PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues A Request


Direckshun
09-21-2011, 09:14 AM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.

banyon
09-21-2011, 09:16 AM
They think it's somehow comparable to slavery, so I doubt the war metaphor bothers them much.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:17 AM
what's comparable to slavery?

warfare or taxes?

Donger
09-21-2011, 09:19 AM
Request denied.

HonestChieffan
09-21-2011, 09:19 AM
they?

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 09:20 AM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.

:spock:

banyon
09-21-2011, 09:21 AM
what's comparable to slavery?

warfare or taxes?

Taxes. I've heard BEP and Taco, among others make that comparison repeatedly.

FishingRod
09-21-2011, 09:35 AM
Might wanna stop calling people Tea baggers and terrorists and discontinue the “Held hostage” BS as well

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 09:36 AM
Does that mean we can't talk about the War on Drugs too?
Even the War on Poverty, the War on Literacy ( or should that be anti-Literacy)?

Sorry "Class Warfare" is just an idiom for being against wealthy individuals.
And our troops being in squalid countries, well, they don't belong there. Bring 'em home.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 09:56 AM
Might wanna stop calling people Tea baggers and terrorists and discontinue the “Held hostage” BS as well

The tea bagger stuff is just namecalling. Who cares if someone calls someone else a mean name.

Labeling folks as terrorists, held hostage stuff... that's a valid point you bring up.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 10:12 AM
LOL!

Please stop calling it warfare as we attack and destroy the economy. Can we call it something that doesn't bring to mind devastation and destitution - like how about "fairness?"

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 10:23 AM
LOL!

Please stop calling it warfare as we attack and destroy the economy. Can we call it something that doesn't bring to mind devastation and destitution - like how about "fairness?"

There's plenty of emotionally charged, incendiary language that you can demagogue with.

Out of respect for your brothers and sisters that actually have to endure ACTUAL warfare, we might want to consider retiring a term to describe taxes.

Donger
09-21-2011, 10:25 AM
I'm sure that our troops really welcome your request to protect them from virtual/verbal bullets, Direckshun.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 10:27 AM
Thread fail.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 10:28 AM
I'm sure that our troops really welcome your request to protect them from virtual/verbal bullets, Direckshun.

I'm asking that we exercise perspective. That's kind of the whole point.

Donger
09-21-2011, 10:30 AM
I'm asking that we exercise perspective. That's kind of the whole point.

Why? In order to support our troops?

vailpass
09-21-2011, 10:30 AM
If you can get obama to stop inciting class warfare people would talk about it less.

blaise
09-21-2011, 10:55 AM
I don't use the phrase, and I've never been in the military, but it doesn't seem to demean the efforts of the military to me. It's not like it evokes images of actual war. I just don't really draw a comparison between someone saying, "class warfare" and actual fighting in my mind. It's not like using terms like "war" in football, because then I think it sort of makes it seem like playing a game is as tough as fighting a war. I just don't see it the same way with, "class warfare."
But I'll defer to people who have served, if anyone here has and has an opinion.

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 10:58 AM
I'm asking that we exercise perspective. That's kind of the whole point.

It's probably best that you just shhhh, and let this thread die.

vailpass
09-21-2011, 10:58 AM
The OP is HOF worthy if there is a wing for pointless posts.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 10:58 AM
Direckshum—perspective means understanding context this gets used in.

blaise
09-21-2011, 11:01 AM
Aren't we fighting a war on drugs and poverty?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:02 AM
Why?

To mitigate the tidal wave of incendiary language that flows through our rhetoric every day?

Because it belittles the sacrifice of those in uniform?

Because actual class warfare would involve dragging out a certain class (let's say the rich) into the streets, and tax reform isn't that?

Because the phrase is a pathetic hyperbole being used by those weilding it?

Because it demonizes opposition as supporting war?

I can keep going.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:03 AM
If you can get obama to stop inciting class warfare people would talk about it less.

If the poor were dragging the rich out into the streets and shooting them, that'd be class warfare.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:03 AM
Sorry, but no.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:04 AM
It's not like it evokes images of actual war.

That is exactly what it does, it would seem.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:05 AM
Aren't we fighting a war on drugs and poverty?

To say nothing of the culture war, the war on American families, the war on traditional America, the war on Christmas...

If you think calling any of these things a "war" is silly and emasculating the concept of what a war is, then you can pretty much apply that to the idea of "class warfare."

Huffmeister
09-21-2011, 11:08 AM
Attempting to control the phrases that people use (especially in political discourse) is very Newspeak-ish.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:08 AM
That is exactly what it does, it would seem.

Baloney. You haven't chosen the right definition for the context.

Merriam Webster Dictionary:

war
2b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

Examples
the budget wars in Washington


Etymology:
Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
First Known Use: 12th century


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war?show=0&t=1316624760

vailpass
09-21-2011, 11:09 AM
If the poor were dragging the rich out into the streets and shooting them, that'd be class warfare.

LMAO You know better.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:10 AM
Attempting to control the phrases that people use (especially in political discourse) is very Newspeak-ish.

Strawman. People can mind or ignore the request at their own volition.

I'm offering the idea that the phrase "class warfare" to describe tax reform in one direction or another is an unfortunate hyperbole on numerous levels.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:11 AM
I have a question for you, Direckshun. Did you ever call what was happening in Kosovo or Bosnia or even what you feared might happen in Libya a "genocide"?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:12 AM
Strawman. People can mind or ignore the request at their own volition.

I'm offering the idea that the phrase "class warfare" to describe tax reform in one direction or another is an unfortunate hyperbole on numerous levels.

In your opinion. As a socialist, I'd expect you to not like it though. But that wasn't a strawman. That's what he thinks of the request. That's allowed.

Jaric
09-21-2011, 11:13 AM
Agreed. From now on, they will be refered to as "economic kinetic actions"

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:14 AM
How 'bout the "Conflict over Wealth"?

Jaric
09-21-2011, 11:15 AM
How 'bout the "Conflict over Wealth"?

You need to make it more vague.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:15 AM
Oh wait! Wealth is a dirty word to the left too. They'd probably like the "Conflict over Fairness."

There, if there is a word that's vague it's "fair." Since it's subjective and means something different to everyone.

Donger
09-21-2011, 11:16 AM
To mitigate the tidal wave of incendiary language that flows through our rhetoric every day?

Because it belittles the sacrifice of those in uniform?

Because actual class warfare would involve dragging out a certain class (let's say the rich) into the streets, and tax reform isn't that?

Because the phrase is a pathetic hyperbole being used by those weilding it?

Because it demonizes opposition as supporting war?

I can keep going.

You would agree that intentionally pitting the "rich" against the "poor" is a form of psychological warfare, would you not?

Jaric
09-21-2011, 11:16 AM
Oh wait! Wealth is a dirty word to the left too. They'd probably like the "Conflict over Fairness."

There, if there is a word that's vague it's "fair." Since it's subjective and means something different to everyone.

Economic fairness reassessments.

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2011, 11:18 AM
We're honored to fight this war for the freedom of all Americans - even the pansies who won't fight for themselves, Insurreckshun.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:20 AM
I have a question for you, Direckshun. Did you ever call what was happening in Kosovo or Bosnia or even what you feared might happen in Libya a "genocide"?

You mean when people were dying?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:22 AM
Agreed. From now on, they will be refered to as "economic kinetic actions"

Economic fairness reassessments.

Like I said, if you want to argue that the rich or poor or whatever class we're talking about are suffering from prejudice or discrimination, so be it.

But to suggest any class in America is undergoing a war from the others is silly.

vailpass
09-21-2011, 11:24 AM
Like I said, if you want to argue that the rich or poor or whatever class we're talking about are suffering from prejudice or discrimination, so be it.

But to suggest any class in America is undergoing a war from the others is silly.

There is an awful long line of silliness coming out of this administration; some with grave and tangible consequences.
Why do you choose to attempt to create a meaningless one? Diversion?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:25 AM
You would agree that intentionally pitting the "rich" against the "poor" is a form of psychological warfare, would you not?

There's any kinds of warfare you could dress tax reform up as.

Psychological warfare.

Political warfare.

Cultural warfare.

But if you think that's the kind of "war" that incendiary language like "class warfare" is dogwhistling, so be it. But I think we both know better.

Donger
09-21-2011, 11:25 AM
Like I said, if you want to argue that the rich or poor or whatever class we're talking about are suffering from prejudice or discrimination, so be it.

But to suggest any class in America is undergoing a war from the others is silly.

How about "class thievery"? Is that better?

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:26 AM
Until we get Obama and the democrats out of office and eliminate the clear and present danger that they represent, I suggest we call it Class Genocide.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:27 AM
You mean when people were dying?

Yes, when people were dying (on both sides of the conflict, btw) but there was no real prospect of an entire ethnic group being killed off.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:27 AM
How about "class thievery"? Is that better?

I think that's a really dumb term, but I think it's a lot closer to the issue of tax reform in terms of perspective.

When you say taxing the poor or the rich more is warfare, that seems to me to have lost perspective.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:28 AM
The "War of Plunder!"

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Until we get Obama and the democrats out of office and eliminate the clear and present danger that they represent, I suggest we call it Class Genocide.

True to form.

Yes, when people were dying (on both sides of the conflict, btw) but there was no real prospect of an entire ethnic group being killed off.

I'm having trouble understanding why you're trying to start a conversation on "genocide" in a thread about "class warfare"?

I assume because it changes the topic? Or is there a connection I'm missing.

Donger
09-21-2011, 11:30 AM
I think that's a really dumb term, but I think it's a lot closer to the issue of tax reform in terms of perspective.

When you say taxing the poor or the rich more is warfare, that seems to me to have lost perspective.

Sure, a dumb term for a dumb concept. Then again, I didn't vote for the dork who's promoting it.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:32 AM
Sure, a dumb term for a dumb concept. Then again, I didn't vote for the dork who's promoting it.

k

Donger
09-21-2011, 11:34 AM
k

You will acknowledge that Obama is actively promoting whatever you want to call this, right?

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2011, 11:34 AM
I'm having trouble understanding why you're trying to start a conversation on "genocide" in a thread about "class warfare"?

The ultimate solution is to wipe out the culture that you represent.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:36 AM
True to form.



I'm having trouble understanding why you're trying to start a conversation on "genocide" in a thread about "class warfare"?

I assume because it changes the topic? Or is there a connection I'm missing.

You didn't have a problem diminishing the term "genocide" or being insensitive to victims of actual genocide by using it in the contexts I mentioned (I'm assuming you used it). You didn't have a problem diminishing the term "torture" or being insensitive to victims of actual torture by using it in the context of enhanced interrogations. Now, suddenly, you're sensitive to the term "warfare" being used when poor people want to eat the rich. I smell politically motivated inconsistency.

fan4ever
09-21-2011, 11:46 AM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.

I don't know why crap like this still surprises me...:facepalm:

go bowe
09-21-2011, 11:46 AM
eat the rich?

no way, they're much too fat to eat...

clogged arteries and all...

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:57 AM
You will acknowledge that Obama is actively promoting whatever you want to call this, right?

That's irrespective of the thread. You're attempting to change the subject.

You want to talk about redistribution of wealth, this is a thread about incendiary language about tax reform.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 11:58 AM
You didn't have a problem diminishing the term "genocide" or being insensitive to victims of actual genocide by using it in the contexts I mentioned (I'm assuming you used it). You didn't have a problem diminishing the term "torture" or being insensitive to victims of actual torture by using it in the context of enhanced interrogations. Now, suddenly, you're sensitive to the term "warfare" being used when poor people want to eat the rich. I smell politically motivated inconsistency.

Ad hominem.

If you're arguing that the phrase "class warfare" isn't incendiary, or that it is but who gives a shit, so be it.

If you're arguing that this is a non-issue because I'm a dickhead, that's a fallacious argument.

Donger
09-21-2011, 12:01 PM
That's irrespective of the thread. You're attempting to change the subject.

You want to talk about redistribution of wealth, this is a thread about incendiary language about tax reform.

Yes, it is about "tax reform" in the form of pitting "the rich" against "the not rich." And, taking more of their money from them in order to pander to the left.

That IS redistribution of wealth, and Obama's never been shy of promoting that as being his goal. If you want to call that "tax reform," so be it.

HonestChieffan
09-21-2011, 12:01 PM
tax reform=take from the rich with a smile

Donger
09-21-2011, 12:02 PM
Awesome.

Strawman? Check.

Ad hominem? Check.

You know it's coming...

Jaric
09-21-2011, 12:06 PM
Like I said, if you want to argue that the rich or poor or whatever class we're talking about are suffering from prejudice or discrimination, so be it.

But to suggest any class in America is undergoing a war from the others is silly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

Definition of WAR
1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end; a class war; a war against disease /thread

Calcountry
09-21-2011, 12:10 PM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.Fine, as long as we abolish the term, "fair share".

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 12:19 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

/thread

Thanks for re-posting that.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 12:24 PM
There's plenty of emotionally charged, incendiary language that you can demagogue with.

Out of respect for your brothers and sisters that actually have to endure ACTUAL warfare, we might want to consider retiring a term to describe taxes.

This is a classic example of leftists solving problems that don't exist. Who are you imagine is complaining about this? This pretend idea that soldiers are up in arms and frustrated that people are calling Obama's class war "class warfare" is silly.

JonesCrusher
09-21-2011, 12:30 PM
Reminds me of this

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

HonestChieffan
09-21-2011, 12:34 PM
When someone comes to your home to take what is yours, people tend to get defensive. Funny how that works.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Reminds me of this

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Was she referring to the kind of violence that her side, like the SDS and other radical groups, used for taking over property forcefully on campuses? Pot meet Kettle, Ms Pelosi, while you guys shoved Obamacare down our throats using the force and violence of govt, to take away our rights.

Jaric
09-21-2011, 12:36 PM
Was she referring to the kind of violence that her side, like the SDS and other radical groups, used for taking over property forcefully on campuses.

We call that a shovel ready fairness reassignment.

Why do you hate fairness BEP?

blaise
09-21-2011, 12:53 PM
That is exactly what it does, it would seem.

To you. I don't think that's true of many other people.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 12:54 PM
Yes, it is about "tax reform" in the form of pitting "the rich" against "the not rich." And, taking more of their money from them in order to pander to the left.

That IS redistribution of wealth, and Obama's never been shy of promoting that as being his goal. If you want to call that "tax reform," so be it.

It is a proposed reform of the tax system, is it not?

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 12:54 PM
I'm guessing Direckshun was all in favor of replacing "terrorism" with "man-caused disaster".

The thought police in action yet again.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 12:55 PM
Awesome.

Strawman? Check.

Ad hominem? Check.

You know it's coming...

A logical fallacy will be greeted by the declaration that it is a logical fallacy.

Red herring, by the way.

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 12:56 PM
In your opinion. As a socialist, I'd expect you to not like it though. But that wasn't a strawman. That's what he thinks of the request. That's allowed.


Well, you certainly should know what a strawman is, since nobody creates more of them around here than you.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 12:57 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

/thread

That's not the emotional punch of the phrase, though, and we both know it.

That's why the poor are "under fire," and the rich are undergoing "warfare."

The idea is to create the notion that tax reform of ANY kind is a war, comparable to the one our brothers and sisters are enduring overseas.

That's what it means to lose your perspective.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 12:58 PM
Fine, as long as we abolish the term, "fair share".

"Fair share" may be an objectional phrase to you, but it doesn't exact paint the idea that people supporting/opposing it support war.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 12:59 PM
This is a classic example of leftists solving problems that don't exist. Who are you imagine is complaining about this? This pretend idea that soldiers are up in arms and frustrated that people are calling Obama's class war "class warfare" is silly.

I've made my request for multiple reasons, one of which is out of respect for our brothers and sisters in combat. The others I have listed earlier in the thread.

blaise
09-21-2011, 12:59 PM
Seriously, Direckshun. This is kind of pathetic. I don't think very many people at all equate this with an armed military struggle where people are giving their lives.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:00 PM
I've made my request for multiple reasons, one of which is out of respect for our brothers and sisters in combat. The others I have listed earlier in the thread.

Partisanship, mostly.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:01 PM
It is a proposed reform of the tax system, is it not?

Please refer to the underlined part:

"Yes, it is about "tax reform" in the form of pitting "the rich" against "the not rich."

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:01 PM
To you.

Right.

Thus, the OP.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:01 PM
I'm guessing Direckshun was all in favor of replacing "terrorism" with "man-caused disaster".

The thought police in action yet again.

Swing and a miss.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:02 PM
That's not the emotional punch of the phrase, though, and we both know it.

That's why the poor are "under fire," and the rich are undergoing "warfare."

The idea is to create the notion that tax reform of ANY kind is a war, comparable to the one our brothers and sisters are enduring overseas.

That's what it means to lose your perspective.

Unless you know that someone equates the phrase class warfare with actual warfare, or that the speaker's intent was to do that, I don't know how you could presume to know their perspective.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:02 PM
Swing and a miss.

And there it is.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:04 PM
I don't think very many people at all equate this with an armed military struggle where people are giving their lives.

The person using the phrase "class warfare" is doing it for the same reason incendiary language is always used.

We've already had this conversation.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:04 PM
Please refer to the underlined part:

"Yes, it is about "tax reform" in the form of pitting "the rich" against "the not rich."

Right.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Right.

Thus, the OP.

My post that you quoted discussed what most people think when hearing the phrase, "class warfare." Not just you.
I said I don't think most people equate, "class warfare" with actual warfare. You said it seems that it does. I said, "To you."
I think you're having a bit of an overreaction to the phrase, "class warfare."

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Unless you know that someone equates the phrase class warfare with actual warfare, or that the speaker's intent was to do that, I don't know how you could presume to know their perspective.

Strawman.

That's not the argument I'm making.

I'm saying it's intentionally incendiary language, which I support refraining from in all circumstances.

This is just a really bald example of it, and I think it's doubly bad form considering it belittles the sacrifices our troops are making so that you and I can fart around on a message board.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:06 PM
And there it is.

I found long ago that it's the most succinct way to address someone grotesquely (and intentionally) misrepresenting my opinions.

I mean, seriously:

Requesting a refrain from a particular instance of incendiary language = "thought police."

This is the stuff cartoons are made of.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:09 PM
My post that you quoted discussed what most people think when hearing the phrase, "class warfare." Not just you.
I said I don't think most people equate, "class warfare" with actual warfare. You said it seems that it does. I said, "To you."
I think you're having a bit of an overreaction to the phrase, "class warfare."

Well to be fair, I don't care what most people think about the subject. And neither one of us have poll numbers based on what people think about with the phrase "class warfare."

If you have ANY poll numbers, show them. I haven't argued that "most people" agree with me or disagree with me. YOU have. So YOU have to support that notion. But you can't.

To me, a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, and incendiary language is a wrong. If most people do or don't think "class warfare" is incendiary, that doesn't affect its wrongness.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:09 PM
The person using the phrase "class warfare" is doing it for the same reason incendiary language is always used.

We've already had this conversation.

Again, you don't know if a person's perspective is that class warfare is the same as military warfare. So, to tell them they've lost their perspective is silly.
Yes, we've had this conversation, and the conversation seems to pop up when the so-called incendiary language is used by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you.
Which leads me to believe its less about the principle and more about partisanship.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:09 PM
This is the stuff cartoons are made of.

Hey, you chose to create this abortion of a thread.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:10 PM
Well to be fair, I don't care what most people think about the subject. And neither one of us have poll numbers based on what people think about with the phrase "class warfare."

If you have ANY poll numbers, show them. I haven't argued that "most people think" agree with me or disagree with me. YOU have. So YOU have to support that notion.

To me, a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, and incendiary language is a wrong. If most people do or don't think "class warfare" is incendiary, that doesn't affect its wrongness.

So, basically you're saying that because you personally are offended by the phrase and equate, "class warfare" with actual warfare people should stop saying it.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 01:20 PM
Swing and a miss.

That's the response you always use when you can't refute the argument, and you've been called out on that before.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:20 PM
Again, you don't know if a person's perspective is that class warfare is the same as military warfare. So, to tell them they've lost their perspective is silly.

Do you believe that incendiary language is a bad thing?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:20 PM
Hey, you chose to create this abortion of a thread.

And.

suzzer99
09-21-2011, 01:21 PM
Remember when you ask millionaires to go back to 1990s tax rates, that's "class warfare". But when you make a campaign plank out of asking the poor and seniors (IE - people who make <$20k, make no income, or seniors on SS) to pay more income tax, that's "broadening the tax base".

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:22 PM
So, basically you're saying that because you personally are offended by the phrase and equate, "class warfare" with actual warfare people should stop saying it.

Well I know for a fact that I'm not the "only one" that objects to it. I know that much.

But because it is purely incendiary, people should refrain from saying it.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:22 PM
Do you believe that incendiary language is a bad thing?

Is referring to the opposing political party as "the enemy" incendiary?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:22 PM
That's the response you always use when you can't refute the argument, and you've been called out on that before.

It's a response I use to save time from responding to intentional misrepresentations of my arguments.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:24 PM
Is referring to the opposing political party as "the enemy" incendiary?

I've had that discussion a few times around here. I tend to believe that it is.

Hell, I don't like it when football players call their opponents "enemies." So I obviously think it's a more egregious sin in politics.

FishingRod
09-21-2011, 01:25 PM
The tea bagger stuff is just namecalling. Who cares if someone calls someone else a mean name.

Labeling folks as terrorists, held hostage stuff... that's a valid point you bring up.

Actually my only real problem I have with Teabagger is the dishonestness (if that is a word) of it. It is a bit like calling someone a faggot smirking like a 5th grader and then claiming you mean they are a small stick or a cigarette.

A return to a more civil world would certainly be welcomed by me but, I just don’t see civility and politics colliding in a sentence very often.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:27 PM
Actually my only real problem I have with Teabagger is the dishonestness (if that is a word) of it. It is a bit like calling someone a pillowbitergot smirking like a 5th grader and then claiming you mean they are a small stick or a cigarette.

A return to a more civil world would certainly be welcomed by me but, I just don’t see civility and politics colliding in a sentence very often.

That's fair.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:27 PM
Well I know for a fact that I'm not the "only one" that objects to it. I know that much.

But because it is purely incendiary, people should refrain from saying it.

So, to summarize:

1) Referring to forcefully increasing the amount taken from one particular group's money in order to benefit another group is just peachy. That's a tangible, quantifiable ACT, BTW.

2) Calling that act "class warfare" is incendiary, even though I don't see any of the people who are the targets of this policy taking up arms.

Is that a good summation, Direckshun?

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:28 PM
Do you believe that incendiary language is a bad thing?

I don't answer your questions because I've found, when I do, you refuse to do the same when I pose one to you.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:28 PM
I've had that discussion a few times around here. I tend to believe that it is.

Hell, I don't like it when football players call their opponents "enemies." So I obviously think it's a more egregious sin in politics.

Fair enough.

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:30 PM
Strawman.

That's not the argument I'm making.

I'm saying it's intentionally incendiary language, which I support refraining from in all circumstances.

This is just a really bald example of it, and I think it's doubly bad form considering it belittles the sacrifices our troops are making so that you and I can fart around on a message board.

I don't see how it's a strawman. You're telling people they've lost their perspective. You don't know their perspective.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:30 PM
So, to summarize:

1) Referring to forcefully increasing the amount taken from one particular group's money in order to benefit another group is just peachy. That's a tangible, quantifiable ACT, BTW.

2) Calling that act "class warfare" is incendiary, even though I don't see any of the people who are the targets of this policy taking up arms.

Is that a good summation, Direckshun?

The good summation is in the OP.

This is a combination of strawmen and red herrings and inaccurate statements.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:30 PM
I don't answer your questions because I've found, when I do, you refuse to do the same when I pose one to you.

You refuse to say whether incendiary language is a bad thing?

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:31 PM
You refuse to say whether incendiary language is a bad thing?

See above.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't see how it's a strawman. You're telling people they've lost their perspective. You don't know their perspective.

Your language is a window into your perspective.

If we're going to say that language isn't a window into one's perspective, then there's really no purpose in this converation.

mikey23545
09-21-2011, 01:33 PM
If the poor were dragging the rich out into the streets and shooting them, that'd be class warfare.

No, Obama and his cronies inciting the poor to do so is also class warfare.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:33 PM
See above.

Time and time again in this forum, I have called several instances of heated, over-the-top rhetoric incendiary. "Class warfare" being the most recent example.

Every single time, you've gone to bat for the person performing it.

So either you believe that nothing is incendiary, or that incendiary language isn't that bad of a thing to begin with, or of course you're just disagreeing with me for fun because you're bored.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:34 PM
The good summation is in the OP.

This is a combination of strawmen and red herrings and inaccurate statements.

Which do you think is more incendiary?

1) Actually increasing the amount of money that is taken from a particular group because they don't pay their "fair share"?

2) Calling that policy class warfare?

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:35 PM
Your language is a window into your perspective.

If we're going to say that language isn't a window into one's perspective, then there's really no purpose in this converation.

"Class warfare" is just two words. People put that in their own perspective. You're saying when someone says, "class warfare" you have some sort of window into their perspective and can tell what their intent is, and not only that, but can tell their intent is to equate it with people engaging in an armed military conflict.
Ok.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:36 PM
Which do you think is more incendiary?

1) Actually increasing the amount of money that is taken from a particular group because they don't pay their "fair share"?

2) Calling that policy class warfare?

Irrelevent.

The existence of things that are perhaps more incendiary of "class warfare" doesn't make the use of that phrase de facto non-incendiary.

mikey23545
09-21-2011, 01:37 PM
If the poor were dragging the rich out into the streets and shooting them, that'd be class warfare.

You mother****ers are just too much. Only the liberals stoop low enough to use class warfare as a political tool no matter how much it harms the fabric of our society, and now you come up with some trumped up bullshit reason to keep anyone from talking about the fact you are using it...LMAO

As far as I'm concerned someone can drag your sorry asses out in the street and shoot you. You're <i>that</i> disgusting.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:39 PM
"Class warfare" is just two words. People put that in their own perspective. You're saying when someone says, "class warfare" you have some sort of window into their perspective and can tell what their intent is, and not only that, but can tell their intent is to equate it with people engaging in an armed military conflict.
Ok.

LMAO

I'm not criticizing the existence of the phrase. I've used it probably more than anybody in this thread. There have been times in human history when the poor or the rich have been actively targeted for violence. That's actual class warfare.

But when somebody is describing tax reform in our country in our day and age as "class warfare" on the rich or the poor, that's incendiary language and they should refrain from doing so.

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 01:39 PM
Well I know for a fact that I'm not the "only one" that objects to it. I know that much.

But because it is purely incendiary, people should refrain from saying it.why oh why...You can be such a cartoon

blaise
09-21-2011, 01:39 PM
I'll just say this. When I hear, "class warfare" I just think it's someone saying that one politician is villifying another class of people for political gain. It doesn't make me think of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, or veterans of other wars. It doesn't evoke images of military combat. It doesn't make me think there's a life and death struggle between politicians and classes of people. The thread seems silly.
I would guess most people have he same view. I don't know that, but I think it's the more reasonable reaction to hearing, "class warfare."
Again, if a veteran comes in and tells me differently, I'll accept their opinion.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:41 PM
why oh why...You can be such a cartoon

If you want me to leave, fire an infraction to a mod and make your case.

Until then, nice post.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:41 PM
Irrelevent.

The existence of things that are perhaps more incendiary of "class warfare" doesn't make the use of that phrase de facto non-incendiary.

Taking people's money is of course more incendiary. It's a tangible, quantifiable act. Strange that you think that is irrelevant. Perhaps it's only relevant if it suits your agenda, eh?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:42 PM
I'll just say this. When I hear, "class warfare" I just think it's someone saying that one politician is villifying another class of people for political gain.

At this point, we don't even know if you're aware what incendiary language is, or whether it's a bad thing. Because you step away when it's asked.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:43 PM
But when somebody is describing tax reform in our country in our day and age as "class warfare" on the rich or the poor, that's incendiary language and they should refrain from doing so.

Wait, are you actually concerned that either "the rich" or "the poor" are going to act physically based on this "incendiary" language (class warfare)?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:43 PM
Taking people's money is of course more incendiary. It's a tangible, quantifiable act. Strange that you think that is irrelevant.

LMAO

Irrelevant to the thread I've started. Not irrelevant to, you know, living life.

Baby Lee
09-21-2011, 01:44 PM
Drexyun - I think that it's pretty clear to all that the traction of the phrase is your central concern. I also think it's beneath you to cobble a fig leaf of 'for the troops' to cover your proposal's 'gentleman's sausage.'

People are facile and conversant in the distinction between a war of antagonism between groups, practices or concepts, and a war of bodily violence.

Further, they are facile and conversant in the semantic analogs between talk of warfare as antagonism, and 'mere' antagonism in the form of denigating appellations such as bigot, racist, rethug, libtard, commie, nazi, etc.

By all means, continue the good fight of formulating proposals to hamstring the vocabulary of your 'opposition' in the interest of reasonableness and civility. But I'd submit that all your exercise has accomplished is to engage people reading this to think further and deeper regarding the merits of viewing 'tax reform' as class antagonism.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:44 PM
Wait, are you actually concerned that either "the rich" or "the poor" are going to act physically based on this "incendiary" language (class warfare)?

Let me answer your question with a question.

Do you believe incendiary language is bad? Why (or why not)?

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 01:45 PM
You mother****ers are just too much. Only the liberals stoop low enough to use class warfare as a political tool no matter how much it harms the fabric of our society, and now you come up with some trumped up bullshit reason to keep anyone from talking about the fact you are using it...LMAO

As far as I'm concerned someone can drag your sorry asses out in the street and shoot you. You're <i>that</i> disgusting.


Overreact much?

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 01:45 PM
Irrelevent.

The existence of things that are perhaps more incendiary of "class warfare" doesn't make the use of that phrase de facto non-incendiary.You're bored today aren't you?

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:46 PM
LMAO

Irrelevant to the thread I've started. Not irrelevant to, you know, living life.

I don't see why it's irrelevant to either.

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 01:46 PM
If you want me to leave, fire an infraction to a mod and make your case.

Until then, nice post.Not wanting you to leave. Just a little love note to exemplify how stupid, irrelevant, ignoramus, PC and what a complete waste of time this thread is. You are a much more informative poster than what this thread indicates...

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:47 PM
Let me answer your question with a question.

Do you believe incendiary language is bad? Why (or why not)?

If no action is taken based on that incendiary language, no, not at all.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 01:49 PM
If you want me to leave, fire an infraction to a mod and make your case.

Until then, nice post.


Can you please be sensitive to our brothers and sisters in the military and not use the word "fire" like that. They are being fired on every day, and your use of the word only cheapens what they're doing. Plus our brothers and sisters in the fire department have got to feel a sense of disillusionment when you use the word "fire" in such a non-chalant way. They face the death and destruction of real fire every day, and when you use fire in such an insensitive way, you only serve to degrade the sacrifice that they make.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:49 PM
I think that it's pretty clear to all that the traction of the phrase is your central concern. I also think it's beneath you to cobble a fig leaf of 'for the troops' to cover your proposal's 'gentleman's sausage.'

I've listed numerous reasons that both deal and don't deal with our brothers and sisters in combat as to why we should avoid a phrase like "class warfare."

Incendiary language almost always has traction. It's the nature of the beast. It's more fun to talk about enemies and bad guys than good people who disagree.

People are facile and conversant in the distinction between a war of antagonism between groups, practices or concepts, and a war of bodily violence.

Further, they are facile and conversant in the semantic analogs between talk of warfare as antagonism, and 'mere' antagonism in the form of denigating appellations such as bigot, racist, rethug, libtard, commie, nazi, etc.

Uh, since when?

I'll agree that most people can see the distinctions. I'll say that a very good number of people can't.

By all means, continue the good fight of formulating proposals to hamstring the vocabulary of your 'opposition' in the interest of reasonableness and civility. But I'd submit that all your exercise has accomplished is to engage people reading this to think further and deeper regarding the merits of viewing 'tax reform' as class antagonism.

My exercise was pointless, but it turned into an interesting conversation on language and perspective that I've actually been enjoying with Donger and blaise. If it accomplished anything counter to my request, well, then nothing's really changed. The people replying with stuff like "brain police!" and shit weren't exactly on the fence to begin with.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:50 PM
You're bored today aren't you?

When I'm participating in DC, it's always because I'm bored.

I would submit that's why you're here to. Unless you actually siphon off parts of your week specifically to visit.

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 01:51 PM
For the record, I don't support Direckshun's initial post. It's silliness, in my book.

My question, however, as I see this thread develop, is why the right claims that asking the rich to pay more is frequently referred to as counter-productive and undemocratic "class warfare" while comments regarding, well, you name it -- welfare, reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating capital gains taxes, increasing taxes on (or extending taxes to) the poor is never referred to as "class warfare". Instead, it's "Fair".

The answer, of course, is that it's all spin. Try to hang labels that support your side while undermining the other side. So the right can go ahead and spin away, of course, but that doesn't mean the tactics aren't fairly obvious.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Not wanting you to leave.

You just posted a picture that says "you gotta go."

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 01:52 PM
You just posted a picture that says "you gotta go."Yeah, just added it for giggles. Like the Chiefs - No offense. Meant more this thread has "got to go"

Taco John
09-21-2011, 01:53 PM
For the record, I don't support Direckshun's initial post. It's silliness, in my book.

My question, however, as I see this thread develop, is why the right claims that asking the rich to pay more is frequently referred to as counter-productive and undemocratic "class warfare" while comments regarding, well, you name it -- welfare, reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating capital gains taxes, increasing taxes on (or extending taxes to) the poor is never referred to as "class warfare". Instead, it's "Fair".

The answer, of course, is that it's all spin. Try to hang labels that support your side while undermining the other side. So the right can go ahead and spin away, of course, but that doesn't mean the tactics aren't fairly obvious.


The answer is that there is no right to services.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:53 PM
If no action is taken based on that incendiary language, no, not at all.

As usual, you probably would have saved us 100 posts if you had come out initially to say -- "who cares if it's incendiary? There's nothing wrong with incendiary language."

Because then we'd be having a different conversation.

I came into this thing assuming you thought what I would assume most people think -- that incendiary language is bad.

But I was wrong. Probably wrong about blaise, too.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:54 PM
For the record, I don't support Direckshun's initial post. It's silliness, in my book.

My question, however, as I see this thread develop, is why the right claims that asking the rich to pay more is frequently referred to as counter-productive and undemocratic "class warfare" while comments regarding, well, you name it -- welfare, reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating capital gains taxes, increasing taxes on (or extending taxes to) the poor is never referred to as "class warfare". Instead, it's "Fair".

The answer, of course, is that it's all spin. Try to hang labels that support your side while undermining the other side. So the right can go ahead and spin away, of course, but that doesn't mean the tactics aren't fairly obvious.

You wouldn't characterize a phrase like "class warfare" to be incendiary?

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 01:54 PM
The answer, of course, is that it's all spin. Try to hang labels that support your side while undermining the other side. So the right & left can go ahead and spin away, of course, but that doesn't mean the tactics aren't fairly obvious.absolutely, corrected with the addition

Baby Lee
09-21-2011, 01:55 PM
Irrelevent.

The existence of things that are perhaps more incendiary of "class warfare" doesn't make the use of that phrase de facto non-incendiary.

Are you are arguing that it's irrelevant that the thing actually being proposed is prima facie more incendiary than criticism/identification of said proposal.

"Yes, we intend to shit on your chest, but in the interest of civility could you please refer to it as 'personal leavings bequeathal'?"

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:56 PM
Are you are arguing that it's irrelevant that the thing actually being proposed is prima facie more incendiary than criticism/identification of said proposal.

Because it is, to this thread, initiated in the OP.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:58 PM
As usual, you probably would have saved us 100 posts if you had come out initially to say -- "who cares if it's incendiary? There's nothing wrong with incendiary language."

Because then we'd be having a different conversation.

I came into this thing assuming you thought what I would assume most people think -- that incendiary language is bad.

But I was wrong. Probably wrong about blaise, too.

Please answer my question posed in #125.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 01:59 PM
Please answer my question posed in #125.

Okay.

Wait, are you actually concerned that either "the rich" or "the poor" are going to act physically based on this "incendiary" language (class warfare)?

Incendiary language has a score of poor consequences, the most extreme being that a nutcase will take it literally and act.

But that isn't the sole reason incendiary language is poor, nor the reason I started the thread.

Donger
09-21-2011, 02:02 PM
Okay.



Incendiary language has a score of poor consequences, the most extreme being that a nutcase will take it literally and act.

But that isn't the sole reason incendiary language is poor, nor the reason I started the thread.

Thanks.

And you don't think that stating that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" is incendiary, considering that "the rich" already pay the vast amount of tax revenue taken in this country?

Couldn't that incite some "poor" nutjob into action, too?

Baby Lee
09-21-2011, 02:10 PM
Thanks.

And you don't think that stating that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" is incendiary, considering that "the rich" already pay the vast amount of tax revenue taken in this country?

Couldn't that incite some "poor" nutjob into action, too?

Keep up, he's not concerned about all incendiary language. Just that language with present traction adverse to his partisan leanings.

Baby Lee
09-21-2011, 02:10 PM
Thanks.

And you don't think that stating that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" is incendiary, considering that "the rich" already pay the vast amount of tax revenue taken in this country?

Couldn't that incite some "poor" nutjob into action, too?

Keep up, he's not concerned about all incendiary language. Just that language with present traction adverse to his partisan leanings.


Irrelevent.

The existence of things that are perhaps more incendiary of "class warfare" doesn't make the use of that phrase de facto non-incendiary.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 02:32 PM
eat the rich?

no way, they're much too fat to eat...

clogged arteries and all...

A good marbling adds flavor.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 02:34 PM
Ad hominem.

If you're arguing that the phrase "class warfare" isn't incendiary, or that it is but who gives a shit, so be it.

If you're arguing that this is a non-issue because I'm a dickhead, that's a fallacious argument.

I think I made it clear what I was arguing. I'm arguing that you've been inconsistent and that that inconsistency makes me suspicious of your motives. As for the "request", I'd argue that the phrase isn't incendiary in the way that you propose and that people shouldn't give a shit about it.

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 02:39 PM
You wouldn't characterize a phrase like "class warfare" to be incendiary?


Not sure that it's incendiary. Think that's an overstatement. It's obviously a prejorative or whatever. It's designed to undercut a position just by slapping a label on it.

But no serious, intelligent person thinks that referring to something other than real war as "war" or "warfare", such as class warfare, the War on Drugs, etc., undermines or undervalues the efforts of the military in REAL war, or that it demeans the efforts of the military. To me, that's just silly.

Just as I don't think victims of the Nazis cared much about sending five rushers as the QB being called a "blitz."

I admit I'm far less "sensitive" than most, but it's pretty hard to get upset about those kinds of phrases being tossed around in another context that is less than deadly.

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 02:43 PM
absolutely, corrected with the addition


I acknowledge and agree with your correction. I said "the right" in that sentence not because I think only the right does it, but because in the particular case of "class warfare", that is spin done by the right.

But yes, both sides do it, or try to do it, with varying degrees of success.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 02:43 PM
You mother****ers are just too much. Only the liberals stoop low enough to use class warfare as a political tool no matter how much it harms the fabric of our society, and now you come up with some trumped up bullshit reason to keep anyone from talking about the fact you are using it...LMAO

As far as I'm concerned someone can drag your sorry asses out in the street and shoot you. You're <i>that</i> disgusting.

What he's doing here is attempting to exploit the Americans who are currently fighting wars and shedding their blood for their country in order to banish a phrase that works against his political interests. He's shameless.

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 02:45 PM
I've had that discussion a few times around here. I tend to believe that it is.

Hell, I don't like it when football players call their opponents "enemies." So I obviously think it's a more egregious sin in politics.


I think you're overly sensitive and/or take these types of phrases waaay too seriously.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 02:45 PM
What he's doing here is attempting to exploit the Americans who are currently fighting wars and shedding their blood for the NWO in order to banish a phrase that works against his political interests. He's shameless.

FYP

Amnorix
09-21-2011, 02:46 PM
eat the rich?

no way, they're much too fat to eat...

clogged arteries and all...


Well, I know some litigators that like to dine on fat cats. They seem to eat plenty well...


;)

patteeu
09-21-2011, 02:46 PM
Can you please be sensitive to our brothers and sisters in the military and not use the word "fire" like that. They are being fired on every day, and your use of the word only cheapens what they're doing. Plus our brothers and sisters in the fire department have got to feel a sense of disillusionment when you use the word "fire" in such a non-chalant way. They face the death and destruction of real fire every day, and when you use fire in such an insensitive way, you only serve to degrade the sacrifice that they make.

LMAO

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:07 PM
It probably has virtually no chance of reforming Direckshun's incendiary vocabulary, but what the hell.

Jaric
09-21-2011, 03:20 PM
That's not the emotional punch of the phrase, though, and we both know it.

That's why the poor are "under fire," and the rich are undergoing "warfare."

The idea is to create the notion that tax reform of ANY kind is a war, comparable to the one our brothers and sisters are enduring overseas.

That's what it means to lose your perspective.

No one is comparing the two situations.

Well, no one except you of course.

Huffmeister
09-21-2011, 03:21 PM
If you want me to leave, fire an infraction to a mod and make your case.

Until then, nice post.

Strawman.

He said nothing about wanting you to leave.

Edit: sorry, I see that point has already been hashed out.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:45 PM
Thanks.

And you don't think that stating that "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" is incendiary, considering that "the rich" already pay the vast amount of tax revenue taken in this country?

Because you disagree with the idea doesn't make it de factor incendiary. I don't agree with eliminating public education, but I'm not going to claim Ron Paul is being incendiary by advocating it.

It's when you start taking issues to the next level, implying that there is a WAR going on between the classes because Obama's advocating progressive taxation reform is incendiary.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:46 PM
Keep up, he's not concerned about all incendiary language.

Link.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:47 PM
I think I made it clear what I was arguing. I'm arguing that you've been inconsistent and that that inconsistency makes me suspicious of your motives.

Which, as I've made clear, is a fallacious argument.

As for the "request", I'd argue that the phrase isn't incendiary in the way that you propose and that people shouldn't give a shit about it.

k

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:48 PM
Not sure that it's incendiary. Think that's an overstatement. It's obviously a prejorative or whatever. It's designed to undercut a position just by slapping a label on it.

But no serious, intelligent person thinks that referring to something other than real war as "war" or "warfare", such as class warfare, the War on Drugs, etc., undermines or undervalues the efforts of the military in REAL war, or that it demeans the efforts of the military. To me, that's just silly.

Just as I don't think victims of the Nazis cared much about sending five rushers as the QB being called a "blitz."

I admit I'm far less "sensitive" than most, but it's pretty hard to get upset about those kinds of phrases being tossed around in another context that is less than deadly.

That's fair.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:49 PM
I think you're overly sensitive and/or take these types of phrases waaay too seriously.

Possible. I am very alert to rhetoric, particularly political rhetoric. It is an area I read and study very heavily.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:51 PM
No one is comparing the two situations.

Well, no one except you of course.

There's a difference between invokation (sp?) and comparison.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 04:51 PM
Strawman.

He said nothing about wanting you to leave.

He posted a picture telling me "I gotta go."

He has since then said that he meant it was in reference to the thread, not me.

Which is hardly clear, but whatever.

Donger
09-21-2011, 04:56 PM
Because you disagree with the idea doesn't make it de factor incendiary. I don't agree with eliminating public education, but I'm not going to claim Ron Paul is being incendiary by advocating it.

It's when you start taking issues to the next level, implying that there is a WAR going on between the classes because Obama's advocating progressive taxation reform is incendiary.

You apparently missed this question:

Couldn't that incite some "poor" nutjob into action, too?

Jaric
09-21-2011, 05:08 PM
There's a difference between invokation (sp?) and comparison.

You protest too much. It's the alternate definition of the word. No one is attempting to compare or invoke images of people shooting each other. The word "war" is often used in substitute of the word "struggle." As previously mentioned, it's an alternate definition of the word.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:23 PM
I'll just say this. When I hear, "class warfare" I just think it's someone saying that one politician is villifying another class of people for political gain. It doesn't make me think of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, or veterans of other wars. It doesn't evoke images of military combat. It doesn't make me think there's a life and death struggle between politicians and classes of people. The thread seems silly.
I would guess most people have he same view. I don't know that, but I think it's the more reasonable reaction to hearing, "class warfare."
Again, if a veteran comes in and tells me differently, I'll accept their opinion.

oooh oooh, call on me...

i'm a veteran...

patteeu
09-21-2011, 05:30 PM
Which, as I've made clear, is a fallacious argument.



k

What I think is pretty clear is that you don't understand what a fallacious argument is (or that you don't mind looking foolish in order to dismiss an inconvenient post without even attempting to counter it).

blaise
09-21-2011, 05:39 PM
oooh oooh, call on me...

i'm a veteran...

Ok, do you think people saying, "class warfare" demeans or trivializes your service?

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Ok, do you think people saying, "class warfare" demeans or trivializes your service?

no i don't...

but "class warfare" is a little incendiary...

maybe even a red herring...

on the other hand have you ever seen a red herring?

i mean, do they even come in red?

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 06:17 PM
You apparently missed this question:

Couldn't that incite some "poor" nutjob into action, too?

Anything could incite anything.

I would say incendiary rhetoric has a pretty torrid history. And I'd say it's clear that invoking language like "war" is of a higher emotional pitch than "fair."

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 06:20 PM
You protest too much. It's the alternate definition of the word.

The ideas aren't the same. One is making a direct connection between two items. The other is using the dogwhistle of one to power the other.

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 06:21 PM
What I think is pretty clear is that you don't understand what a fallacious argument is (or that you don't mind looking foolish in order to dismiss an inconvenient post without even attempting to counter it).

Nope, you're committing a fallacy.

Your original argument in this thread has been that the argument I'm basing my request on is invalid because the person pushing it (me) is doing so for partisan purposes.

Which, even if I was, doesn't make the argument invalid.

It's a classic ad hominem. And it's sexy as hell to a person not versed in logic. But we know better.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 06:21 PM
Anything could incite anything.

I would say incendiary rhetoric has a pretty torrid history. And I'd say it's clear that invoking language like "war" is of a higher emotional pitch than "fair."

i dunno...

seems like fair in connection with tax reform is of a higher emotional pitch around here...

the righties seem to go apoplectic when obama uses the word... :) :) :)

go bowe
09-21-2011, 06:23 PM
Nope, you're committing a fallacy.

Your original argument in this thread has been that the argument I'm basing my request on is invalid because the person pushing it (me) is doing so for partisan purposes.

Which, even if I was, doesn't make the argument invalid.

It's a classic ad hominem. And it's sexy as hell to a person not versed in logic. But we know better.

you better watch out...

they're gonna start calling you bep light...

Direckshun
09-21-2011, 06:25 PM
i dunno...

seems like fair in connection with tax reform is of a higher emotional pitch around here...

the righties seem to go apoplectic when obama uses the word... :) :) :)

Well, DC is basically a talk radio audience, so you have to adjust for it.

you better watch out...

they're gonna start calling you bep light...

I've had my lot thrown in with noswad and memyselfI before. What's another association going to do at this point? :D

booger
09-21-2011, 07:09 PM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.

Which is it? Mine or ours?

go bowe
09-21-2011, 08:14 PM
Which is it? Mine or ours?

yours, you piggletailed pervert...

Jaric
09-21-2011, 08:28 PM
The ideas aren't the same. One is making a direct connection between two items. The other is using the dogwhistle of one to power the other.

The example used in the bloody definition is precisely what you are referring to. I will post it again since it was apparently missed the first time.

a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end a class war a war against disease

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war)

go bowe
09-21-2011, 08:33 PM
see?

all the smart kids use repetition to get their point across...

patteeu
09-21-2011, 09:14 PM
Nope, you're committing a fallacy.

Your original argument in this thread has been that the argument I'm basing my request on is invalid because the person pushing it (me) is doing so for partisan purposes.

Which, even if I was, doesn't make the argument invalid.

It's a classic ad hominem. And it's sexy as hell to a person not versed in logic. But we know better.

Where did I say that that's what makes the argument invalid? The fact that your motives are impure is consistent with an invalid argument but I don't say that it proves the argument is invalid. The argument is baseless because it doesn't show any disrespect for our troops in the first place so retiring it wouldn't increase our level of respect.

Ace Gunner
09-21-2011, 09:41 PM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.


funny stuff.

SNR
09-21-2011, 11:08 PM
We should call it "class rape". That would be really funny

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:12 PM
We should call it "class rape". That would be really funny

If "class genocide" doesn't catch on, I'll settle for that.

mikey23545
09-21-2011, 11:50 PM
Next we should get the term "race card" thrown out of public discourse since so many have died in automobile races...

Joe Seahawk
09-22-2011, 12:23 AM
HI Direckshun! Keep up the good work!

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/09/pb-110920-wave-rs.photoblog900sm.jpg

LOCOChief
09-22-2011, 08:14 AM
Out of respect for your brothers and sisters that actually have to endure ACTUAL warfare, we might want to consider retiring a term to describe taxes.

My "brothers and sisters that actually have to endure actual warfare" Agree that the current administration is perpetuating class warfare.

I wish you libs would quit being such pussies, Oh and so do our brothers and sisters who are enduring "actual warfare".

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 01:08 PM
Remember when you ask millionaires to go back to 1990s tax rates, that's "class warfare". But when you make a campaign plank out of asking the poor and seniors (IE - people who make <$20k, make no income, or seniors on SS) to pay more income tax, that's "broadening the tax base".

Do you not see the rather stark difference? Asking those who already pay income tax to pay more does not "broaden the base" To broaden the base one must add people to the rolls of those who actually pay Federal Income Tax. That id dramatically different than adding higher rates to a specific group who is currently paying income tax.

And just an observation, as Im understanding the proposals from the administration, there is no focus on millionaires, its on households with income over $250,000.

Is there a proposal currently to tax seniors on SS? Many seniors on SS already pay income tax do they not? Is there a proposal to tax people with no income? That would be the ultimate in silly would it not?

Is there merit in those who make less than $20,000 to pay some small amount, say 3% of gross income over maybe $5000?

Calcountry
09-22-2011, 01:11 PM
"Fair share" may be an objectional phrase to you, but it doesn't exact paint the idea that people supporting/opposing it support war.Phew, that one flew over your head, didn't it?

You come in here, start a thread that attempts to control my freedom of speech. Then, in order to illustrate the utter stupidity of it, I asked you for an in kind reduction in your speech, that on its face would render the whole "class warfare" restriction mute.

Get it now?

As far as "Class warfare" being construed with a real blood and guts war, it is a straw man.

The real issue in your thread, is freedom of speech. I shall not surrender any more of my liberty to you leftists. Never.

go bowe
09-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Do you not see the rather stark difference? Asking those who already pay income tax to pay more does not "broaden the base" To broaden the base one must add people to the rolls of those who actually pay Federal Income Tax. That id dramatically different than adding higher rates to a specific group who is currently paying income tax.

And just an observation, as Im understanding the proposals from the administration, there is no focus on millionaires, its on households with income over $250,000.

Is there a proposal currently to tax seniors on SS? Many seniors on SS already pay income tax do they not? Is there a proposal to tax people with no income? That would be the ultimate in silly would it not?

Is there merit in those who make less than $20,000 to pay some small amount, say 3% of gross income over maybe $5000?

make it 3% of income above the poverty level with increased exemptions and you've got a good plan...

also, going back to the pre-bush tax rates is not really an "increase" in taxes in the greater scheme of things, and wealthier people didn't die when the rates were at that level...

Calcountry
09-22-2011, 01:36 PM
HI Direckshun! Keep up the good work!

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/09/pb-110920-wave-rs.photoblog900sm.jpgLive long, and prosper.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 01:46 PM
make it 3% of income above the poverty level with increased exemptions and you've got a good plan...

also, going back to the pre-bush tax rates is not really an "increase" in taxes in the greater scheme of things, and wealthier people didn't die when the rates were at that level...


Death should have no impact on taxes, that is just a way out for some.

patteeu
09-22-2011, 02:07 PM
Has Obama called off his class assassination teams yet?

Jaric
09-22-2011, 02:11 PM
Has Obama called off his class assassination teams yet?

Yes, but the financial investigative strike teams have not.

vailpass
09-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Direckshun has declared ass warfare on the Planet.

blaise
09-22-2011, 02:17 PM
I heard there was an Occupy Wall Street thing going on. How many tanks are there?

vailpass
09-22-2011, 02:19 PM
I heard there was an Occupy Wall Street thing going on. How many tanks are there?

Somewhere between 0 and 50,000 according to sources.

patteeu
09-22-2011, 02:20 PM
I heard there was an Occupy Wall Street thing going on. How many tanks are there?

The only important thing to know is whether any brown skinned people where hurt.

blaise
09-22-2011, 02:22 PM
Somewhere between 0 and 50,000 according to sources.

I read a story today about some of them saying the're staying there indefinitely. They quoted three different protesters, and all three gave their occupation as unemployed. Good thing they're not out there occupying an employment agency or anything.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 02:23 PM
I heard there was an Occupy Wall Street thing going on. How many tanks are there?

Been in the tank all day. Obama gave another speech.

blaise
09-22-2011, 02:23 PM
I sent a letter to Auburn University today because they say, "War Eagle" all the time. They're losing perspective on things.

vailpass
09-22-2011, 02:25 PM
I read a story today about some of them saying the're staying there indefinitely. They quoted three different protesters, and all three gave their occupation as unemployed. Good thing they're not out there occupying an employment agency or anything.

:doh!: Eugenics is an option we should at least consider.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 02:26 PM
Could we agree on class non war?

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 03:31 PM
Crazy Max needs to get in here....


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/maxine-waters-tea-party-550x298.jpg

(The Hill) — It’s time for President Obama to quit watching sports and drinking beer with his political opponents in the hope it will lead to a bipartisan agreement, Rep. Maxine Waters said Thursday.

The outspoken California Democrat needs to fight harder against the GOP and Tea Party and for Democratic policy priorities, outspoken Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

“He’s been very nice about it,” Waters said of Obama’s budget negotiations with Republicans.

“He’s been on the other side of the aisle talking with people. He’s invited them up to the White House to have beer. He’s invited them to come and watch the Super Bowl games.

“He’s done all of that, and when they eat his food and drink his beer and leave, then they go and try to kill him [on Capitol Hill],” she told an audience gathered for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference in Washington.

“You’ve gotta fight — you will not win this battle without fighting,” she added.

go bowe
09-22-2011, 03:41 PM
Death should have no impact on taxes, that is just a way out for some.

oh contrayre...

for the "rich" death has a large impact on taxes - the estate tax...

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 03:42 PM
oh contrayre...

for the "rich" death has a large impact on taxes - the estate tax...


rich never die, they get all the breaks

FishingRod
09-22-2011, 03:43 PM
I'm pretty sure we all paid for the food and beer

go bowe
09-22-2011, 03:44 PM
rich never die, they get all the breaks

must be the bush tax cuts that gave them immortality...

go bowe
09-22-2011, 03:45 PM
I'm pretty sure we all paid for the food and beer

dammit, i missed the free beer again... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 03:46 PM
a free beer here and one you buy at Arrowhead still averages $4. We need more free beer.

go bowe
09-22-2011, 03:58 PM
a free beer here and one you buy at Arrowhead still averages $4. We need more free beer.

rightoe, free beer needs more carries...

JonesCrusher
09-22-2011, 04:00 PM
Crazy Max needs to get in here....


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/maxine-waters-tea-party-550x298.jpg

(The Hill) — It’s time for President Obama to quit watching sports and drinking beer with his political opponents in the hope it will lead to a bipartisan agreement, Rep. Maxine Waters said Thursday.

The outspoken California Democrat needs to fight harder against the GOP and Tea Party and for Democratic policy priorities, outspoken Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

“He’s been very nice about it,” Waters said of Obama’s budget negotiations with Republicans.

“He’s been on the other side of the aisle talking with people. He’s invited them up to the White House to have beer. He’s invited them to come and watch the Super Bowl games.

“He’s done all of that, and when they eat his food and drink his beer and leave, then they go and try to kill him [on Capitol Hill],” she told an audience gathered for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference in Washington.

“You’ve gotta fight — you will not win this battle without fighting,” she added.

Our brothers and sisters will cry themselves to sleep after that incendiary language.

go bowe
09-22-2011, 04:02 PM
Crazy Max needs to get in here....


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/maxine-waters-tea-party-550x298.jpg

(The Hill) — It’s time for President Obama to quit watching sports and drinking beer with his political opponents in the hope it will lead to a bipartisan agreement, Rep. Maxine Waters said Thursday.

The outspoken California Democrat needs to fight harder against the GOP and Tea Party and for Democratic policy priorities, outspoken Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

“He’s been very nice about it,” Waters said of Obama’s budget negotiations with Republicans.

“He’s been on the other side of the aisle talking with people. He’s invited them up to the White House to have beer. He’s invited them to come and watch the Super Bowl games.

“He’s done all of that, and when they eat his food and drink his beer and leave, then they go and try to kill him [on Capitol Hill],” she told an audience gathered for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference in Washington.

“You’ve gotta fight — you will not win this battle without fighting,” she added.

try to kill him?

try?

don't teapartiers carry guns?

RNR
09-22-2011, 04:04 PM
Your request has the same chance as me requesting you to no longer be a shameless shill for the left. It has the same chance as asking the mods not to ban shitsprayer. You and him are much alike in your narrow viewpoints, however I will give you credit for not seeming to be a racist. Setting aside the fact you support the left who uses the race card as an everyday tool. You are as shallow as a tear drop and this phony attempt to be offended only shows you are shameless. You should really take a moral inventory kid. It is clear to most your shelves are empty~

Donger
09-22-2011, 04:51 PM
Hmmm.

"Now the Republicans, you know when I, I talked about this earlier in the week. They said 'well, this is class warfare.' You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay their fair of taxes. To pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I, I, I, I, I'm, I'm a warrior for the middle class. I'm happy to fight for the middle class,"

patteeu
09-22-2011, 05:02 PM
Has Direckshun stopped launching drone strikes on common sense yet?

Jaric
09-22-2011, 05:03 PM
try to kill him?

try?

don't teapartiers carry guns?

She also advocates fighting. I thought the democrats wanted to put an end to incendiary language.

Jaric
09-22-2011, 05:04 PM
Has Direckshun stopped launching drone strikes on common sense yet?

No, but he doesn't have any boots on the ground, so it's ok.

Chiefshrink
09-24-2011, 09:14 AM
This has virtually no chance of acceptance in this forum, but what the hell.

We might want to retire the phrase "class warfare" so long as we have something like 200,000 troops deployed in ACTUAL wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your brothers and sisters are occupying squalid countries so you don't have to, and they're having to dodge IEDs daily and some of them die almost every single day.

So the idea that the rich, the poor, the middle class, or anybody, is suffering "warfare" because they're being targeted in tax brackets... is not to have the best grip on perspective, I'd say.

If you want to make the argument that a class is being prejudiced against, or discriminated against, or unfairly targeted in your opinion... we can have that conversation.

But during times of war, the phrase "warfare" (as well as ALL war language) should be retired in respect to our brothers and sisters deployed for our protection.

Thankyou Mr. PC:rolleyes: