt the deficit, I submit we tone down the defense budget a tad.

Defense spending is dwarfed by entitlement spending and interest on the debt, both of which this bill increases.

Providing healthcare to everyone for free would be a tiny fraction of our defense expenditure.

Non sequitur. Defense is an authorized use of government power. Taking over an industry is not. Makes the expenditure argument moot.

This is why you should read a book. My "logic" induced the idea that perhaps there are more important security needs for this hypothetical person. Seriously, just go read a few passages about critical thinking. It will actually really help.

I almost read a whole book once. The part I did read taught me how to recognize a pompous ass, with delusions of his own abilities. Useful book. As to critical thinking, I think you've demostrated your own need for such a book.

Why do we have the right to education or roads or public utilities? Let's just go anarchy.. it was already suggested once in this thread.

We don't have a right to education or to public utilities. You can't have the right to something that requires someone else to give you something. Are you suggesting that not paying for roads, utilities, or healthcare is anarchy? I forget which fallacy this is, but it's a fallacy.

.

Do you understand the difference between infrastructure and discretionary expense?

Yes.

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does having a national interstate system of roads support an efficient and solid national infrastructure?

Yes.

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does an educated population that can conduct itself with civility, carry out research and develop ideas that are useful to all support a solid infrastructure?

Yes.

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does a healthy population contribute to individual/family unit happiness and support the most productive workforce possible? Is that an integral part of infrastructure?

Yes.

If you answer no to any of these, I'd be interested to hear why.

That all of those things are true is not justification to implement them through force. There are many things that are good or bad for society that should be left alone by the government. Something being good or bad isn't enough justification to use force (the government's only tool.) You must make the argument that these actions are justified morally, and legally. I contend that the healthcare bill meets neither criterion.

I disagree with your arguments. I despise the pompous way you make them. You ain't as smart as you think you are. There are some very smart folks on this site, and they're laughing at you. There are some idiots on the right. Call them out individually. It's possible to disagree with everything you've said, and not be stupid or fallacious.

You could have argued your points and just had disagreement. Your method inspires contempt, and you look completely ridiculous calling people out for logic and critical thinking when you've made so many logical errors yourself.

I'm going to go find myself one of them there...books, was it?

 

[rambone]

NONE OF YE ARE TRUE SCOTSMEN

 

[steveh_131]

 

[WWIIIDefender]

But there is little logic to his arguments. Just like the pretty graph he posts above. Somehow he is suggesting that our defense expenditures has something to do with the requirement that we owe everyone in the country (heck why stop there, let's help the world with free ObamaCare. It isn't fair that some are not born in this country. They shouldn't be penalized for it.) free health care. Let's give everyone a free home also. Is having shelter and the dignity of home ownership any less important than health care? Or free food, clothing? and good ones at that. Imagine the blow to the poor children's self-esteem when they have to go to school not dressed in the right clothes.

Hey thats a good idea, by there logic since adding 20 million people to healthcare will make it cheaper maybe if we add the world we will get paid for healthcare...lol

 

[jedi]

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let's do it the right way."

Looks like Mr. Boehner did not study American History. If I recall "the American way" is violent overthrow of their English King as in American Revolution.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like Mr. Boehner did not study American History. If I recall "the American way" is violent overthrow of their English King as in American Revolution.

As I recall people did all of those things in opposition to the bill. That didn't work out so well.

 

[elaw555]

To be fair, we've been enslaved to the recipient class for some time now. Massa just wants some more of our labour with this one. Bush strengthened our chains and indentured our children with his drugs for the old scheme and Obama has just tightened the chains. Perm is correct that we must get the military industrial complex under control. When the majority of our wealth is being diverted to entitlements and war we are truly enslaved.

It's simple. Disconnect the 911 line that all other democratic countries call when they need .mil help in any form. I really don't know if I am kidding on this one...

 

[stmoore]

Yes, military-industrial-congressional complex ... Under control? Pfft but then Cheney and the like couldn't get sweet @ss deals for their friends!

To be fair, we've been enslaved to the recipient class for some time now. Massa just wants some more of our labour with this one. Bush strengthened our chains and indentured our children with his drugs for the old scheme and Obama has just tightened the chains. Perm is correct that we must get the military industrial complex under control. When the majority of our wealth is being diverted to entitlements and war we are truly enslaved.

 

[XMil]

I ain't nearly smart enough to join yer big-boy discussion, but fixed this fer ya.

Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "What do you have in mind?"
Democrats: "Why are you the party of no?!?"
Republicans: "What....uh..health care right? Sure, we've got some ideas"
Democrats: "Too late! We have to vote now!!!"
Republicans: "Hey, nobody's had a chance to read the bill. What's the hurry?"
Democrats: "OBSTRUCTIONISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Republicans: "No, seriously what's the hurry?"
Democrats: "Barack Obama's legac.....Uhhhh wait..People are dying in the streets!!!!"
Republicans: "Ok, well we have some ideas that might help, let's talk about it."
Democrats: "WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE?!! "
Republicans: "Look, 85% of people have adequate coverage now."
Democrats: "PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE STREETS!!! YOU JUST HATE OBAMA BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!!!!"

CNN:"Bible thumping rednecks have been tricked into going against Obama's plan, because he's black."

MSNBC""Gun Toting rednecks have been tricked into going against Obama's plan, because he's black."

60 Minutes:"Sarah Palin is an idiot"

New York Times:"Gun thumping, toothless, inbred, mouth-breathers have been tricked into going against Obama's plan, because he's black."


Democrats (among themselves): "Ok, here's the plan. We've bribed everybody that didn't want to vote for this except that one guy....Let's bring out those gay harassment charges against him. Yeah, yeah, we've known about it for months, but now we can use it against him."

Republicans: "Hey, have you guys had a chance to talk about the ideas we presented at Obama's summit?"

Steny Hoyer: "People are threatening us with violence!!"

Nancy Pelosi:" Shut up you idiot, that's what we're going to say after we shove this down their throats!"

Steny Hoyer"Oops, my bad"

Republicans" Hey, can we talk now. You know, most of America is against this...""

Democrats: "RACISTS!!!Too late! We passed it anyway--SCREW YOU! and screw them too."


Republicans: "This is an outrage, we're going to sue."

Democrats: "ZOMG, LULZ, just try."

Joe Biden: "This is a big F'n deal!"

Steny Hoyer: "Sarah Palin is inciting violence!!!!"
Nancy Pelosi: "Good boy."

 

[Phil502]

^^ Much better and more realistic.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sorry, dross' post brought this to mind, I couldn't resist:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio]YouTube - Princess Bride - Battle of Wits[/ame]

 

[Bill of Rights]

So, the Libertarians offer Bob Barr, so, "instead of treating any of the injuries, we'll just give you a case of pneumonia to go with 'em." The Libertarian label is not the panacea it is claimed to be.

Personally, I would prefer "small-L" libertarians. That is, follow Washington's advice, trash the whole "party" concept, and get some people in there who follow the principles of liberty... Small government, minimal-to-no interference in people's lives, that kind of thing.

The Libertarian Party may not be the answer. I'm of the opinion that libertarian principles are, however... and getting the folks in office who are dedicated to those principles.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

Personally, I would prefer "small-L" libertarians. That is, follow Washington's advice, trash the whole "party" concept, and get some people in there who follow the principles of liberty... Small government, minimal-to-no interference in people's lives, that kind of thing.

The Libertarian Party may not be the answer. I'm of the opinion that libertarian principles are, however... and getting the folks in office who are dedicated to those principles.

Blessings,
Bill

The problem with that is so many people insist on everything at once. You're not going to get it (see the parable of the injured person). The trick is to find the person or persons who are closest (and, in the current situation, that still means pretty far away in many cases, sad to say), then repeat each election. Keep the pressure on and push things in the direction you want. The key is less where one is but in the direction moved.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Spot on BoR...

Allegiance to an ideal - e.g. the Constitution and what's the RIGHT thing to do needs to start trumping allegiance to a Party (ANY PARTY).

It doesn't appear to be doing so.

I still say that a number of Congress critters with huevos could stand in the center (and I don't mean the political center) but between the parties, and could force things to go a lot more along Constitutional lines. In that sense, a group of people united by the Constitution would be more powerful than a "party" of any kind...

 

[Eddie]

Rather dumb question?

So a few points to consider:

1) Eddie (and others) are using dissent as a tacit approval of violence, in so many words. This infers that "you should expect violence" if someone is angry about a decision you have made. I submit that this stance is morally bankrupt.

2) The "majority" of people were also against women's suffrage and integration/civil rights reform. This concept is known as the Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is incumbent upon the collective of our elected officials to vote their conscience and be true to their moral compass. It is a fallacy to assume that because 51% of the people in their district favor or oppose something, they are obligated to vote in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with this concept.

Nothing in my post condones violence. I merely pointed out that it is silly for the dems to act all shocked that some windows got broke and some threats got made. As you so kindly pointed out, not everyone is rational and well educated. When a person or persons makes millions of people angry some small percentage of those millions will be of the type to commit acts of vandalism. If the fact that their unpopular decision has caused some bumpkins to break their windows is so upsetting to them then maybe they need to find other employment.

I made a point to read through everything before posting Perm. You don't seem to be making a point other than trying to troll.

 

[tnek]

This thread hit the crapper many pages ago and I wish I hadnt read it. Seems like perm makes lots of friends everywhere he goes Id bet.