You might want to read a few of his articles. His loves straw men. He may be smart, but he is as intellectually dishonest as they come.
Exactly. The only other tort reform that can be enacted is to remove legal cognition of med mal cases. That's right. Let bad docs tort with complete impunity. Of course, based on economic analysis, that will reduce medical care costs by about 1%. Problem solved. What could possibly go wrong?
Not a joke. Granted it's not good company to keep but the only connection he made was that they were all pragmatists. Anything beyond that is conjecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum [rquoter] It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit. The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad,". For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong." The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses. [/rquoter] I hope you are honest enough with yourself that you can admit that the whole point of the exercise was to make sure that your "conjecture" was conjected.
Did you know that a good chunk of reading is subtext and inference. I teach 3rd graders the skill of making inferences all day. When Beck made that comment what do you think he was hoping his audience would infer? Do you think he made the comment hoping the only possible thing they would think about was that they were all pragmatic? Or do you think he hoped that his audience would take names which are synonymous with totalitarianism, and universally thought of negatively, and make further connections in their mind? I'm curious to know your answer on those questions.
Way to dance around the issue. You never fail to disapoint. You are possibly the least honest person I've ever had any contact with. You should run for office.
I'm not sure what "Beck" you are referring to. The pragmatist charges came from a second Sowell article posted by Big Benito and page two of this thread, I think. Surely the choices were shrewd. I reckon there are other pragmatists that are less threatening to the American public, but he is under no obligation to choose other pragmatists that are more acceptable to the Obama camp. If Sowell things Obama is headed towards a totalitarian end, it is his professional obligation to argue that point... not to please the Obama camp. How quickly you all have forgotten the demonization of Bush and especially both Rumsfeld and Cheney...
See, I had no conjecture. It was not my article. I just pointed out that the "comparison" was just one-dimensional and very shallow. With that you cannot argue. See my answer to FB's question-- maybe that will appease you. Actually I'm one of the more honest people you could ever meet, but I know you are in love with your message board caricature of me so I'll just accept that reality!
Beck isn't obligated to choose any pragmatist, and he's free to choose the ones he did. That doesn't make it wise, ethical, or truthful. If you can't infer what Beck is trying to say, then let me know. As I said it's a third grade reading skill (actually they start teaching inferences in 2nd grade). I will be more than happy to send you some materials to help with the comprehension. If anyone thinks Obama is headed toward a totalitarian end it's up to them to get the professional help they need, because there is nothing in terms of real evidence to back that up. Nobody has shown that. I do remember demonization in the days of Rumsfeld and Cheney, and most of it seemed to be done by them, and not too them. They called people who disagreed with them un-American, or compared them to Nazi sympathizers who appeased Hitler.
The rushed timing may be for the political cycle, but more likely it's for the economic one. Just as easy pushing trillion dollar spending programs in a recession as it is fast-tracking trillion dollar wars after a terrorist attack. I won't equate Bush and Obama but the electorate can create wierd symmetry sometimes.
We agree! Everyone has an opinion and a right to that opinion. I can. I am just not seeing it as some kind of unique attack. Politicians have been "slandered" since time began by comparisons. Why this discrete reference is so disturbing is a bit puzzling. Well, the US Govt has gotten into the car business and is looking to further intrude into the healthcare industry... Nobody demonizes themself. Did John Ashcroft ever refer to him self as Fascroft?
Between your guffaws would you cite a few facts that overturn what I said. You don't like the comparison; I get that. Sowell likes it.
They sure do, but people's opinions don't change what's ethical, or right. It was wrong when that Slander was based on fear, paranoia, and race, rather than on the facts. Not really on either claim. Though none of those claims is anything like Fascism or Totalitarianism. As far as the auto industry they gave money to companies, and later to people who traded in some old gas guzzling cars. As far as healthcare, the govt. is already in it with Medicare, and they are looking to provide more options to people. Again that isn't totalitarianism, nor even socialism. As they said on Bill Maher the other night Socialism is where government controls the means of production. Nothing Obama is doing increases that. I didn't say anyone demonized themselves. I said Rumsfeld and Cheney were the ones that were demonizing others. I provided examples to prove it.
