From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 21:54:49 GMT
At 04:02 PM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
>Arlo,
>
> > My suggestion was that "conservatives" engage in "ad hominem" attacks just
> > as vociferously as "liberals". As Horse has demonstrated, perhaps even more
> > so. This refutes your use of the term "leftist argument" when referring to
> > "ad hominem" attacks.
>
>Barbara Boxer's attack on Condi Rice's integrity during the recent Senate
>hearing on her confirmation as Secretary of State illustrates my point
>better than a million postings on the internet from all sorts of kooks.
>
If a million conservatives do it, you'll look the other way. If one liberal
does it, it proves it is a "leftist argument" technique. Is that it?
The point is, "ad hominem" attacks are not "leftist" or "rightist". They
are apolitical.
> > If you define "patriotism" as "blind obedience to your government" that is
> > your problem. To me, part of the great thing about "freedom" is the
> > "freedom to dissent".
>
>I know of no one jailed for speaking out against the liberation of Iraq.
>In fact, protesters were allowed seats at the Inauguration. But, if you
>engaged in so called "hate speech," especially in Europe, watch out. Or
>if you violate campus speech codes, the P. C. police will be after your
>butt in a New York minute. Even the President of Harvard can't speak out
>about the difference between men and women without getting mercilessly
>attacked by leftist feminists.
>
It is those same PC police that villify dissent to the Bush Family as
"treason". It works both ways. You see, it is the power structure that
seeks control over language. Not "leftists" and not "rightists". One must
be equally critical, as I have been, of this regardless of source.
> > When did I say I blindly support Hillary Clinton (or any other politician
> > or political party)???
> >
> > See, unlike blind lapdogs, I freely and openly disagree based on principles
> > I hold, not party-affiliation.
>
>Since I don't recall reading your list of "principles," I went by your
>anti-conservative, pro-leftist views. Are you saying you would never vote
>for Hillary for president?
I would vote for her if the alternative was worse. If the alternative was
better, I'd vote that. The trouble with this two party system is that both
sides through up people I find personally repugnant. But, to be a good
American, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
But, even if I did vote Hillary (given a worse alternative), I'd be just as
active and vocal against things her administration would do even though you
consider me a "leftist". In short, I do not believe either party is "all
good". That you do is very "patriotic" of you.
> > > > Rupert Murdoch's
> > > > blatantly false "fair and balanced" is another masterful use of
> > > > manipulative language.
> > >
> > >You see what I mean?
> >
> > Yes, I see you actually believe it, and as such prove the power of the
> > propaganda.
>
>Let me see if I have this right. When I believe something to be true, it's
>because I've been brainwashed by propaganda. On the other hand, when you
>believe something to be true, it's because you have made an objective
>study of it. Translation: Platt's a stupid conservative; I Arlo am
>intelligent person of principles. Where have I heard something like this
>before? Oh yes, now I remember. It was in "Lila" from the mouth of Richard
>Rigel.
That you can't be honest about Fox NOT being "fair and balanced" shows your
obedience to the propaganda of your party. It would be like me constantly
espousing that only Guerrilla News is "objective and fair" reporting,
because they tell me so.
> > >No. In Hitler's Germany there was no mainstream media, only Nazi media.
> >
> > Learn some history, Platt. There WAS a mainstream media, it was gradually
> > taken over by the ministry BECAUSE they used the fear that everything in it
> > was "jew biased".
>
>Please name your source of that history. From my source (Berlin Diary)
>they took it over at the point of a gun.
Certainly, BECAUSE they were stopping the "jew bias". Goebbels speeches and
writings against the german media are well documented on the web.
> > As I've said, the conservatives are not unique in using talking points, but
> > the sheer volume of it pushed out by the conservative media over the past
> > several years has been very telling.
>
>What's your source for "sheer volume?" What measurement are you using?
Well, you see, I have this organization called "Objective Media Analysis",
and they've determined it to be true. If you dispute their objective
findings, it is only because you are conservatively biased. Since I'm a
"liberal", I accept everything they tell me as fact, because liberals don't
lie, or would ever stretch the truth to serve political ends, only
conservatives do these things.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 21:57:41 GMT