Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The only logical response

Posted on 2009.10.13 at 20:04
Current Music: Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me When I'm Gone No. 2

Today, Stefanie and I were walking in Lexington and passed a guy at a LaRouche table, with a big picture of Obama-as-Hitler and a bunch of nonsensical slogans. As I passed, he asked how I was doing, and if I thought “we could get Obama some adult supervision.” Although I am often up for dealing with those people, today I was in no mood. The best course of action was clearly to just walk by him and say “Wooooo, I’m a Zionist, OOGA BOOGA BOOGA” while wiggling my fingers at him. He didn’t really have a response. What do you guys do in that situation?


niyabinghi at 2009-10-14 00:15 (UTC) (Link)
Bwahaha! Since you can't use logic with those people, your response sounds most appropriate ;)
(Deleted comment)
theservant at 2009-10-14 14:30 (UTC) (Link)
That means that your queen is the head of an international drug smuggling cartel!!!
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 17:21 (UTC) (Link)
Yes, and there's no such thing as Death Panels! They can't be true, because LaRouche people say that they exist...and besides, MSNBC and CNN say so too!

Tell me, do you ever find that you've got sand in your ears?
theservant at 2009-10-14 17:27 (UTC) (Link)
There are death panels. They are private insurance company review boards.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-16 16:05 (UTC) (Link)
Better than a panel of politically motivated death panels. "I see here on your form that you're a Registered Republican."


"Ah, it says here that you worship Obama, and you even built a shrine in your front yard!"


No, thanks. I think I'd rather have a board of capitalists, in a plan I can cancel without being bent over, than a board of socialists who's only agenda is to make sure that no Republican lives past 60.

And if you think that CAN'T happen, then you're a naiive idiot.
theservant at 2009-10-16 16:23 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't say it COULDN'T happen, I say that there is no indication that it IS happening.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-16 18:12 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't believe you were an idiot anyway.

A little naiive...MAYBE...but as much as I hate to admit it, you are a little too wise to be an idiot.

And as far as there being no indication that it is happening, the only indication that it is happening...so far...is that the bill has already cleared one hurdle.

That's kind of an indicator that yes, it is happening.
The Hammer of Rhetoric
gislebertus at 2009-10-14 01:16 (UTC) (Link)
I asked some at a table last week when the putsch was scheduled so I could attend with trade-unionists.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 06:34 (UTC) (Link)
What's a 'putsch?'
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 14:20 (UTC) (Link)
Putsch...apparently a word which means, "Person good at drawing analogies".

Now, there is a Yiddish word which describes people who are socialist unionmembers who want to see our country fail miserably, the word is "Putz". Coincidentally, it also means "penis".
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 02:28 (UTC) (Link)
Nod and agree.

After all...Hitler was the party of "Change" for his era, too.

Come to think of it...the whole idea of including everyone is the basis for totalitarianism. (Coined by Mussolini.)

Oh, sorry, were you just looking for validation by your liberal friends again? My bad.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 06:43 (UTC) (Link)
Comparisons to Hitler automatically lose the argument, unless the comparison actually works. There are many historical figures who did the bad things you suspect Obama of wanting to do. There are lots of dictators who nationalized businesses, socialized economies, redistributed wealth, etc., but did not murder entire ethnic populations based on racist ideology. To use Hitler in the comparison is misleading and wrong on a number of levels. Speaking of the 'party of change,' you should look into the Republican party in the mid 1800s. They were the abolitionist 'pro-change' party. Reagan also used the 'time for a change' slogan (don't remember the exact wording, but the idea was the same). People who's arguments are based on ad-homonym attacks are not worth talking to.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 14:16 (UTC) (Link)
But I note that you don't say I was wrong.

You just refused to admit that I was right.

In fact, Hitler is a valid comparison, because his idea of change ended up being BAD for his country. Obama's idea of change is to turn this country into a socialism, which is BAD for a country which is based on capitalism.

After all, before you can SPREAD the wealth, someone has to EARN the wealth.

But again, you've already decided that since I don't agree with you, you're not going to argue the point...that's fine, I will accept your loss by forfeit.

I guess some people just would rather be losers.
theservant at 2009-10-14 14:52 (UTC) (Link)
I will say you are wrong. You are wrong. There.

We haven't had pure capitalism in this country... ever, and certainly not since TR.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 16:52 (UTC) (Link)
I'm wrong? Hitler was *not* the party of change for his country?

I'm wrong? Inclusion of everyone is not the basis for totalitarianism?

I'm wrong? You weren't just looking for validation by your friends?

I'm right. On all counts.
theservant at 2009-10-14 17:00 (UTC) (Link)
Silly goose. Saying you are right doesn't make you right.

Every party in opposition wants to change the government. It's a category that is so broad that it has no meaning.

Totalitarianism is the exclusion of almost everyone from political power.

I wasn't looking for validation. I was hoping for money.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 17:12 (UTC) (Link)
Again, I see that you didn't address my point when I said, "I'm wrong? Hitler was *not* the party of change for his country?"

In fact, he was...a point that liberals (progressives-whatever) hate to admit. The reason they hate to admit it is because his idea of changes, despite being popular with the "volks" back home, were BAD. Again, seeing a big similarity between Obama and Hitler here, because despite being very charismatic with the "folks", Obama's changes are bad.

Someone else here pointed out that Hitler's mass genocide was bad--no arguments there--but then tried to tell me that because of that, there was no comparison to Obama. I say, Obama's "reign" is only just begun. We'll have to see how many people the Death Panel lets die.

"I wasn't looking vor validation. I was hoping for money." Join a PAC, run for office. Promise people largess from the treasury. I bet you'll get campaign contributions, more than you ever thought you could. That's how Obama did it.
theservant at 2009-10-14 17:23 (UTC) (Link)
He was the party of change, but my point is that EVERY party that is not currently in power is a party of change. It is a useless category. He was also the head of the party that started with "N," and the candidate with a first name that starts with "A." Oh here's one for you- both he and Obama have the same number of letters in their first names. It's about the same level of comparison.
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 17:13 (UTC) (Link)
Good luck. I've been trying to get paid for writing my thoughts on LJ for years, and the most I ever got was married. (met my wife via LJ) :D
theservant at 2009-10-14 17:24 (UTC) (Link)
Well, that's pretty good! I met mine on JDate. Internet love!
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 17:34 (UTC) (Link)
eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 17:31 (UTC) (Link)
Your actual arguments are un-deniable, because you haven't made any arguments. All you've done is stated what you believe. You haven't even attempted to convince anybody of why your beliefs are correct. Also, since I'm not ideologically committed to any particular economic system, I don't really care which ideology this health-reform bill conforms to (capitalist, socialist, feudalist, whatever...). That's just not something I care enough about to argue.

My point was that according to your own accusations, whether I accept them or not, your comparison to Hitler is ridiculous (that's smart-people-talk for WRONG). You are engaging in a classical logical fallacy. You're saying that "A has characteristic Y. B also has characteristic Y. Therefore A=B." No. A, in this case, does not equal B. If you stated that "Obama is like Hitler in that they both want 'change,'" (A is like B in that they both have trait Y) then that would be true, but it's pretty meaningless.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 18:27 (UTC) (Link)
Actually, I'm pretty satisfied with "your actual arguments are undeniable".

eitanhalevy at 2009-10-14 18:30 (UTC) (Link)
sputnik5 at 2009-10-14 03:12 (UTC) (Link)
Ignore. Or ask for concrete examples/proof. But mostly ignore. People with Obama-as-Hitler signs are really not the ones open to any kind of dialogue, so why validate their idiocy by even acknowledging their statements.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 14:16 (UTC) (Link)
And if they provide proof? Then what? Ignore facts?
theservant at 2009-10-14 14:31 (UTC) (Link)
LaRouchies are too crazy to ignore. And proof? I have read some of their material, and all it proves is that better treatments for psychosis are needed.

Edited at 2009-10-14 02:32 pm (UTC)
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 17:01 (UTC) (Link)
On the other hand, you should be greatful for that sort, after all, they give you an excuse to dismiss any claims that you don't like out of hand..."That's a LaRouche conspiracy, I'm going to ignore it."

Very convenient, especially when you're a liberal (sorry, progressive - same damn thing) trying to avoid those inconvenient facts, like the Death Panel...which I notice BSNBC and the Communists' News Network have still not admitted that a panel of bureaucrats will be created with the power over life and death..."Death Panel".

But again, that seems to be an inconvenient fact for you, so you can dismiss it as a LaRouche conspiracy. I bet that you will also dismiss the similiarities between the people who Obama hires as czars who LOVE the idea of eugenics, the same as...why, bless my soul, I think that was Hitler! You can, after all, determine a man's character by the people he surrounds himself with. If Van Jones and Bill Ayers are any examples, then Obama favors nut-job conspiracy domestic terrorists.

And you think LaRouche is bad!
theservant at 2009-10-14 17:02 (UTC) (Link)
No, I am a liberal.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-14 17:13 (UTC) (Link)
Right. Same thing.
sen_ichi_rei at 2009-10-14 17:09 (UTC) (Link)
Wow, that's the best response ever! (I would have probably just walked away, but that's because I don't like dealing with people pushing their political propaganda on me.)
metalclarinet at 2009-10-15 03:00 (UTC) (Link)
A friend of mine used to respond (in various situations):

"I'm not Christian, I'm Roman Catholic."

The LaRushies were around when I was in college -- 1968 to 1972 -- funny how the ones you see are always between 30 and 40. Weird.
Previous Entry  Next Entry