Does this guy have a life? More moronic nonsense.
Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Substantive challenges? What a joke. It's the Hillary way. > > [Arlo] > Lo and behold, yet another Pee-Wee in lieu of addressing any of the > substantive points in the discussion. And what's funny is that this > does not even make sense. Are you implying that Hillary tells jokes? > I realize you got nothing to offer but these moronic talk-radio > responses, but at least try to put some effort into coming up with > ones that at the very least make sense. > > Of course, since your aim was to try to dismiss how you've used > moronic rhetoric and anti-intellectual smear tactics to respond to > substantive points, I will repeat them for you. Let's see if the > third go-round has you offer anything other than Limbaughism and > moronic chicanery. > > Point One: > Defeating Hitler was a moral use of military force. But if our > military victory is not coupled with an understanding of the > international and social forces and policies that set the stage for > Hitler's rise, our victory is incomplete. William Shirer, as well as > many WWII historians, has articulated this backdrop, which has its > roots in pre-WWI policies and foreign interference in Germany's > sovereignty. It includes the anti-semetic and pro-fascist support of > those, like Henry Ford, who were not only willing to "turn a blind > eye" but provided crucial international support for the rise of the Reich. > > Your moronic response: > What nonsense. Now Hitler's rise was our fault. And I suppose we > deserved to get hit by Islamic radicals. > > Arlo adds: > If you are disputing the international and social support provided > Hitler, from powers within the American government and evidenced by > the American people, then perhaps you would like to begin by > articulating exactly why pro-fascist policies and social support for > Hitler had nothing whatsovever to do with his rise to power. Using > cheap and moronic quips insinuating that I feel we deserved to "get > hit by Islamic radicals" only demonstrates a level of stupidity that > must be called for what it is. > > Point Two: > As an extension of the above, a people must be ready and willing to > accept their parts played in the unfolding of world events. We should > not, nor should anyone, be so blinded by our inability to admit any > mistakes that we recreate over and over the same problems we rely on > our military to fix. > > Your moronic response: > "Nationalistic blindness" or "national defense" are debatable viewpoints. > > Arlo adds: > Besides the moronic association attempted here, your response offers > nothing to the point made. Do you agree of disagree that when we make > mistakes, when any nation makes mistakes, learning from and > correcting those mistakes are an integral part of the solution? > Please articulate why. As I responded to your moronic pairing last > time, implying that a condemnation of nationalistic blindness is > somehow a condemnation of national defense provides yet another > example of how anti-intellectual moronic rhetoric is contemptible and evil. > > Your other moronic response: > If you have no national pride, why defend yourself? > > Arlo adds: > Can you articulate where exactly in the dialogue you derive the > implication that "national pride" is, to me, a bad thing? Here you > have slipped from "nationalistic blindness" to "national defense" to > "national pride" in an attempt to imply that because I believe that a > people, a nation, must be ready and willing to accept and learn from > their mistakes, that I am assaulting having pride in one's nation. > This is the same kind of moronic rhetoric used by talk-radio buffoons > to vilify any who do not accept the neoconservative dogma as > "anti-American", "traitors", "they hate America" and "they want to > see dead American soldiers". The tactic is evil, not to mention moronic. > > Point Three: > It is not that we have no valid concerns and problems facing us, but > using "doomsday" rhetoric to manipulate a people is immoral. I've > articulated some ways to spot "doomsday rhetoric" as opposed to the > articulation of valid concerns. These included "distance" between an > event and an outcome, "my way or the highway" rhetoric where I and > ONLY I can save your from doomsday, and "one solution" stances where > unless ONE thing happens the doomsday scenario will occur. While I am > sure there are others, these represent a good foundation for weeding > doomsday rhetoric apart from intellectually-based articulations of > valid concerns. > > Your moronic response: > If you are in Manhattan when an atomic bomb goes off, it's indeed > "doomsday" for you and millions of other people. > > Arlo adds: > Find for me in anything I said ANYTHING that would indicate I feel > otherwise. Do you feel that my three points for spotting doomsday > rhetoric are valid? If not, can you provide counter-examples of when > these devices would legitimately be used? (I wont repeat my examples > here, you can go back a few emails if you want to see them). > > To get back to this original point, I had given the example of > illegal immigration, and two examples demonstrating what may be the > articulation of a valid concern and the use of doomsday rhetoric. You > elaborated on this and said, "Adding to the debt may indeed result in > the demise of the America as we know it although the timing is unpredictable." > > This is a good example of the use of "doomsday rhetoric". "The demise > of America" says nothing but yet panders to fear. I had asked you > what you meant specifically, and you said "Excessive national debt > can lead to destructive inflation and the rise of a dictatorship, or > defensive weakness encouraging invasion." > > You are now proposing that "illegal immigration", through the > receiving of social welfare by illegals, will lead to either a > dictatorship or a foreign invasion. Would this be the outcome of any > economic turmoil, or only the turmoil created by illegals? If we > deport all our illegals and build a giant, electrified fence along > the entire border, would we still face the concern that any economic > repression or depression makes us susceptible to dictatorships and > foreign invasions? What steps do you propose to ensure that this does > not happen? (Consider that the Great Depression occurred before > welfare, what steps would you take, apart from abolishing welfare to > illegals, to keep us from facing a potential dictatorship or invasion > should the market depress once again?) > > Will we see any substantive reply, or simply more moronic, > anti-intellectual talk-radio rhetoric? Another Pee-Wee perhaps? > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
