You need help bro. What in the name of Sean Hannity does Dutch Reagan have to do with Communist leader Roosevelt. ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-29-04 11:12 PM Re: Re: Ahh, It's all starting to make sense now In the world of Hannityism, two wrongs of someone else make us right for only doing one wrong. No different than when criticism is put to Bush supporters about Bush, the common response is "Yea, but Clinton......" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader 12-21-03 08:25 AM Attack, attack, attack....Hannityism, Hannityism, Hannityism....I expect a bit more from you Pabst. You might try to counter Krugman's opinions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 12-24-03 08:45 AM You are practicing Hannityism. I am not the issue, Rush is. Defending Rush by attacking me is a Hannityism --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-04-04 01:29 PM Calling me an idiot reveals your tendency toward Hannityism, if not a lack of class. Typical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-04-04 06:25 PM More logical fallacy, classic example of poisoning the well. Assumes fact not in evidence. When arguments cannot be made logically, just assume and attack. Classic. I call it Hannityism ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-04-04 06:34 PM More Hannityism. Even if it is true that what I do is wrong, this is no defense for others if they do wrong. Someone else's wrong is not absolved by mine. Feel free to point my specific errors and logical fallacies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-10-04 12:30 PM Re: Sour grapes? Full blown Hannityism from AAA. I mean, what elese can you do? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 01-11-04 07:01 PM Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sour grapes? Hannityism means something, or else you wouldn't understand what I am saying. You want to call it Kennedyism or something else, fine with me, a rose by any other name. Hannityism stands as very descriptive. Think of a fat necked bulldog of a man with veins bulging, big forehead, low brow, shaking his finger at you, leaning forward, and calling you names and not addressing issues, employing the political technology of logical fallacy after logical fallacy. No doubt that description fits many pundits, but Hannity fits the bill perfectly too, so I will stick with the terminology. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARogueTrader Elite Member 12-12-03 10:14 PM Classic Hannityism style response from AAA. Rather than deal with the information and charges of Bush's secrecy he makes a personal attack on Moyer, even going so far as suggesting that his opinion is representative of "we" and "us." AAA, you are becoming far too predictable, a living breathing caricature of a right wing extremist brain dead ditto head.
Quote from Pabst: You need help bro. What in the name of Sean Hannity does Dutch Reagan have to do with Communist leader Roosevelt. FDR is to Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans. Neither side has much objectivity when it comes to their heroes. Roosevelt was as much of a communist leader as Reagan was a Nazi leader. Really, I fail to understand why people like you have such irrational fear of the ideas of socialism that are actually beneficial to society and an adjunct to capitalism.
Every present ill of government can be traced to FDR? Your statement is just too baseless to even begin to comment on.
You "fail to understand" because you can't. Same here. You are not capable of being irrationally aligned with a set of "rules by which to be conservative". "Socialism" is such a great buzzword for the conservatives. But they somehow do adapt to take "socialist" programs under their wings if it is politically expedient. Now FDR's "socialist" (Marxist?) Social Security program is a pet project of today's Republican Party. Now a national health care system is "socialist" according to the right wing. So our basic constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include our health? We are the only industrialized nation that does not consider health care a civil right. We believe in the "civil rights" of the unborn fetus, but living people? Sometimes I almost believe the right wing just hates people and loves fetuses. Or maybe it's just that they don't REALLY believe in civil rights. (The right wing was not exactly at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement). Just like Social Security was put in place so our elderly would not become indigent if they were not able to provide for their financial scurrility after their productive years were over, so would health care protect those who, for whatever reason, can not afford medical attention. Circumstances sometimes are unfortunate for those who deserve better. Having a "social" conscience. Being a "compassionate conservative " (hahaha...remember that one?) does not make one a Marxist. Or a Communist. Or a Socialist. Just socially concerned (or, as I am sure, AAA, Pabst, Maverick, et. al. would prefer to say, a "bleeding heart"). Well, the thing is, if you don't believe in the "greater good". If you don't believe in providing protection from hunger and disease to Americans (Civil rights). Then what is our REAL reason for being in Iraq now? I thought it was to make LIFE BETTER for all those poor suffering Iraqi people? So why them, and not your fellow Americans? Because Rush Limbaugh can twist words around to have it make sense to you? Peace, RS
RS, As someone once famously remarked, "There you go again." Health care cannot be a civil right. Why? Because a right protects you. The Bill of Rights spells out a list of things the government is not allowed to do to you. It does not grant you something that has to be taken from soemone else. That might be called an entitlement or a transfer or welfare or a nice thing to have, but it cannot be a right. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not popular, in the sense that free beer is popular at spring break. But someone has to pay for it. That's an important distinction. Social security has been a mixed blessing. As our society has become more fragmented, there is clealry a public benefit in a welfare program for elderly people of modest means. However the Ponzi scheme nature of social security carries the seeds for its own destruction. Like many liberal programs, it relies on dishonesty. Millions of people still believe they have some sort of government protected retirement savings held in their name through SS. Of course, that is not the case. I am still waiting for the Dem's to come up with a workable plan to reform and "save" SS. To date all they do is try to frighten seniors that the evil Republicans want to steal their benefits. You know how despicable those scare tactics have been in Florida. Like the incessant criticism of Bush over Iraq, at some point voters are going to expect the Dem's to offer something constructive.
1) FDR presided over the executive branch during the two greatest crises Americans faced since the civil war: the Great Depression, and the rise of European Facism and WW2. The result, The United States as a global leader. Not too shabby. 2) Yalta. Don't ever think that the Western Allies defeated Germany. They only helped. Russia beat the German armies. 90% of the land war in WW2 was waged between these 2 countries. How was it that Roosevelt had East Europe to toss to the pinkos anyway? He didn't. Supposing FDR hadn't provided Russia with the materiel to battle the Germans, Russia would have faltered at the least and on whom do you think the onus would have fallen to engage Germany in a withering war of attrition? 20 million Russians died in WW2. 250,000 Americans died. I'd say FDR outfoxed Stalin there. And yes, I know, 20,000,000 dead was chump change for Stalin, but not for FDR. 3) I beleive that the Republicans have controlled congress and the white house for a majority of the last 35 years. If you have a problem with spending and big government, and failing social security, you know who to complain to. 4) Is there not a better way today to hate government and taxation than to revisit FDR?
OK, fine. Health is not a civil right. I guess you can persue happiness and be ill at the same time. Lots of people do it. The mess that Social Security is in must be the fault of the Democrats. Everything bad is, correct? And everything good is because we have conservative Repulicans cleaning up our messes. Fight a few wars, lower taxes (on the very richest), spend money we don't have by borrowing it from the yet unborn. Sounds good to me. Sounds like something right out of the head of the GREAT RONALD REAGAN. "I'm old, ain't gonna be my problem...let's drill in Yellowstone too, I already saw it; it sure was purty!". Why can't the Repulicans do it if it's so easy? How does this become the responsibility of the Dems? Who's in charge here? (Who DOESN'T care?). Exactly! Peace, RS
The problem is the Dem's have demagogued every responsible attempt to reform SS. Why do you think they used to call it the "Third Rail" of American politics. I don't blame seniors. They were told they could depend on it, and their benefits must be maintained. But it's perfectly obvious that the system will blow up fairly soon unless something is done. This is not the only issue that the voters will soon begin to expect some substance from Kerry. It's easy to decry job losses. What will he do to generate jobs? Raise taxes? Enact trade barriers? What's his plan for the economy? Raise taxes? Socialized medicine?
Right now, the Rebpublicans control the house, the senate, and the Presidency...some would also say they control the Supreme Court. So what is the excuse now?