MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
public option =/= communist
The founders of the free world recognized that free speech and freedom of protest were paramount...public option =/= communist
Yeah, a government administered health insurance plan in which enrollment is completely optional is EXACTLY the same thing as communism. Give me a fucking break.public option =/= communist
To say that Communism is Socialism's older brother is the same as saying that anarchy is Libertarianism's older brother. It's true only in an incredibly over-simplified sense. In both examples, they share the same side of the political spectrum but there are a vast number of differences."socialism and communism are not even remotely close to being the same thing"
LOL Communism is Socialism's older brother. I don't think health-care reform will lead to communism but to say that the two are nowhere near alike is false.
*straps on tinfoil hat*The founders of the free world recognized that free speech and freedom of protest were paramount...
Communists have historically tried to control, radio television, religion, or manipulate it for their cause.
You may be able to rewrite history in the public schools, but not in the real world.
Peddle your propaganda elsewhere comrade![]()
First, that isn't the entire interview. The first and most obvious thing was when Hannity was telling Moore that Capitalism is what enabled him to make his new crockumentary denouncing it, and if he made his new film in Cuba they would kill him. Moore responds by saying "lets talk about the people we are killing." As if that has anything to do with the subject.I just watched the video and I didn't find him despicable.
What part did you disagree with?
I bolded that particular area of your post because that's what I'm addressing here...First, that isn't the entire interview. The first and most obvious thing was when Hannity was telling Moore that Capitalism is what enabled him to make his new crockumentary denouncing it, and if he made his new film in Cuba they would kill him. Moore responds by saying "lets talk about the people we are killing." As if that has anything to do with the subject.
Moore like most who think like him are masters in the art of insidious and under handed argument. He makes up facts as he goes along and he changes the subject whenever he can't answer a question.
Generally in a legitimate debate, you start with certain conclusions and premises and you debate their merits in order to establish a claim. What guys like Moore do is just reply to everything with sophistry and logical fallacies as demonstrated above or they make the conversation into a game in which they can come up with a smart ass reply to everything. Nearly all of these answers are non-sequiter meaning the conclusion does not follow the logic of the premise. Or, they are just silly childish answers in general.
For instance.
Hannity:
Don't you think some of the borrowers bear some responsibility for borrowing more than they could afford to repay?
Moore:
No, not at all. They were duped by the banks.
Now I have seen some real bad finance offers with cars and such that only a fool would enter into. But foolishly entering into a bad loan situation is nobodies fault but the fool who agrees to it. Plus, it is unreasonable to suggest that people don't know what they are doing when they make 30K / year and they buy a $300K home. But, to guys like this the answer isn't supposed to make sense - like the Chewbaca defense.
What he doesn't do is answer a single question with an honest and logical answer.
He didn't cheat anyone, he bet against the dollar and won. If the middle class makes a trillion dollars off its investments, well then I guess the super elite only have 94.9% of the world wealth. Not like it varies wildly.You're assuming that there is a static wealth pie when there isn't. Wealth expands and it contracts. For example, a friend of mine bought $70,000 worth of gold when it wa $250 an ounce. Gold closed yesterday at $1035. My friend still has his gold and its now worth $288,400. That's a profit so far of $218,400. Whom did he cheat? Whom did he take advantage of?
I have seen Hannity take things out of context in order to sensationalize things. He no doubt does this for ratings and I wish he wouldn't, but I understand why he does - he has a show to do.I bolded that particular area of your post because that's what I'm addressing here...
You are absolutely, 100% spot on in your assertions. That being said, Hannity does the exact same thing on a regular basis. To deny that is to deny reality which makes your arguments null and void. Now you haven't denied that Hannity does the exact same thing, but if you do, your argument holds no water.
The thing that struck me when I watched that interview was that here are two guys spewing bullshit from different sides of the aisle. Both lack credibility. That wasn't what bothered me. What bothered me was that I feel like there is a large majority of people out there who can correctly see the bullshit and dishonest tactics at work by one of these men, but not the other. That's downright scary. If you take off the partisan blinders and actually listen to what is being said and the countless fallacies that permeate both of these guy's logic, you'll see that the whole thing was nothing more than a partisan circle-jerk by two grade A bullshit vendors.
Well, every world leader did follow our intelligence... It's not like they all had people on the ground doing independent investigations into what Sadaam was doing. They all trusted our intel, that turned out to be wrong. That's exactly the kind of shit Hannity pulls, and he knows exactly what he's doing when he does it. He doesn't expect his audience to know that, he expects them to just believe what he's saying, then when he makes the point you were talking about, how all the world leaders totally agreed with what we were doing, so we're not the only ones to blame for a botched invasion, it makes it seem like it was just a mistake and hey, accidents happen...I have seen Hannity take things out of context in order to sensationalize things. He no doubt does this for ratings and I wish he wouldn't, but I understand why he does - he has a show to do.
However, that is much different than what Moore and people like him do. In fact Hannity though an exaggerator at times does always make very logical arguments. Granted they may be sensationalized but they are at least logical. When he points out that every world leader thought the were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was in violation of dozens of UN resolutions he is 100% correct. It's not quite an apples to apples comparison.
I just saw two people with two different talking points. Hannity is trying to errode Moore with a "gotcha journalism" style of interviewing and Moore is trying to steer Hannity to see the bigger "capitalism is bad" picture. When interviewer ask overly leading questions or are attempting to set up that gotcha moment you will see interviewees squirm and answer in non-sequitur or answer with a question. They are never going to answer each other with an "honest" answer.First, that isn't the entire interview. The first and most obvious thing was when Hannity was telling Moore that Capitalism is what enabled him to make his new crockumentary denouncing it, and if he made his new film in Cuba they would kill him. Moore responds by saying "lets talk about the people we are killing." As if that has anything to do with the subject.
Moore like most who think like him are masters in the art of insidious and under handed argument. He makes up facts as he goes along and he changes the subject whenever he can't answer a question.
Generally in a legitimate debate, you start with certain conclusions and premises and you debate their merits in order to establish a claim. What guys like Moore do is just reply to everything with sophistry and logical fallacies as demonstrated above or they make the conversation into a game in which they can come up with a smart ass reply to everything. Nearly all of these answers are non-sequiter meaning the conclusion does not follow the logic of the premise. Or, they are just silly childish answers in general.
For instance.
Hannity:
Don't you think some of the borrowers bear some responsibility for borrowing more than they could afford to repay?
Moore:
No, not at all. They were duped by the banks.
Now I have seen some real bad finance offers with cars and such that only a fool would enter into. But foolishly entering into a bad loan situation is nobodies fault but the fool who agrees to it. Plus, it is unreasonable to suggest that people don't know what they are doing when they make 30K / year and they buy a $300K home. But, to guys like this the answer isn't supposed to make sense - like the Chewbaca defense.
What he doesn't do is answer a single question with an honest and logical answer.
Where on Earth would you get such a silly notion? You think Putin was following our intelligence? Absolute nonsense. And by the way many of the Democrats saw the EXACT same intelligence as Bush and they supported the war.Well, every world leader did follow our intelligence...
Good post.I just saw two people with two different talking points. Hannity is trying to errode Moore with a "gotcha journalism" style of interviewing and Moore is trying to steer Hannity to see the bigger "capitalism is bad" picture. When interviewer ask overly leading questions or are attempting to set up that gotcha moment you will see interviewees squirm and answer in non-sequitur or answer with a question. They are never going to answer each other with an "honest" answer.
What you fail to see is that when Hannity asked:
"Don't you think some of the borrowers bear some responsibility for borrowing more than they could afford to repay?"
He is focused on minutia and is missing the big picture that Moore is attempting to paint.
Moore was pointing out that the small percentage of sub-prime defaults do not cause the damage to the economy and ensuing WORLDWIDE credit crisis. There were much bigger things going on to cause the damage to the economy than most people know.
The easy answer is "YES" but it really isn't that simple. The fact of the matter is that people were taken advantage of, duped and flat out lied to. The mortgage market was out of control and there were guys that were saying anything to get people to sign. Brokers were literally loaning money to retarded / disabled people KNOWING that they could NOT make the payments but they wanted the commission / bonus / points for themselves. People that could afford the payments and never thought to ask / nor did anyone take the time to explain what an ARM was and that their payments would triple in two years. That being said, there are people that are LOADED that have no idea what they are signing to when they scribble their name on the dotted line (they just have the money to cover the bills).
Neither of them answer honestly. You think Hannity would EVER concede that American capitalism may have shortcomings? Just like you think Moore would ever admit that he pours it on a little thick to sell movie tickets?