US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Fode N The Hole said:
Ben Shapirio + Thomas Sowell books inserted into an illogical argument generator = Dax777's posts in this sub forum.
Click to expand...
Care to give an example of an illogical argument I've made?

I do love Thomas Sowell though. And when it comes to the Economic History of Race, and Culture in America there is no one I've read who's better. If you have suggestions feel free to name drop.
 
domalino said:
....aren't you going in circles now? Omar reported that she refused to apologise on the phonecall and carried on being Islamaphobic.
Click to expand...
She has no interest in apologizing to Omar. She apologized to Muslims and anyone else who felt insulted by it. Just like Omar has no interest in apologizing to the Israeli Govt. But apologize to anyone who felt insulted or dismayed by her comment.


Disliking Ilhan Omar is not islamophobic.
 
Gaudion M said:


A real escalation in the BS coming out of the lunatic fringe of the GOP. They are looking to cause trouble and looking to push their own colleagues to take sides. This is clearly some sort of strategy - I dont get why becuase they will be making a lot of enemies. Is it a diversion from teh Maxwell trial? I just dont get why they do this.
Click to expand...

This is not the fringe, this is the core of the GQP. There are ten members in the house who dare to defy Dumb Donald and maybe one senator (Romney). After next year there won't be a single member of the house that doesn't worship him like a god.
 
Dax777 said:
It would have been more credible if it came from someone who themselves didn't show a history of antisemitism, and then failed to show remorse.
Kettle, Pot, Black. I see little difference.
Click to expand...
Given that Boebert's Islamaphobic stand up routine seems to revolve around Omar who do you suggest as 'credible' alternative? As for showing 'remorse' ....
Dax777 said:
She has no interest in apologizing to Omar. She apologized to Muslims and anyone else who felt insulted by it. Just like Omar has no interest in apologizing to the Israeli Govt. But apologize to anyone who felt insulted or dismayed by her comment.


Disliking Ilhan Omar is not islamophobic.
Click to expand...
Funny how you accept one person apologising for any offence caused to the wider community (despite it being a personalised attack) yet not the other which was targeted at a state and it's lobbyists.
 
Dax777 said:
Care to give an example of an illogical argument I've made?

I do love Thomas Sowell though. And when it comes to the Economic History of Race, and Culture in America there is no one I've read who's better. If you have suggestions feel free to name drop.
Click to expand...

Any which you are paraphrasing Thomas Sowell.

quote-the-key-fallacy-of-so-called-gun-control-laws-is-that-such-laws-do-not-in-fact-control-thomas-sowell-85-68-33.jpg
 
Postman Pep said:
Given that Boebert's Islamaphobic stand up routine seems to revolve around Omar who do you suggest as 'credible' alternative? As for showing 'remorse' ....

Funny how you accept one person apologising for any offence caused to the wider community (despite it being a personalised attack) yet not the other which was targeted at a state and it's lobbyists.
Click to expand...
What do you mean I accepted one person's? I just stated both of them apologized for their poor utterances.
 
Dax777 said:
Yes, what's illogical about it? You just pointed to a Sowell statement.
Click to expand...

Because it is untruthful, when Sowell conducted his analysis (in his essays etc online) he approached it as states taking their own decisions for gun control, the inference being that gun control would be unworkable because criminals would take advantage of the different approaches.

What he never did was approach it in relation to what other countries do and how their statistics compare apart from selective comparisons that suited his own argument. He never thought about how it would work under a federal ban.

Did he address the elephant in the room, that it is difficult to bring in effective gun control because of the loose laws that has seen guns outnumber people?

Which has seen it easier for criminals to get hold of guns than if they had lived in a place without a ban.

A talented sophist but that's about it, the only point of listening to him or reading anything by him is familiarise yourself with the absolute toilet water that is Neo-conservative idealogy.
 
domalino said:
But she called Omar and carried on being Islamaphobic.
Click to expand...
No. She declined to apologize. It was a power play by Illhan and Boebart wasn't having it. I already publicly apologized. I am not apologizing to you personally.

That's what it sounds like to me.
 
Dax777 said:
No. She declined to apologize. It was a power play by Illhan and Boebart wasn't having it. I already publicly apologized. I am not apologizing to you personally.

That's what it sounds like to me.
Click to expand...

Racially motivated?

If you were a white supremacist gun nut why would you bow your head before a Somali born muslim when she doesn't give you the deference you are entitled to...
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Because it is untruthful, when Sowell conducted his analysis (in his essays etc online) he approached it as states taking their own decisions for gun control, the inference being that gun control would be unworkable because criminals would take advantage of the different approaches.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the this is totally true.
Fode N The Hole said:
What he never did was approach it in relation to what other countries do and how their statistics compare apart from selective comparisons that suited his own argument. He never thought about how it would work under a federal ban.
Click to expand...
He did make comparisons to other countries. I suppose if you have other country comparisons you prefer, that will only suggest you are equally 'selectively' picking the comparisons that suit your argument. Will it not?

Fode N The Hole said:
A talented sophist but that's about it, the only point of listening to him or reading anything by him is familiarise yourself with the absolute toilet water that is Neo-conservative idealogy.
Click to expand...
Name calling is a poor form of argument. Anyway, don't wanna highjack the politics thread and turn it into a referendum on Sowell.


As for my use of a similar structure of reasoning. There is nothing illogical about it. Laws that said Rittenhouse couldn't carry a weapon to a riot, only favors those who don't intend to follow the laws.

That's just common sense.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Racially motivated?

If you were a white supremacist gun nut why would you bow your head before a Somali born muslim when she doesn't give you the deference you are entitled to...
Click to expand...
1. What evidence do you have that Boebart is a white Supremacist?
2. You shouldn't bow your head to anyone period . Somali, American, English or Muslim, Christian or Yoruba.

Enough with the identity crap. Stand on your ideas and principles..
 
I see the sister shagging hillbillies are doing their level best to ban abortions - fucking US Taliban right there
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Dax777 said:
1. What evidence do you have that Boebart is a white Supremacist?
2. You shouldn't bow your head to anyone period . Somali, American, English or Muslim, Christian or Yoruba.

Enough with the identity crap. Stand on your ideas and principles..
Click to expand...

1. Her racist statements in public and private. And previously using dog whistle language like "anglo-saxon culture".

You should be above this Dax, the fact that you have chosen to jump in the gutter alongside the crazies only says how little self-respect you have.
 
Dax777 said:
I'm not sure the this is totally true.

He did make comparisons to other countries. I suppose if you have other country comparisons you prefer, that will only suggest you are equally 'selectively' picking the comparisons that suit your argument. Will it not?


Name calling is a poor form of argument. Anyway, don't wanna highjack the politics thread and turn it into a referendum on Sowell.


As for my use of a similar structure of reasoning. There is nothing illogical about it. Laws that said Rittenhouse couldn't carry a weapon to a riot, only favors those who don't intend to follow the laws.

That's just common sense.
Click to expand...

No because he already knew what he was going to say before he bothered to do any reading. He has made a career out of reflecting conservative thought back at arseholes who will buy a book to read something they want to hear.

If you notice I actually complimented TS on his "talented sophistry" and insulted the idealogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top