Rick Santorum-Pure Democracies are no way to run a country

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2023, 10:24 AM)pally Wrote: Nothing says bully more than trying to dictate how someone else feels on top of already trying to put words into their mouth.

BTW, I also never said I was a victim.  Trying to bully, as you are, and succeeding at it, which you are not, are two different things.

Ponderous, truly ponderous.  I'll leave it at this since you clearly lack even an iota of introspection.  You clearly held Santorum up as representative of the conservative view point.  You then strenuously deny that anyone could even perceive your post in such a light.  You clearly are incapable of viewing things any way other than through your hyper-partisan lens.  Whinging about bullies won't change any of that.

[*pally*]

(11-12-2023, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ponderous, truly ponderous.  I'll leave it at this since you clearly lack even an iota of introspection.  You clearly held Santorum up as representative of the conservative view point.  You then strenuously deny that anyone could even perceive your post in such a light.  You clearly are incapable of viewing things any way other than through your hyper-partisan lens.  Whinging about bullies won't change any of that.

pot meet kettle

This is the response from you I expected

[Dill]

(11-12-2023, 10:24 AM)pally Wrote: Nothing says bully more than trying to dictate how someone else feels on top of already trying to put words into their mouth.

BTW, I also never said I was a victim.  Trying to bully, as you are, and succeeding at it, which you are not, are two different things.

He may not see a difference between just claiming something is the case and actually demonstrating that it is. 

You posted a comment from a "noted" conservative, as many do without anyone assuming said conservative was speaking for "all conservatives."

No evidence anyone else read that as you "inadvertently" claiming Santorum spoke for the GOP or conservatives in general--because him addressing conservatives in general, or anyone listening, doesn't make him spokesman for anyone but himself. E.g., Nately asked whether and to what degree the statement was "on Brand." Big Papa remarked that no other conservatives had gone public to challenge Santorum's statement. They moved in productive directions for general discussion. So no reason to acknowledge it is "possible" someone could project an additional claim into your statement that Santorum "speaks for conservatives in general" when only one person seems to be doing that, suddenly making the spurious question of your intent more important than the substantive issues raised by Nately and Big P.  

But SSF, speaking for "everyone," decided that you presented Santorum as THE voice of the GOP.  He's offered no evidence for that "childishly oversimplified" view beyond repeating himself and re-quoting you saying a "noted conservative said X to other conservatives." And claiming that your refusal to acknowledge his projection somehow "lends credence" to his misreading. Talk about twisting oneself in knots.

You've been in this forum long enough to see the pattern (at least twice on the Ramaswamy thread)--a false attribution/distinction promoted as someone else's "fail," demands that SSF's projection be "acknowledged";  refusal indicating lying and "partisan hackery" etc. the height of the irony in this case coming when he just claims someone else "lacks introspection." And suddenly posters are defending their character from baseless ad hominem rather than discussing the thread topic. The only thing missing this time around is a demand for an apology.

The whole side show may be just to divert from the questions raised by Nately and BigP, and I would add, by Bels' comments indirectly and Dino's posts on the Ohio House comments--what do "conservatives in general" now think about democracy when it doesn't go their way? Are some, or many, thinking maybe it's not working so well for them? Do we now find among them a range of responses from "we have to accept compromise" to "war sooner than later"? 

Back to these questions and we've climbed out of this silly rabbit hole. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2023, 02:00 PM)Dill Wrote: He may not see a difference between just claiming something is the case and actually demonstrating that it is. 

You posted a comment from a "noted" conservative, as many do without anyone assuming said conservative was speaking for "all conservatives."

No evidence anyone else read that as you "inadvertently" claiming Santorum spoke for the GOP or conservatives in general--because him addressing conservatives in general, or anyone listening, doesn't make him spokesman for anyone but himself. E.g., Nately asked whether and to what degree the statement was "on Brand." Big Papa remarked that no other conservatives had gone public to challenge Santorum's statement. They moved in productive directions for general discussion. So no reason to acknowledge it is "possible" someone could project an additional claim into your statement that Santorum "speaks for conservatives in general" when only one person seems to be doing that, suddenly making the spurious question of your intent more important than the substantive issues raised by Nately and Big P.  

But SSF, speaking for "everyone," decided that you presented Santorum as THE voice of the GOP.  He's offered no evidence for that "childishly oversimplified" view beyond repeating himself and re-quoting you saying a "noted conservative said X to other conservatives." And claiming that your refusal to acknowledge his projection somehow "lends credence" to his misreading. Talk about twisting oneself in knots.

You've been in this forum long enough to see the pattern (at least twice on the Ramaswamy thread)--a false attribution/distinction promoted as someone else's "fail," demands that SSF's projection be "acknowledged";  refusal indicating lying and "partisan hackery" etc. the height of the irony in this case coming when he just claims someone else "lacks introspection." And suddenly posters are defending their character from baseless ad hominem rather than discussing the thread topic. The only thing missing this time around is a demand for an apology.

The whole side show may be just to divert from the questions raised by Nately and BigP, and I would add, by Bels' comments indirectly and Dino's posts on the Ohio House comments--what do "conservatives in general" now think about democracy when it doesn't go their way? Are some, or many, thinking maybe it's not working so well for them? Do we now find among them a range of responses from "we have to accept compromise" to "war sooner than later"? 

Back to these questions and we've climbed out of this silly rabbit hole. 

Noted Democrat Rashida Tlaib called for the destruction of Israel and supports Hamas.  I guess the liberals don't like it when you don't support murdering, rapist terrorists.

[*pally*]

(11-12-2023, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Noted Democrat Rashida Tlaib called for the destruction of Israel and supports Hamas.  I guess the liberals don't like it when you don't support murdering, rapist terrorists.

and she was called out by even more noted Democrats....

[Dill]

(11-12-2023, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Noted Democrat Rashida Tlaib called for the destruction of Israel and supports Hamas.  I guess the liberals don't like it when you don't support murdering, rapist terrorists.

The guy who constantly misuses the term "semantic argument" doesn't know when he has actually encountered one.

The charge against Tlaib is based on a "persuasive modification" of the meaning of the phrase "from the river to the sea."  

You do that as well, when you continue to describe people as "supporting" Hamas when they disagree with Israeli/US policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_argument

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-14-2023, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: The guy who constantly misuses the term "semantic argument" doesn't know when he has actually encountered one.

The charge against Tlaib is based on a "persuasive modification" of the meaning of the phrase "from the river to the sea."  

You do that as well, when you continue to describe people as "supporting" Hamas when they disagree with Israeli/US policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_argument

Moving past the obvious, criticizing Israel is fine, even warranted.  What is not fine is excusing the behavior of terrorist organizations or repeating genocidal chants like "From the rive to the sea".  Try and reframe it all you want, it's a call for genocide.  Sieg Heil literally translates to Hail Victory.  If someone shouts that out, regardless of context, they are repeating a Nazi slogan.  Whatever the original intent of that now loathsome chant was, it is irrevocably tainted by the meaning given to it by radical Islamists.  And if you use it, regardless of your intent, I will equate you with those terrorists the same way I would someone who shouted Sieg Heil to the Nazis.  And yes, I'm using Nazi comparisons because you specifically say you approve of them.

Got anymore questions about your plan to destroy Israel btw?

[Dill]

(11-14-2023, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Moving past the obvious, criticizing Israel is fine, even warranted.  What is not fine is excusing the behavior of terrorist organizations or repeating genocidal chants like "From the rive to the sea".  Try and reframe it all you want, it's a call for genocide.  Sieg Heil literally translates to Hail Victory.  If someone shouts that out, regardless of context, they are repeating a Nazi slogan.  Whatever the original intent of that now loathsome chant was, it is irrevocably tainted by the meaning given to it by radical Islamists.  And if you use it, regardless of your intent, I will equate you with those terrorists the same way I would someone who shouted Sieg Heil to the Nazis.  And yes, I'm using Nazi comparisons because you specifically say you approve of them.

Got anymore questions about your plan to destroy Israel btw?

Sounds like criticizing Israel isn't fine after all.

"Sieg Heil" was created as a Nazi salute; the "Heil" and arm salute that went with it were cobbed from other right
wing organizations in 1919. It never existed as anything else. 

Millions of people in the ME don't see a chant known for four decades as aspiration to political equality as "irrevocably tainted." 
That's just the judgment of Americans learning about its history for the first time from news articles about Hamas.

Many times I've asked you to cite where I have "approved" of Nazi comparisons. You are still unable to do that.
But you keep repeating the charge--and making Nazi comparisons. The truth doesn't matter? 
Why are you unable to actually argue your case in good faith? 

Best you could do here is reference my view that Americans should acquire generic knowledge of how authoritarian rulers
behave so they can recognize them--a knowledge to be inquired in schools and used in serious political analysis, not to
smear people on message boards. You appear to see that as a threat to be managed indirectly, with ad hominem. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-14-2023, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote:
Sounds like criticizing Israel isn't fine after all.

"Sieg Heil" was created as a Nazi salute; the "Heil" and arm salute that went with it were cobbed from other right
wing organizations in 1919. It never existed as anything else. 

Millions of people in the ME don't see a chant known for four decades as aspiration to political equality as "irrevocably tainted." 
That's just the judgment of Americans learning about its history for the first time from news articles about Hamas.

Oh, it's not just Americans,  but you know that already.  Hamas supplied the meaning, we're just taking them at their word while you continue to excuse their atrocities.

Quote:Many times I've asked you to cite where I have "approved" of Nazi comparisons. You are still unable to do that.
But you keep repeating the charge--and making Nazi comparisons. The truth doesn't matter? 
Why are you unable to actually argue your case in good faith? 

You literally said you think Nazi comparisons are fine when used appropriately.  Looking for your post?  Not going to bother.  Use that as evidence you never said something we both know you aid?  I couldn't care less.

Quote:Best you could do here is reference my view that Americans should acquire generic knowledge of how authoritarian rulers
behave so they can recognize them--a knowledge to be inquired in schools and used in serious political analysis, not to
smear people on message boards. You appear to see that as a threat to be managed indirectly, with ad hominem. 

Actually, the best I could do was get you to admit you advocate for a solution involving the elimination of Israel as a state.  You've been edging toward the cliff for years, I was surprised you would suddenly just dive right off of it.