50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

In every poll you looked at that I linked, do self-identifying Democrats outnumber self-identifying Republicans over the course of time?

Yes or no?

That's the basic concept, the core claim, the fundamental statement.

So, yes or no?

No. That's why I questioned it to begin with, before you got all evasive and goalpost - moving.

Is "over the course of time" more of those weasel-words you mentioned a few pages back? 'Cause I see no "over the course of time" in the original claim...

a reply to: nenothtu

So now it's an attack to point out that you were suddenly unwilling to post links to my posted claims?

I'm sorry you feel attacked when someone points out the truth to you.

You listed Marx with a list of 20th century dictators. Yes or no?

Yes, you're so intimidating Tilly. I am terrified.

/titter titter giggle

Can we agree on Merriam-Webster Online then?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an adjective (ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ənLink to Source

: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed

So, show me how Karl Marx "controlled the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed."

I'll wait.

a reply to: nenothtu

How far do you want to break it down then? Talk about moving goal-posts!

Do you want to poll by the day? the minute? the second?

You yourself noted the fluctuating nature of the polling week to week ... so if we're looking for a general statement, a summary, an overview of what is really going on, what other way can that be discovered than "over the course of time"?

Answer a question please. Do the data from the Gallup polls show that more people identify as Democrats than as Republicans OVER THE TIME REPRESENTED ON THE GRAPH or not?

Don't change the question, don't critique it, don't sidestep it. Is that what the data say?

Just to clear things up. Fascism is extreme right. Communism is extreme left. Both generally have totalitarian aspects as they are extremes.

The mark of communism is businesses and institutions run by the state for the benefit of the proletariat (in theory, it benefited the communist party members in reality). The mark of fascism is the government being run by or at least in cooperation of businesses and institutions for the benefit of those in power.

Communist governments hand the orders down the line. Fascist governments base decisions on corporate needs and input. Hitler was in bed with the corporations and such. Stalin just showed up to rape them and order them around.

My definition is very very flawed but calling fascism leftist is silly. Fascism is extreme right by any credible definition.

a reply to: tavi45

Fascism is extreme right by any credible definition.

Impossible.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

So now it's an attack to point out that you were suddenly unwilling to post links to my posted claims?

Say what? I posted the link - and quoted it too, for good measure! What ARE you trying to claim now?

I'm sorry you feel attacked when someone points out the truth to you.

What "truth"? You seriously think I'm a "cowboy"?

You listed Marx with a list of 20th century dictators. Yes or no?

Me: No.

You: Yes.

You see, it was YOU who applied "dictator" to the list - evidently so you could evade it, and just concentrate on Marx. I listed communist icons. What you tried to make of that list is on YOU.

Can we agree on Merriam-Webster Online then?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an adjective (ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ənLink to Source

: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed

So, show me how Karl Marx "controlled the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed."

I'll wait.

You know, I wondered why you failed to provide a link for your definition, and so went and looked it up myself to help you out.

(but see edit below - my bad)

here you go.

totalitarian


[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uh n]


adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
noun
3.
an adherent of totalitarianism.

After I read it, I pretty much saw why you balked at providing the link or the full definition...

Yes, Marx was a "totalitarian" - an adherent of totalitarianism. He preached it for most of his life.

ETA: I My bad - I missed the link earlier.

So let's go with the FULL definition from YOUR link:

Full Definition of TOTALITARIAN
1
a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2
a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
c : exercising autocratic powers

2a - "advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism". Yes, Marx was STILL a totalitarian - an advocate of totalitarianism.

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

fascism
Syllabification: fas·cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaSHˌizəm /
(also Fascism)
NOUN

1An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

SYNONYMS
1.1(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

a reply to: xuenchen

I assume that's genuine. Your emoticon use makes everything seem sarcastic . Someone in here called fascism left so thought I'd clarify :p

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

How far do you want to break it down then? Talk about moving goal-posts!

Do you want to poll by the day? the minute? the second?

You yourself noted the fluctuating nature of the polling week to week ... so if we're looking for a general statement, a summary, an overview of what is really going on, what other way can that be discovered than "over the course of time"?

Answer a question please. Do the data from the Gallup polls show that more people identify as Democrats than as Republicans OVER THE TIME REPRESENTED ON THE GRAPH or not?

Don't change the question, don't critique it, don't sidestep it. Is that what the data say?

No.

That is the only answer that can be given if you want to restructure the statement that way, and prevent reference to the original statement. You are building a box to fit your assertion AFTER the fact, rather than supporting your initial claim. it's not ME "changing the question" - it's you restructuring it to fit your premise. It's not ME "sidestepping", that would be you.

so, NO.

a reply to: nenothtu

How quickly you forget. You were only going to post "my claims" when I went back and posted "your claim" about Marx.

Then, of course, you went ahead and posted my link anyway. At least you're consistent in your BS.

Well, now, how to counter a stunningly generalized phrase like "He preached it for most of his life."

I'm willing to bet you've never read The Communist Manifesto, have you. How about Capital?

Have you read ANYTHING that Marx actually said?

Don't bother to answer, you wouldn't tell the truth anyway.

Look it up on Wikipedia. Marx and Engels' political theories greatest goal led to the "withering of the state." In a state of pure socialism, there is no need for a state. That is one of the fundamental messages of Marxism.

Destruction of the state does not exactly fit with any definition of totalitarian or totalitarianism, huh?

Not Leninism, not Stalinism, nor Maoism, etc. which definitely WERE totalitarian in nature.

That's why Marx does NOT belong on your list.

originally posted by: nenothtu

No.

1. Thank you.

2. That's a lie.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

How quickly you forget. You were only going to post "my claims" when I went back and posted "your claim" about Marx.

Negative. You never posted "my claim about Marx" - you posted YOUR claim of what I said, and then utterly failed to back it up from my own words.

AND successfully evaded answering the initial question altogether. You may have a future in politics after all.

Then, of course, you went ahead and posted my link anyway. At least you're consistent in your BS.

You have failed to demonstrate how my post of your assertion was "BS". Just making the claim does not make it so.

Well, now, how to counter a stunningly generalized phrase like "He preached it for most of his life."

I'm willing to bet you've never read The Communist Manifesto, have you. How about Capital?

Have you read ANYTHING that Marx actually said?

Don't bother to answer, you wouldn't tell the truth anyway.

They were required reading. Also Huxley, Orwell, et cetera.

Look it up on Wikipedia. Marx and Engels' political theories greatest goal led to the "withering of the state." In a state of pure socialism, there is no need for a state. That is one of the fundamental messages of Marxism.

Destruction of the state does not exactly fit with any definition of totalitarian or totalitarianism, huh?

Not Leninism, not Stalinism, nor Maoism, etc. which definitely WERE totalitarian in nature.

That's why Marx does NOT belong on your list.

Ah yes, the stunning "but you just don't understand true communism" argument!

I hear that a lot from kids these days, since all they DO understand about it is what their teachers told them in school.

Back to your books then, and good luck with your Brave New World.

Don't expect it to be ushered in without a hitch, though - maybe you can evade long enough to see it through.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: nenothtu

No.

1. Thank you.

2. That's a lie.

Ah.

I'm a liar now.

No matter - I've been called worse by better.

You don't get to completely overhaul your argument, and then call others "liars" based upon your reconstruction of it to fit what you want it to say now rather than what it said when you made it.

Given the fact that the response was basically "we do not have to file these registrations by any deadline," it is pretty obvious that this was done on purpose.

a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, that's not what happened. My claims were clear. From the beginning.

You spent page after page trying to muddle the evidence I presented and the question.

I reduced the question to the most basic form, for which the evidence is inescapable.

I nailed you down despite your attempts to wiggle every way but loose.

And the answer you gave was a lie.

Now, I specifically didn't call you a liar, because I don't know you.

What you think of "me" and what I think of "you" is immaterial.

I only know what you've done here.

And that all came down to a very overt, obvious and distinct lie.

But hey, what does it matter? Our whole discussion carried on for page after page is off-topic.

Ridiculously so. So claim victory.

You and I are done.

a reply to: tavi45

Just to clear things up. Fascism is extreme right. Communism is extreme left. Both generally have totalitarian aspects as they are extremes.

And I already explained it. You apparently do not like Sutton's explanation. I am guessing because it doesn't fit into the narrative certain people have put out. Jonah Goldberg wrote the book, "Liberal Fascism", wherein he exposed the leftist roots of the Totalitarian movement which was fascism. You see, all kinds of people in the US embraced fascism during the early start of it. Goldberg states in his book that Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was the first fascist President of the US. If you look at some of the things he did when he was in office, you will see the police-state like pattern. Liberals today like to project this fascist history on to conservatives because they want people to believe that they themselves are the tolerant ones, the ones that espouse free lifestyles and inclusive things like civil rights. Well, they have espoused certain things, like abortion on demand and amnesty for illegals. But is amnesty really for the benefit of illegals or is it just more voters for the Democrat Party.
In fact it was Republicans who fought for the end of slavery. So it is really a misnomer that fascism is an element of conservatism on the right.
Conservatives today want Constitutionalism and liberty. They want less intrusive government. So how can that be when liberals claim that conservatives are fascist Totalitarians? It is all a projections, but it is the Progressives in the Democrat Party who are the Totalitarians who want a Nanny State, who want to control what our children eat for lunch....we all know how well that's going for MO, it's Progressives who tell us bills have to be passed before we can see what's in them. It's Progressives who crafted the Patriot Act(thank you very much Joe Biden), its Progressives who pushed TSA groping, Progressives who told us we have to buy health insurance or pay a fine and be subject to harassment, it's Progressives who are doing all these things in the name of the good of the collective. It's also called Collectivism. It's always for our own good. And they will stomp us in the faces with their boots if we don't comply.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, that's not what happened. My claims were clear. From the beginning.

Yes, they were. They were VERY clear, from the instant you made them, all the way until you started trying to change them. I even had to re-post them to refresh your memory. It seems not to have taken.

You spent page after page trying to muddle the evidence I presented and the question.

Is that what you call it when YOU are evading? You try and blame that on someone else in any way you think can? You really ARE a "progressive", aren't you? You spent page after page evading even the most basic questions, electing instead to pounce on meaningless drivel of your own creation and hope that no one noticed...

I reduced the question to the most basic form, for which the evidence is inescapable.

Otherwise known as "restructuring" and "moving the goalposts" - you should have had your question right to begin with, then you wouldn't have had to do that in a cover-up bid.

I nailed you down despite your attempts to wiggle every way but loose.

Nether of those ever happened in any place other than your own mind. In the matter of "wiggling loose", however, you may be suffering from what is known as "projection" - if you mean "being evasive" by "wiggling loose".

And the answer you gave was a lie.

it was the only answer possible given your shiny new question, and apparent disregard for the original statement. That is not a "lie" - lies involve untruth and prevarication, neither of which was present. I submit that the dishonesty was in trying to change the statement to begin with.

Now, I specifically didn't call you a liar, because I don't know you.

Riiight... because "lies" come from some other source than "liars"... that must be some more of that "new math".

What you think of "me" and what I think of "you" is immaterial.

That is correct.

I only know what you've done here.

I'm pretty sure you do - evidently admitting it right out loud is something else altogether. You have a really hard time admitting things in general, don't you?

And that all came down to a very overt, obvious and distinct lie.

Edited - originally I thought you were trying to call me a liar for the 3rd time, but re-reading what you say here, I cannot dispute - I can only deny that it emanated from me, which claim you don't really make here. It's quite obvious that there was a "very overt, obvious, and distinct lie" involved. I called it out several times, with no answer, just evasion.

But hey, what does it matter? Our whole discussion carried on for page after page is off-topic.

Ridiculously so. So claim victory.

You and I are done.

You're right, there. We are.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

It's always for our own good. And they will stomp us in the faces with their boots if we don't comply.

For our own good, of course... and that of the collective, of course... which they somehow see as the same "good", which I find odd.

Oh! and "the children"! Don't forget that it's "for the children"!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not at all. In fact, I was just acknowledging your self-announced culture and deep intellectual thought.

Look everyone here can see how you have been ridiculing, so please stop trying to be coy. Yes, in fact I'm pretty cultured. You cannot make personal judgements like that just because you think that someone is a right-wing nut based on certain criteria which is made up by political hacks and parroted in the media. This is why I call people out on that. You continually make silly statements about me based on your interpretation of the national narrative.
It's like how the Progressives made fun of Sarah Palin for having had to go to more than one college to get her degree. People's lives change due to circumstances and no one has that right to judge others for that, or for not having parents wealthy enough to send them to the best Ivy League schools. In fact liberals bashed GWB saying he wasn't smart so he must have got into Yale a different way. And that is probably true that he got help getting into Yale, because the Elites do that you know. It's cronyism at it's best, and the liberals do it just as much as the Republicans.
So the liberals then turned around and said Palin was too stupid to go to an Ivy league school and oh my goodness she had to go to more than one school....blah blah blah yadda yadda you know the drill.
So that is a constant narrative with people who themselves are the intellectual snobs, the ones who say that middle class America is too uneducated, that they never have left their towns to go abroad and so forth. Perhaps that's really just a throwback to the 18th century when upper class people went abroad to get European culture.
Well going abroad and the like is sure what got us the John Dewey form of pedagogy in our educational system. Yes, Dewey was a Statist educated in Germany who brought us Totalitarian style education. Antony Sutton also explains all about that in his book, "How the Order Controls Education".
So look, you can be coy and ridicule all you want with that snobbish elitist attitude. You misjudge people when you do that.
By the way I do know how statistics work. There is room for error. Polls have to be scientific or they lose their truth. Anyone can walk into a mostly Democratic neighborhood, ask them questions about their affiliation, and then voila it looks like Democrats are a majority. Unless you go into all the Republican neighborhoods as well, you will not get an accurate reading.
Democrats all know this. Someone in here was talking about how the GOP is gerrymandering the voting districts. Well, of course they may be doing that, but the Democrats are the real experts at this!!!!!! More projection. Democrats are trying really hard to turn red states blue. You know this, but you probably will not admit it. It is happening here in my state. It's a "cowboy" state. So why all these liberals here in my little cowboy town changing the mayoral form of local government to a hired city manager which cannot be voted out by the public? Oh well, Margot Kidder has a residence here if that tells you anything. The liberals here are very Agenda 21 oriented. There's a lot at stake here where land has been declared a World Heritage Site. I have been to the planning meetings where they hired professionals from the University to come and do the Delphi technique to manufacture consensus on giving the government more power over private property and land use. Straight out of freaking Agenda 21. I have noticed who was on the side of big government, and it was always the Progressives. Now I see people who were in that meeting are the Democrats who are running for office here who use terms like "Sustainability". Yes, straight out of Agenda 21.
If you don't know what I am talking about, then please get your head out of your Ivy League mentality and all your little graphs and polls which have been skewed at best to suit the globalist agenda, and find out what is really going on.

Sooooo anyway, cultured indeed, and well informed. I could give you a list of all the cultural things I've experienced, including an authentic Japanese Tea Ceremony. In the city where I grew up, they have an annual Japanese festival in the Botanical Gardens. It is a very famous garden created by someone in the 19th century, and there's even a historical home on the property. And a geodesic dome as well. So in the Japanese garden created by Buddhist monks, they have a Tea House where they conduct tea ceremonies. It's quite an elaborate ritual.So you see, you just can never know the cultural experiences of another person.
There is something to be said for the old cliché walking a mile in another's shoes.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is all just personal BS, but I'll risk another off-topic post to address some of your stated issues here, because it seems that you're actually trying to communicate rather than just cut and paste continual misrepresentations and lies.

You stated that you were cultured; I repeated it. No smilies, emoticons, wink-wink-nudges of any kind.

Where is the ridicule? Where is the personal judgement you say I made?

If you believe I meant something other than I said, then I respectfully submit that's in your own mind.

I said what I said and I didn't say what I didn't say. Isn't that part of the basic social contract?

So my statements about your beliefs, based on the arguments you make, the terminology that you use, the argumentative "strategies" you deploy ... are unfair ... but it's okay for you to group me and others with Progressives, to claim that all Democrats are liars and cheats, to imply that your thought and expression is so complex that I couldn't understand it ... those are all okay because you do it???

You don't see any disconnect there? Really?

Let me summarize some of your next parts: "all liberals are intellectual snobs who judge people unfairly."

Right?

Now, perhaps you might react to this: "all conservatives are superstitious louts who try to control other people's lives while pretending to be interested only in personal freedom."

I'll just bet you think the first statement is patently true (mostly because you essentially said it) and that my statement is completely unfair, is personally attacking, is just mean and I'm a poo-poo head for saying it ... right?

Again, you experience absolutely no cognitive dissonance there? Really?

I'm going to make my first real personal statement about you, rather than just about your posting style, at the risk of upsetting you further. Ready?

I think you're basically a good person, as many of us are. I think you listen to, watch and read basically one kind of media, and I'll bet it's easily identifiable as right wing. I think you're assimilated so much of that ... media ... into your awareness and sense of self, that now, repeating all those catch phrases and loaded language just feels like the most natural thing in the world. I bet you're pretty strongly religious, and you just feel like the world is going to hell around you. And I bet you don't like to lose arguments to whipper-snappers on the internet who just think they're so danged smart.

/shrug That's what I THINK ... take it for what it's worth, no offense.