• 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!

The best speech I have listened to in years

Robertinfremont said:
How can you claim to be informed when you shun using Youtube? It is like going to the movies.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Grim17 said:
You should have just said you stopped watching because you didn't like her political perspective (which is what it boils down to), rather than using some excuse so you wouldn't appear closed minded.

Just be honest about it... It was her ideological viewpoint that you couldn't "listen to 2 more minutes of" and even if she had immediately defined socialism instead of doing it later in her speech, you still would have shut it off and walked away.

.
Click to expand...

I listened to it. It was all rhetoric. Socialism is the evil and so are progressives... yadda yaddda
 
Grim17 said:
If you're too damned lazy to watch the video then move along... Don't expect people to spoon feed you the information, especially when your only purpose for posting on this thread is to derail it and/or start a pissing war anyway. That's what you always do.
Click to expand...

The video is more than an hour long. It’s not unreasonable to expect a summary of the points presented or at least “check 45:00 to 48:00 for the main crux of the argument.” Expecting everyone to watch a 70 minute video before a discussion can occur is a bit much. Robert is essentially trying to give us homework here and if experience is any guide, it’s likely any video he presents won’t be worth the time.
 
Decypher said:
The video is more than an hour long. It’s not unreasonable to expect a summary of the points presented or at least “check 45:00 to 48:00 for the main crux of the argument.” Expecting everyone to watch a 70 minute video before a discussion can occur is a bit much. Robert is essentially trying to give us homework here and if experience is any guide, it’s likely any video he presents won’t be worth the time.
Click to expand...

You can't hurt my feelings by staying ignorant. So just do not watch it.
 
Master Debator said:
I listened to it. It was all rhetoric. Socialism is the evil and so are progressives... yadda yaddda
Click to expand...

When one is determined to be a socialist, there is but one hope. To learn more and pinpoint the errors of socialism. She nails it to a T.
 
OscarLevant said:
She should define it, and immediately, for the simple reason she's accusing millenials of falling for socialism, and socialism, according to her, 'is dangerous'.

I actually agree with that view if she's defining socialism in the classical definition.

The classic definition is, in essence, totalitarianism.

However, where I have serious bone to pick with her is that it's The strawman she's offering, is she is assuming it is the classic definition what millennials find attractive.

That isn't the case, given that millennials find Bernie Sander's brand of socialism attractive because it's all about social justice, and NOT about totalitarianism i.e., not about a state take over of all means of production and distribution, and I feel safe in the presumption that is her meaning.

That strawman is quite common amongst the right, and on this forum. The social justice 'socialism', i.e. 'democratic socialism' offered by Bernie Sanders is not the classic kind, totalitarianism kind, it's merely a proposition that the state should care for the elderly, and the disadvantaged, and help those who are out of work, and health care should be a right, not a privilege. That, plus a few other things, are the extent of it.

That is why she needs to define it, because I need to know are we talking about the same thing? I doubt it.

I listen to entire videos of Buckley, because he's intelligent, never boring, and, though I don't agree with this politics, his lectures are on a more intellectual level, whereas the video in question doesn't rise above boring platitudes. Hell, I read through all 1000 pages of Kissinger's "White House Years", not because I agree with his politics, because he doesn't give in to boring platitudes, and tells a rich tapestry in his descriptions. '

I listen to entire videos of Rick Wilson, a conservative, I tape Joe Scarborough, and watch all 21/2 hours of his show ( 1/2 hour is repeating the first block ). Also, Nicolle Wallace, a Conservative, I tape her show, as well. These conservatives do not give to boring platitudes. I was an avid listener and reader of Charles Krauthammer when he was alive, and I read George Will's column whenever I can. I also read Pat Buchanan whenever I can. I listen to Steve Schmidt at every opportunity, he's a staunch conservative, his speeches and writings are rich, interesting, with depth and a broader understanding of history.

You offered this video 'as the best video you've heard in years'.

You made a big mistake with that subject line, because it tells me a lot about you, given the fact that there are so many that are better. You remind me of someone who was harping about a spider man moving being the best movie they've seen when there are so many movies that are far better, better because they are richer, deeper, more cathartic, and on a higher plane. Life is a cornucopia of riches, and when someone tells me spider man is the best move ever I can only surmise that that person's radar screen is rather small, excuse the mixed metaphors.

But, alas, I don't think you'll ever get my point.
Click to expand...

Buckley who i once listened to, both as a Democrat and later as a Republican is both dead and was brilliant. Actually there is no doubt at all so is Mrs. Strassel, brilliant.

The only way a Socialist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to penalize large groups to benefit a single individual.

Why remove the money from Gates to hand it to Mrs stay home on Welfare is not good enough to promote Socialism.

The old tale it helps the poor has been proven faulty reasoning.
 
Robertinfremont said:
You can't hurt my feelings by staying ignorant. So just do not watch it.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with your feelings. Posting a 70 minute video and then saying “see! That’s what’s wrong with socialism!” is a pretty terrible debating technique. That fact you’ve dodged any calls to summarise it leads me to suspect you haven’t watched it yourself or didn’t understand it if you did.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Buckley who i once listened to, both as a Democrat and later as a Republican is both dead and was brilliant. Actually there is no doubt at all so is Mrs. Strassel, brilliant.

The only way a Socialist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to penalize large groups to benefit a single individual.

Why remove the money from Gates to hand it to Mrs stay home on Welfare is not good enough to promote Socialism.

The old tale it helps the poor has been proven faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...

I'll acknowledge that she's not stupid. But she's not brilliant. Brilliance doesn't give to boring platitudes.

Sorry. She's not in the class of William Buckley, George Will, or Christopher Hitchens. And, in that class, neither Buckley nor Will can match wits with Hitchens insofar as oratory brilliance, but such is a matter of taste.

Moreover, your assertion that:

The only way a Socialist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to penalize large groups to benefit a single individual.

Assumes millennials and democrats who call themselves 'democrat socialists' agree with that premise. Your premise is an interpretation given through a right wing filter, it simply is not a fact.

Let's take a look at the flip side of that coin, and see if you agree with the following premise:

The only way a capitalist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to exploit large groups to benefit a single individual.

Agree with the premise? Hmmmm?

I didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Decypher said:
Nothing to do with your feelings. Posting a 70 minute video and then saying “see! That’s what’s wrong with socialism!” is a pretty terrible debating technique. That fact you’ve dodged any calls to summarise it leads me to suspect you haven’t watched it yourself or didn’t understand it if you did.
Click to expand...

It is not a debating technique as yours are not.

It is a fact supply. Like fresh water, take a drink.
 
OscarLevant said:
I'll acknowledge that she's not stupid. But she's not brilliant. Brilliance doesn't give to boring platitudes.

Sorry. She's not in the class of William Buckley, George Will, or Christopher Hitchens. And, in that class, neither Buckley nor Will can match wits with Hitchens insofar as oratory brilliance, but such is a matter of taste.

Moreover, your assertion that:

The only way a Socialist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to penalize large groups to benefit a single individual.

Assumes millennials and democrats who call themselves 'democrat socialists' agree with that premise. Your premise is an interpretation given through a right wing filter, it simply is not a fact.

Let's take a look at the flip side of that coin, and see if you agree with the following premise:

The only way a capitalist can win the argument is to prove why it is best to exploit large groups to benefit a single individual.

Agree with the premise? Hmmmm?

I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

The word exploit and single person are two wrong words.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Or more shock. Some say Obama gave good speeches. I say he read hoping his teleprompter worked. I recall one speech that he did not know. And he kept asking for help.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me, he was a complete fraud, but any chance you could link that speech?
 
HennyBogan said:
Wouldn't surprise me, he was a complete fraud, but any chance you could link that speech?
Click to expand...

It's not gonna compare to Revolutionary War airports.
 
Robertinfremont said:
That's correct. I understand.
Click to expand...

Regarding your sig line:

The criticism of Trump to say it mildly is not relevant. The man performs his office magnificently. Take a racer at the 500 Indy race. The driver may have womanized. May have boozed and gambled. May have never voted. But man can that driver race.
Trump is like the winner of the Indy 500.
Click to expand...


There are many problems with your metaphor. I'm surprised you are unable to detect them.

Criticism of Trump is not limited to womanizing. If that were true, then two dozen or so books critical of Trump would all be very thin, and all saying the same thing.

Here are but a few:

All of the books that have been written about the Trump White House - Business Insider

And his performance is not stellar at all,in fact, Trump's legacy is the destruction of government.
You might think that is good, but an emasculated State Department is like flying a 747 without instruments ( half of the ambassadorships are not filled, plus many key posts below that level, attachés, liaisons, specialists, etc.

He has gone full blast to ignore science, suppress scientists at the Dept of Agriculture and the EPA while government has been coopted by corporate interests.

It's Even Worse Than You Think | Book by David Cay Johnston | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

If you can't read the book, here is a podcast interview with the author

Roughly Speaking: Trump unleashes political termites on the federal government (episode 348) on AudioStaq
 
Cardinal said:
Nah, don’t feel like going on a wild goose chase. What was Strassel’s point? That kids weren’t singing God Bless America when Obama was President?
Click to expand...

And as I recall, they weren’t allowed to say Merry Christmas either.
 
OscarLevant said:
Regarding your sig line:




There are many problems with your metaphor. I'm surprised you are unable to detect them.

Criticism of Trump is not limited to womanizing. If that were true, then two dozen or so books critical of Trump would all be very thin, and all saying the same thing.

Here are but a few:

All of the books that have been written about the Trump White House - Business Insider

And his performance is not stellar at all,in fact, Trump's legacy is the destruction of government.
You might think that is good, but an emasculated State Department is like flying a 747 without instruments ( half of the ambassadorships are not filled, plus many key posts below that level, attachés, liaisons, specialists, etc.

He has gone full blast to ignore science, suppress scientists at the Dept of Agriculture and the EPA while government has been coopted by corporate interests.

It's Even Worse Than You Think | Book by David Cay Johnston | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

If you can't read the book, here is a podcast interview with the author

Roughly Speaking: Trump unleashes political termites on the federal government (episode 348) on AudioStaq
Click to expand...

I do not agree he has destroyed government at all. Not due to partisanship, but due to facts.

If a man logs down an enormous tree, he sees only from one side and not all sides. And those screaming at Trump for destroying Government can't cite proof.

What I believe they mean is that Trump removed barriers imposed by Obama and that they are pissed off. But the structure imposed by Obama was unsound. And flaunted law such as the right of the Senate to consent to treaties. With Iran, Congress was dismissed by Obama to totally unneeded and thus Trump restored the congress to it's full authority.
 
Nickyjo said:
And as I recall, they weren’t allowed to say Merry Christmas either.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt there was and remains a cult devoted to Obama. Above clear comments reflect the very existence I spoke here of.

As to Kimberley strassel, she strips off the varnish so you see the grain of the underlying wood. She has long reported on misdeeds of Government and when she sees any by Trump will call him out.
 
Robertinfremont said:
There is no doubt there was and remains a cult devoted to Obama. Above clear comments reflect the very existence I spoke here of.

As to Kimberley strassel, she strips off the varnish so you see the grain of the underlying wood. She has long reported on misdeeds of Government and when she sees any by Trump will call him out.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand. The anti- Obama cult of Trump supporters made up the no Merry Christmas baloney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom