• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama threatened, called 'monkey' by ex-Carson council candidate

It's easy:

1) I offer an alternate explanation.

2) Someone else posts evidence proving that alternate explanation impossible.

Now, I offered an alternate explanation, then I offered evidence supporting that alternate explanation.

You failed to offer an alternate explanation. What you did do was throw out something with the word PERHAPS as a lead in and then when it was attached to you as your position you used the qualifier PERHAPS to deny that it was your position in the first place.

your own post 311

Do you know the meaning of the word, "perhaps"? I wasn't making a factual claim.

Why should anyone spend one second trying to offer proof to disprove something that you will not even claim as your own position?

When you did make a factual claim, and then do the proper historical research to support your factual claim, then and only then does it rise to the level of something that is worth refuting with proper proof and evidence.
 
Last edited:
You failed to offer an alternate explanation. What you did do was throw out something with the word PERHAPS as a lead in and then when it was attached to you as your position you used the qualifier PERHAPS to deny that it was your position in the first place.

Why should anyone spend one second trying to offer proof to disprove something that you will not even claim as your own position?

I offered an alternate explanation, but didn't make a factual claim.

I can't imagine why you constantly want to try and insult me and make the thread about me, instead of addressing the issues currently being discussed.
 
She's a hero of the Left...go figger!

Since you brought it up, please post evidence that most Conservatives agree with genocide. Thaaaaaaanks!!

Libbos seem to think that Nazis represent modern Conservatives.

#1. Until a few months ago, I never heard of Marge Singer. And if someone did mention her name, I would assume she invented the sewing machine.

#2. There is a whole movement among Conservatives to label the Nazis as "Progressives", so you're claim is very funny.
 
People should stop making the mistake of dealing in absolutes.
 
#1. Until a few months ago, I never heard of Marge Singer. And if someone did mention her name, I would assume she invented the sewing machine.

It's Margaret Sanger. I'm surprised that a Progressive has never heard of the Margaret Sanger Award, that is given out by Planned Parenthood. Maybe that's why Progressives are Progressives, because they're not historically knowledgable enough to know better.

#2. There is a whole movement among Conservatives to label the Nazis as "Progressives", so you're claim is very funny.

Care to post a link to that movement?
 
It's Margaret Sanger. I'm surprised that a Progressive has never heard of the Margaret Sanger Award, that is given out by Planned Parenthood. Maybe that's why Progressives are Progressives, because they're not historically knowledgable enough to know better....

#2. There is a whole movement among Conservatives to label the Nazis as "Progressives", so you're claim is very funny.

Care to post a link to that movement?

what an incredibly ironic post.
 
Last edited:
I offered an alternate explanation, but didn't make a factual claim.

I can't imagine why you constantly want to try and insult me and make the thread about me, instead of addressing the issues currently being discussed.

Until you make a claim and support it with evidence all you are doing is engaging in whimsical speculation that does not merit the efforts of anyone to waste one second of their time on it.

I have no idea what you mean about insulting you. All I have repeatedly done here is to address the issues to speak to the issues and attempt to help you avoid the mistakes you make in evaluating historical sources. Why would you see that as an insult instead of viewing it as trying to help you?
 
That's a book, not a movemen. Although, I agree with everything Jonah Goldberg says in the book. It's very historically accurate.

no, it shows a highly-biased, agenda-driven, fundamental misunderstanding of Fascism & Liberal-Progressivism.

basically, the book is one giant example of baiting.
 
no, it shows a highly-biased, agenda-driven, fundamental misunderstanding of Fascism & Liberal-Progressivism.

basically, the book is one giant example of baiting.

Got anything to refute what Goldberg says in his book?
 
Well there you have it. The only fact I've yet read on any of your posts. How ironic?

You must not have read all my posts, because I've posted several facts.
 
That's a book, not a movemen. Although, I agree with everything Jonah Goldberg says in the book. It's very historically accurate.

You mean the book that was reviewed as follows:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ...

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo...

Journalist David Neiwert, wrote in The American Prospect that Goldberg
has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. ...
 
Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's ‘Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his ‘entire…philosophy’ liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. ... Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be ‘fascist’ means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a ‘liberal fascist’ would pursue fascist ends but in a ‘liberal’ or at least more ‘liberal’ way. [20]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[21]..........


wow, they tare this book a new one. and rightfully so.

:)
 
Last edited:
Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's ‘Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his ‘entire…philosophy’ liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. ... Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be ‘fascist’ means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a ‘liberal fascist’ would pursue fascist ends but in a ‘liberal’ or at least more ‘liberal’ way. [20]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[21]..........


wow, they tare this book a new one. and rightfully so.

:)

Goldberg is wrong, because a bunch of third rate book critics say so? :rofl
 
The point was, genocide and Sanger was a Progressive. i.e. a Liberal.

Did you read the next paragraph?

However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[88]

You don't see how support of community leaders might be necessary to gain support in a time a of systematic racism?

She also didn't open the first clinic until asked to by community leaders. She never went into a community to open a clinic without the community asking for her.
 
Goldberg is wrong, because a bunch of third rate book critics say so? :rofl

Eric Alterman, is a "third-rate book critic"??

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously...


David Oshinsky, is a "third-rate book critic"??

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars."[24]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom