Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
59 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,175 Year: 4,287/6,534 Month: 501/900 Week: 25/182 Day: 13/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More Trumper Inanity
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 11 of 79 (888613)
09-23-2021 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
09-23-2021 8:00 AM


Re: Why Trump Followers Think Mail-in Ballots Cause Fraud
Just to follow up with you and nwr, I was hoping we could start by reaching agreement on how the mail-in process actually works, but just like Marc and Faith once they're out of ammunition and it's time to concede the point, they stop discussing it and move on to other arguments. The Gish Gallop has already been employed.
--Percy

Awwww he misses me.

Faith is banned and I haven't been here in four months, so we've hardly "moved on to other arguments" lately, have we?

"Gish Gallop" is defined by Wikipedia this way;

quote:
The Gish gallop is a term for a rhetorical technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

A rhetorical technique intended to overwhelm an opponent . You don't see a close relationship between that and a dozen or so posters ganging up on one lone poster? An excessive number of arguments / an excessive number of opponents? An excessive number of arguments BY an excessive number of opponents? Do you notice any relationship there at all?

The reason there are seldom any conservatives here isn't because they're "out of ammunition", it's because you and all your helpers here constantly shatter your forum rule #10. No one can put up with that against a gang for very long. You might not understand it, or believe it, but that's the way it is.

quote:
10.The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.


I came here tonight to read up at the Biden Presidency thread, and found nothing but cobwebs. Why don't I give that one a bump - I have same-day surgery tomorrow and will probably have a few days idle recovery time. What better way to waste it than to come here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 09-23-2021 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 09-24-2021 11:59 AM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 31 of 79 (889026)
10-30-2021 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
09-26-2021 9:31 AM


Re: What does the evidence show?
How many people think Democrats are socialists? 64% of Republicans. They're delusional, and they likely don't know the definition of socialism.

But you didn't provide the definition of socialism. Why don't we look at that?

quote:
1)a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

2)procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3)(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism

and;

quote:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Definition of SOCIALISM

Democrats aren't in favor of incremental increases in government owned land? Capitalism to communism, referenced in the definitions above?

https://www.usatoday.com/...den-conservation-plan/6215104001

Action against climate change, that most all Democrats favor, fits neatly into every one of those definitions. Did you know that Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a socialist? From Biden and other high profile Democrats to posters on this forum, there are very few attempts from any of them to distance themselves from Sander's beliefs and proposals.

Do you need more links to show the clear relationship with today's Democrat party and socialism?

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) - Working towards a better future for all.

Why are you in denial of obvious reality?

If I posted made-up stuff about rigged elections and about Democratic advocacy of socialism and about the collapse of the American dollar and American power or about taxing immigrants or about the ether or about the mind not being part of the physical world, then in no time people like you and marc9000 and LamarkNewAge and Michael MD and Christian7 would be quoting those in your particular interest area as if they were fact. This is because none of you have the ability to tell truth from falsity. The criteria you use to judge an idea or tale true or false is whether it appeals to you, not whether there's any actual truth to it.

Is your fantasy that Democrats aren't socialists something that appeals to you, no matter what the truth actually is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 09-26-2021 9:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-31-2021 12:31 AM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-31-2021 12:32 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2021 6:38 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 40 of 79 (889057)
10-31-2021 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
10-31-2021 12:32 AM


Re: What does the evidence show?
Has it been six months already?

No, but as (I think) I've alluded to before, when I see my name brought up and passed around with no recent provocation from me, I have that human tendency to want to defend myself right away.

But I'll make you a deal, after reading my Message 31 carefully, and still maintaining that today's Democrats and Socialism have absolutely no relationship to each other, while also agreeing with Jar's constant cries of "fascism" every time a Republican says one word about Christian principles, tradition, individual liberty, and limited government, (and get yourself 10 approval dots in the process) I promise I'll be gone from this forum forever, or at least for a few more years until climate change surges and causes us all to melt in our shoes. So you might want to consider that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-31-2021 12:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by kjsimons, posted 10-31-2021 8:24 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-01-2021 2:46 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 42 of 79 (889059)
10-31-2021 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
10-31-2021 6:38 AM


Re: What does the evidence show?
OK, I think that’s really enough to prove that the Democrats aren’t socialist.

I suppose so, if you didn't read it, and you're unaware of current Democrat activity. Democrat's current spending proposals with trillions in borrowed / printed money, Biden's "30 X 30" land confiscation proposal, Democrat's (including the "independent" Sander's war on fossil fuels), with the subsequent government "ownership and control of the means of production and distribution" (from the definitions above) and other Democrat proposals that are described word for word in the definitions above.

marc9000 writes:

Democrats aren't in favor of incremental increases in government owned land? Capitalism to communism, referenced in the definitions above?

Obviously not. It’s not about taking over production or distribution of goods

If you look at Democrat's "Green New Deal" proposals, you'll see exactly that.

, and it isn’t going to abolish capitalism.. Conservation is not communism. Limited acquisition of land for that purpose is pretty obviously well short of a move towards communism.

It's not obvious to those who know something about history, about the tactics of past tyrants to control and oppress their people. And none of those past tyrants had the giant CLIMATE CHANGE card in their hands to play, it's far bigger than any card past tyrants had. It's not obvious to those who know about the mindset of the U.S. founders as they structured the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

marc9000 writes:

Action against climate change, that most all Democrats favor, fits neatly into every one of those definitions.

I don’t think that you’re stupid enough to believe that. Where’s the wholesale nationalisation of industry, for a start?

The nationalization of industry isn't done overnight, past tyrants that the U.S. founders were fully aware of have done that kind of takeover incrementally. Playing the "conservation" game is how incrementalism works. When the U.S. population is naturally increasing as it always has, combined with current unprecedented illegal immigration, when we're rapidly approaching the $30 trillion mark in debt, when the Taliban was handed major victory in its ability to threaten the U.S., common sense tells some of us that "conservation" really shouldn't be on top of the to-do list.

I know that Bernie Sanders is on the left of the Democratic Party and is opposed by the party establishment.

Opposed? Do you have evidence of this opposition? Name some things that Sanders proposes, that the Democrat leaders like AOC, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden and Harris vehemently oppose, and show me some links to liberal / Democrat websites that show the discussion about it.

That alone is enough to refutes the point.

No it's too "alone", it needs more than just a statement from a Democrat, it needs evidence.

The fact that Sanders isn’t proposing socialism by the definitions you quote annihilates it.

That's not a fact, because the fact is that he really does propose socialism. Let's look at Sanders' "12 point plan" that he has long had. Here's a link;

Bernie Sanders (socialist, VT) has a 12 point plan.

Here it is, simplified;

1)Grow the government on borrowed / printed money.
2)Use climate change fear to grow the government.
3)Make workers more dependent on government.
4)More unions, heavily influenced by government control.
5)Put the government in control of wage amounts.
6)Government control of women's wages.
7End current trade policies, with...who knows what. Here's a wild guess, more government involvement.
8)College education, paid for by borrowed / printed money, that the government provides.
9)Government control of financial institutions
10)Government control of healthcare.
11)more government control of the everyday lives of seniors and children.
12)Tax the productive out of existence.

Now lets look at the parts of those definitions above that do the best job of summarizing socialism;

quote:
the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

"Collective principles"? "IMPERFECT IMPLEMENTATION"? What could possibly go wrong with Sanders' (and Democrats) proposals? Those of us who know something about history and economics and human nature, know that A LOT could.

More from the above definitions;

quote:
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

"Work done" - what do you see more of in Sanders' proposals, incentives for production, or incentives to receive free stuff from government? What do you see more of in Green New Deal proposals, or Biden's current proposals, more incentive for production, or more incentive to receive free stuff?

marc9000 writes:

Do you need more links to show the clear relationship with today's Democrat party and socialism?

Obviously we need more than none,

100 links wouldn't be enough for you, if you can't see the clear relationship between AOC's proposals and Sanders' proposals, by simply being aware of what's going on around you.

Hard to tell from that if they’re going for full socialism or a mixed economy like Germany. In the short term they certainly aren’t going all the way. And they aren’t the Democratic Party.

It's hard to tell what they're going for, it's hard to tell what Democrats are going for, and it's hard to tell what Sanders (socialism) is going for. But one thing is for sure, all three of them equally go for climate change mandates above all else. Government control of economics. Everything described in the above definitions of socialism.

Since you’ve demonstrated that the Democratic Party isn’t socialist it obviously isn’t a fantasy.

Could you, or all the gang, show me just one thing in Sanders' 12 point list that today's Democrats are united in opposing? Just one? That wouldn't be near enough to differentiate between today's Democrats and socialism, but it would be a start. It would actually take 5 or 6 at least. But just one will cause me to disengage for now, and satisfy everyone here's hatred of my exercising my 1st amendment rights to ask these questions and express the opinion of not only myself, but close to half the U.S. population.

"Working towards a better future for all (with more government). - Socialists
"Build back better". (with more government) - Democrats.

Slightly different words, but that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2021 6:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2021 1:31 AM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 11-01-2021 2:43 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 43 of 79 (889060)
10-31-2021 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by kjsimons
10-31-2021 8:24 PM


Re: What does the evidence show?
they want social programs that benefit citizens that need it and do not want the government to take over the means of production (i.e. actual Socialism).

They don't want to be involved in production, and even ownership, of (not yet developed) alternatives to fossil fuels? They have no proposals to subsidize those alternatives? You should get out more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kjsimons, posted 10-31-2021 8:24 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 10-31-2021 9:39 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 47 of 79 (889069)
11-01-2021 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by kjsimons
10-31-2021 9:39 PM


Re: What does the evidence show?
Way to move the goal posts. Climate change is an issue that effects all people on the planet and so it behooves us to address it. This is not a socialist issue, this is a human issue as it affects all of us. WTF do you propose? Or is addressing actual issues with solutions socialist according to you? Grow TFU!

Is this the opinion of a Democrat or a Socialist? Please describe the differences in how Democrats propose to address this problem, versus how Socialists propose to address this problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kjsimons, posted 10-31-2021 9:39 PM kjsimons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nwr, posted 11-01-2021 3:09 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 48 of 79 (889070)
11-01-2021 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by xongsmith
11-01-2021 2:43 AM


Re: the Marc9000 bot squawks
Marc, do yourself and all of us a favor and get the fuck out of here.

I guess I'll consider that, since no one can show any difference whatsoever in the politics of today's Democrats versus today's Socialists. But I'd be more likely to leave if the administrator would stop violating forum rule #10 by bringing up my name and passing it around weeks after I've last posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 11-01-2021 2:43 AM xongsmith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 11-01-2021 11:46 AM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 11-01-2021 3:09 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 55 of 79 (889083)
11-01-2021 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
11-01-2021 2:46 PM


Re: What does the evidence show?
That's not the sentiment I was expressing and not the way I feel. I mentioned your name in a list of people (Phat, LamarkNewAge, Michael MD, Christian7 and you) who judge ideas based on whether they find them appealing and not on whether they're rooted in fact.

And then in the very same paragraph, you called "Democratic advocacy of socialism", "made up stuff", for the exact same reason that you were putting the five of us down for, your laughable attempt to separate today's Democrat idealism from socialism. You find that separation appealing, even though it's not rooted in fact. I've come to the conclusion that the reason you try to make that claim is because you know that socialism is inspired by the Marxist ideology of using it to incrementally transition a society of free people to communism. and you genuinely believe that the U.S. is capable of having just enough big government to become a social utopia, like some people fantasize that the Scandinavian countries, or some of Europe, or Germany have. And once the U.S. government takes the guns, imposes feel-good mandates to re-cool the planet and put an end to storms, controls the energy industry, that it will only get to a certain point and then STOP SHORT of pure communism. Wouldn't it make sense for Biden (Democrat) or Sanders (socialist) and most other Democrats to say, as one example; "just give us the 30 x 30 land confiscation proposal this one time, then we'll pass a brand new constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from ever again doing anymore land confiscation proposals, ever. But they never do that, do they? For ANY new increases in government that they propose.

In Bernie Sanders' younger years when he was just getting started in politics with mayoral and congressional runs, he ran as an independent because the Democrat party wasn't quite socialist enough for him. The party has now COME TO HIM, evidenced by lots of things. His run for president in 2016 was done as a Democrat. Small Democrat infested districts have recently elected "The Squad" (Tlaib, AOC, Omar, Pressley) They're described as very left leaning / progressive. Sanders is described as "socialist". He's been known to meet with them, to brainstorm with them.

https://www.newsmax.com/...he-squad-aoc/2020/11/02/id/994866

But you'll maintain that there's NO SIMILARITY in their views, right? And I've not shown any, anywhere in this thread, and I can't show it. And you maintain that view because you find it appealing, not because of anything I've shown, right?

Schumer and Biden have been Democrat politicians for many decades. They've both obviously swerved much more left only fairly recently, Schumer's constituents and Biden's handlers (whoever they are) have largely inspired it. There is a point where this new breed of FAR left Democrats and socialists come perfectly together. We're seeing its beginning stages now, not because I find it appealing (I don't) we see it because it's a fact.

Why do you suppose that so many posters here fly into an emotional rage at the stuff I post? You've said you sometimes watch 'Fox News Sunday', I get the impression that you might even glance at a little more of Fox's programing. Surely you've seen them interview Republican congressmen and senators, you know how close national elections almost always are throughout the country, you know that my views represent a huge percentage of U.S. voters. Do these people want to seal themselves in their tiny liberal, socialist cocoon and not care about what's actually going on? It makes no sense to me, this is a discussion forum. Do they really hate free speech that much?

As you know, I've shown the closeness of today's Democrats and socialism in this thread, and asked simple, basic questions about it, asking any of the gang to show disagreements and separations in Democrat beliefs and socialist beliefs. No one has come up with ANY direct answers to my questions, only generalizations that they see no relationship between them, with no specifics. Then in Message 50, I'm told that I'm "in over my head". Are you proud to have these people as your allies? They take note of their own failures, then turn right around and accuse me of them, with no detail of course. And they're not embarrassed because they're part of a gang, and their harmonious put downs and vulgar name calling of me make them feel good about themselves. Many conservatives would fall off their chairs laughing, but that's not my intent, I'm just interested in common sense and what is actually rooted in fact.

Here's my so-far unanswered question, again;

quote:
Could you, or all the gang, show me just one thing in Sanders' 12 point list that today's Democrats are united in opposing? Just one? That wouldn't be near enough to differentiate between today's Democrats and socialism, but it would be a start. It would actually take 5 or 6 at least. But just one will cause me to disengage for now,

You could be a hero to the gang! Just one, that would get me out of here for awhile. Work on it, work on it! Or just ban me, I suspect you're getting PM's requesting that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-01-2021 2:46 PM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 11-01-2021 8:58 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 11-01-2021 9:35 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 57 of 79 (889086)
11-01-2021 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
11-01-2021 3:09 PM


Re: the Marc9000 bot squawks
Oh you silly fascist.

quote:
Fascism; : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


Definition of FASCISM

quote:
fascist
If you know someone who's a fascist, that person is probably into control. A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions.

Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.


I could provide more definitions, but they're all pretty much the same. One authority, ONE dictatorial leader, no checks and balances. No congress. Few individual rights. No tolerance for opposing opinions. Republicans have never been near any of that. Republicans have always been about individual rights, not about organized "emphasis on the group". Today's Democrats are actually much closer to fascism than are Republicans. (emphasis on the nation - climate change? No tolerance for opposing opinions - Democrats / socialists on EvC forum responding to marc9000?

There is a leaderless, rag tag gang of America haters called "antifa" who hate Republicans, and who try to assign the term fascism to the "far right" Republicans. They do it to try to do what homosexuals did to the word "gay", take a certain word with a certain narrowly defined meaning, and get dictionary wordsmiths to change it to suit them. It hasn't worked at all so far. The problem they have is that Democrats / socialists need to keep pretending that they have respect for the U.S. Constitution and its framers. If they're able to twist the term "fascism" to become a properly defined way to name-call Republicans, then the term would also have to be assigned to the U.S. framers. That would mess up their fake respect they have for the framers.

So keep being stupid and call Republicans fascists at this forum, it will work great for you here. But it might not work well for you anywhere else. The antifa group is nothing, never making the news unless they break the law and destroy property, as they sometimes do.

Everyone interested in the actual answer can find plenty of stuff on the differences and these differences are not major violent contentions

Oh they're differences, but not major differences, so you and no one else here will bother to name them. Maybe because you're afraid that I'll show them to not be differences at all? Name a few and let's find out.

In this discussion, as in most of your discussions here, your obvious lies are couched in emotionally caustic terms. You are throwing emotional bombs with your lies and they are directed to discredit humanity thus, I would suppose, manufacturing a need for us to be saved by a fascist theocracy.

Do you know what the term "theocracy" means?

quote:
Definition of theocracy
1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

2: a state governed by a theocracy


Definition of THEOCRACY

This is what you see me promote? What conservative Republicans promote? I think you build 100' tall straw men.

And do please come back when your handlers have a fresh batch of BS for you to spew around or when Percy looks in the side-view mirror and recites your name three times.

PM Percy to ban me. That should help satisfy your hatred of the 1st amendment. By the way, I wish to thank you at this time for your UNWAVERING support of your Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema. She's one of the very few Democrats who is not quite a socialist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 11-01-2021 3:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2021 6:35 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 59 of 79 (889088)
11-01-2021 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Percy
11-01-2021 5:58 PM


Re: What does the evidence show?
True socialists might also consider nationalizing transportation, telecommunications, higher education, the banking industry, and the equity markets.

I don't understand how Marc can quote accurate definitions of socialism (Message 31) and still not get it. His own definitions clearly describe how socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production and so forth, but he somehow believes that describes Democrats.

I can easily help you to understand it, you seem to be drawing a huge distinction between ownership and control. When it comes to government, there can be practically no difference. Today's U.S. government doesn't "own" GM, Ford, or Chrysler, but it largely controls them. It dictates to them what fuel mileages will be, what pollution equipment their vehicles will have, what safety equipment their vehicles will have. I and millions of others in the U.S., refuse to buy a new car, because we can't get what we want like we could in the 60's or 70's. It wouldn't be much different if the government completely owned the car companies. Considering the government (taxpayers) have already been involved in baling them out of financial trouble, the government probably owns them more than we know right now.

The argument is so daft that he can only be a troll, though of the "sincerely believes what he says" variety, if there is such a thing.

*sigh* Where did you get the idea to call me a troll, because one of these wizard helpers of yours already did? I'm a troll because my politics are different from those of practically all other posters here? And you'd really prefer that all views posted here were from the exact same worldview? Let's look at the definition:

quote:
In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

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

My posts are inflammatory ONLY because most everyone here has no tolerance for opinions other than their own. It is they who make them inflammatory, not me. "No reason at all" never applies to me, my reason is an interest in things that are rooted in facts. Please check out the following messages again, compare them to the above terms in the definition, like "inflammatory", "provoking" the "troll's amusement" "disrupting a rival's activities" "causing confusion or harm" "no reason at all".

Message 38
Message 41
Message 46
Message 50
Message 52

These haters posts are very short, have no substance relating to the topic, took about a half minute for them to bang out, and some call me vulgar names. As you can hopefully see, my posts are filled with substance, usually relating to the topic unless a hater draws me away from it, often take me well over an hour to word-process up, I provide links when appropriate, and seldom directly insult anyone personally, and never name call. I think mine are in better keeping with forum rules than the above referenced ones from my haters. Considering the overall meaning of the term "troll", and your years of experience in forum administrating, who are the bigger trolls, me or my haters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 11-01-2021 5:58 PM Percy has seen this message

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 60 of 79 (889089)
11-01-2021 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
11-01-2021 9:35 PM


Re: What does the evidence show?
They want a reasonably sane capitalism with modest sensible regulation. They are not socialist.

That can be said about Bernie Sanders' proposals. Plenty of Democrats do, including Bernie. He's a socialist.

You have been lied to, and you are gullible enough to fall for those lies.

Who lied to me? I can figure things out for myself, I don't need a source to tell me what to think. I don't trust the government. Neither did most all of the U.S. founders.

What you have actually shown, is that you do not understand what the Democrats believe, and that you are hopelessly confused about "socialism".

I easily understand what Democrats believe - I get my news from multiple sources. I see illegals pouring over the southern border, I see Trump hate - I see the opposition to what Trump believes, and I know what Trump believes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 11-01-2021 9:35 PM nwr has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2021 12:28 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 11-02-2021 12:48 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 64 by jar, posted 11-02-2021 4:20 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 66 of 79 (889104)
11-02-2021 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
11-02-2021 11:33 AM


Re: Is a rational discussion possible with some people?
The saying that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting something different to happen is cute and appealing, but untrue.

That's for sure! Anyone who has ever laid under a 1960's model car with the task of getting the 3-speed manual input shaft lined up with the clutch knows that you have to keep trying over and over, in exactly the same way, until it jumps right in, even though when it finally does, nothing was done differently.

But I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't expect rationality to suddenly erupt from what has heretofore been a swamp of determined ignorance and nonsense.

Very good again! "Swamp" is an excellent way to describe the gang gallop that I've been facing.

But many times an important point is at stake, and at other times the stupid is just too precious to resist, and so we eagerly reply despite knowing it will go nowhere,

Wow, this is unbelievable, did you take some kind of brand new truth serum this morning? When I saw your funny claim that today's Democrats and socialism have no relationship with each other, I had to eagerly reply, knowing that I'd get called lots of names by almost a dozen angry liberals, knowing that most any basic question I asked would go unanswered, and that most every gang gallop member would break forum rules, sputter with rage, and make complete fools of themselves.

and we excuse our behavior by telling ourselves it's for the lurkers or for posterity or just for the principle of truth and honesty. So even though the stupid persists unabated, we feel better.

Spot on, yes I do. I would guess that the four (besides me) that you named in Message 21 got a smile. Phat gave me one approval dot.

My work here is done, for now.

PS Congratulations Glenn Youngkin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 11-02-2021 11:33 AM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2021 10:34 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022