Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Labeling Obama "conservative" is a "no true Scotsman" play 72

Journal by smitty_one_each
One of my favorite /. rivers of effluent enjoys contending that Pres'ent Obama, in spite of every straight-line Progressive/Democrat/Socialist play in the feckless rodeo clown's book, is a "conservative".
This /.er seems to contend that, as the owner of the definition of Socialism, (s)he can refute the empirical truth that Obama's collapse into authoritarianism is the inevitable end-state of sucking all power into the State.
An example of the kind of derangement of which I speak (to paraphrase) is: "Obama must be a conservative, because if John McCain had won in 2008, McCain would have signed the Affordable Care Act with gusto."
Conversely, the empirical reality that Obama's magical thinking (e.g. that the mere repetition of the word "jobs" would beget employment) which would work if Obama were actually a Socialist, has failed, so Obama must no be a Socialist.
I guess my /. buddy, by demonstrating such intellectual clutter, underscores h(er|is) personal Socialist purity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Labeling Obama "conservative" is a "no true Scotsman" play

Comments Filter:
  • You are butchering the No True Scotsman fallacy with reckless abandon.

    The original example of No True Scotsman is along the lines of "No true Scotsman would ever commit (heinous act)". The important thing to keep in mind is that being a Scotsman is not defined by (lack of) willingness to commit such an act, but rather it is a cultural / ethnic identifier that one is born with.

    However a political affiliation is something that one chooses for oneself, and is based on your own beliefs (essentially the s
    • Reagan was a free market liberal.

      • Reagan was a free market liberal.

        In comparison to Obama, perhaps.

        However if you want to champion that idea, then it leaves another question. If Reagan was not conservative, then we have never had a conservative president - why is that? Why is it that in 200+ years of our country we have never had a conservative president, and why would that be a good idea now?

        We have certainly never had a socialist president in this country, and we cannot convince enough people that it would be a good idea to try it. Why would a conservative pres

        • "In comparison to Obama, perhaps."

          I was thinking more in comparison to Pope Leo XIII.

          "However if you want to champion that idea, then it leaves another question. If Reagan was not conservative, then we have never had a conservative president - why is that?"

          Because the basic idea of America, individual liberty, is an idea that is more progressively liberal than anything anybody else in the world has ever tried.

          "Why is it that in 200+ years of our country we have never had a conservative president, and why wo

    • Your attempt at a rebuttal, itself, reinforces my point. Thanks for staying beautiful. The fallacy has nothing to do with the Scot; it has everything to do with a speaker moving the line of inclusion in order to keep a tautology "intact".
      Pres'ent Obama is Socialism with the mask off: an aristocrat using bureaucracy to herd people.
      • Your attempt at a rebuttal, itself, reinforces my point.

        Not if you actually read my response. I know that is not part of your standard M.O. any more.

        The fallacy has nothing to do with the Scot; it has everything to do with a speaker moving the line of inclusion in order to keep a tautology "intact".

        You're half right. The No True Scotsman fallacy indeed does not require a Scot. It does, however, require classifying someone based on something that does not relate to their actions. You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions. The fact that you keep trying to shove that square peg into that round hole indicates you don't understand the actions of th

        • You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions.

          You're attempting to manage "understanding of their actions" to move the line: this is the heart of No True Scotsman. Again, you climb out of the pit and do a swan dive back therein; pardon me while I enjoy a hearty guffaw.

          • You are attempting to classify someone into a category that requires an understanding of their actions.

            You're attempting to manage "understanding of their actions" to move the line

            No. If you wanted to classify Obama as, say, a Kenyan, you would not need to evaluate his actions (but rather his heritage). However in order to classify him as a member of a political group you do. You are trying to associate with him a political movement that you have both a demonstrated animosity and ignorance towards.

            Hence No True Scotsman does not apply. You can keep pretending otherwise but the fact of the matter is that it does not.

            • He was elected to be a Socialist Savior. His mask has slipped, and he stands revealed a rank thug. You've repeatedly, desperately, fanatically tried to label him "conservative".
              I'll quit laughing at your dismay that the veneer has come off of Socialism, in its existential realization, if you agree to drop the farce that Obama exhibits even the tiniest shred of commitment to the conservative values of individualism, fiscal sanity, public modesty, and minimalist government.
              • Oh, now you throw in "public modesty" into your primordial soup. Does this mean no more private jets and helicopters, backless dresses, diamonds, and gold trinkets for the obscenely rich?

                individualism, that's funny as hell. Please, your "conservative values" are simple, natural *might makes right*, just like every other wealth/power craving alpha type. You just want it your image.

                • your "conservative values" are simple, natural *might makes right*, just like every other wealth/power craving alpha type.

                  Well, you're about half right. Conservativism recognizes the fallen nature of man (in the Acton sense of all power corrupting, not necessarily the theological sense of The Fall), and sets about putting checks and balances in place to minimize the side effects, i.e. the 1787 Constitution.
                  A century ago, Progressives rejected the idea of those proper checks on power, and thus they
                  (a) froze the size of the House,
                  (b) neutered the States as political objects (Amend. 17),
                  (c) set the stage for Lois Lerner (Amen

                  • You've fallen! And you can't get up!

                    Stay in your hamster wheel there, buddy. We need the power.

                    • If the alternative is the sort of complacency you seem to espouse, then I'll keep doing what I do.
                    • *sigh* Still at it... You'll always be a rookie, kid

                    • I just love the way you're NOT at it with the whole burned out sensei schtick.
                    • You're taking this way too personally, and you keep on reasserting incorrect assumptions over and over. It has nothing to do with the price of rice, and if you actually believe them, well, more's the pity. This is strictly business. You know, your nice natural capitalism at work. The "Fallen Man", trading bananas for for tick and flea removal. Don't look for anything that's not there. Just enjoy the bananas.

                    • Oh, believe me, I do. We did 2Thess1 for Sunday School today. You focus on what's ultimately true, and let all these crapflooders here under the sun stand and deliver before the Judge, which they will.
                • Sorry, one had been considering Pres'ent Obama's near Tourettes level usage of the personal pronoun when writing that.
              • He was elected to be a Socialist Savior.

                No. He was elected to be president, as a liberal democrat. He is arguably the latter but inarguably a failure at the former.

                His mask has slipped

                So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

                You've repeatedly, desperately, fanatically tried to label him "conservative".

                There is nothing desperate or fanatical about evaluating events that have actually happened for what they actually are.

                I'll quit laughing at your dismay that the veneer has come off of Socialism, in its existential realization

                The Lawnchair Administration has not proven anything - in any direction - about socialism. Nor

                • So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

                  I'm modeling Socialism as an aristocratic con job, with a fine plantation for the slaves to work their part-time jobs, and a layer of bureaucratic hooey (entitlements) on top. Hypocrisy implies (at least) two layers.

                  • So you admit then that he is not a socialist? If the "mask has slipped" that indicates you see that he is not fulfilling his promises (a statement I would agree with).

                    I'm modeling Socialism as an aristocratic con job

                    What would it take to get you to stop moving the goal posts? You've now moved them so much that you are contradicting your own earlier statements. For some reason, that doesn't seem to bother you.

                    a fine plantation for the slaves to work their part-time jobs

                    You don't seem bothered in the least by how this blatantly contradicts your earlier assertions about socialism. Perhaps this is why you proudly and intentionally remain ignorant on the topic, to comfort yourself when you say such things.

                    Hypocrisy implies (at least) two layers.

                    You've shown you can be a hypocrite just fine on your own... Here I will

                    • You accuse me of contradiction, without explicitly stating where you find me contradictory.
                      Your only real strategy seems to be "all accusation, all the time".
                    • You accuse me of contradiction, without explicitly stating where you find me contradictory.

                      The particular contradiction here is that you have unleashed a new de novo model of socialism where you are claiming it to be all about oppression. Last time you claimed it was all about giving away money for nothing. Those two are incompatible.

                      Of course as you prefer to be maximally ignorant on the topic I would expect no less.

                    • claiming it to be all about oppression. Last time you claimed it was all about giving away money for nothing. Those two are incompatible.

                      A perfect example of the cognitive dissonance at work is "ObamaCare bending the cost curve down. [politifact.com]"
                      In general, every one of these socialized policies (again, you can point to abstract Socialist theory All. Flipping. Day. Long.--I'm discussing empirical results here, boss.) produces the opposite of its stated intent. You can claim that raising the minimum wage [creators.com] is going to help low-wage workers? PROVE IT, Mike Foxtrot. You can't, because it doesn't.

                    • A perfect example of the cognitive dissonance at work is "ObamaCare bending the cost curve down."

                      Like any other conservative, President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say. You aren't doing even a marginal job of discrediting my statement of Obama being the most conservative president to date in our country.

                      In general, every one of these socialized policies (again, you can point to abstract Socialist theory All. Flipping. Day. Long.--I'm discussing empirical results here, boss.)

                      What you are applying here is circular reasoning. You are claiming that policies signed by Obama are socialist because you falsely believe Obama to be a Socialist. You are not discussing empirical results, rather you are discussing your own distorted view of reality.

                      A

                    • ...President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say.

                      No, dude: that's not how it works. You can't criticize me for calling Pres'ent #OccupyResoluteDesk a no-talent rodeo clown, and then sit there and agree with the point with this line of drivel.
                      He's either the godforsaken President, or, as I think you're saying, he's just a useless placeholder, and I'm giving him every bit of the respect he's earned, and you can just lay by your dish and quit defending the loser.

                      What you are applying here is circular reasoning.

                      Let me proffer a clarifying question: how is Socialism not statism?

                      As I have already stated, you cannot show me a conservative president who has ever served who would not have signed the HIIBA 2010 act into law.

                      As history and facts will sh

                    • ...President Lawnchair was saying what his owners were telling him to say.

                      You can't criticize me for calling Pres'ent #OccupyResoluteDesk a no-talent rodeo clown

                      I can when you call him that from one side of your mouth, while the other side is simultaneously claiming that he is in the process of launching us immediately and irreversibly into a totalitarian socialist nightmare state. A clown is thoroughly incapable of doing such a thing, period. I'm not criticizing your silly "rodeo clown" bit but rather pointing out that it flatly contradicts your bit about him being a fascist mastermind.

                      He's either the godforsaken President, or, as I think you're saying, he's just a useless placeholder

                      So why can't you pick just one? Hell, why can't you even stick to just one

                    • After the dust is settled, I hope you have occasion to read over some of your drivel from this time period, and, in that day, laugh with the rest of us at your shrill, impotent attempts at disowning Pres'ent Obama.
                    • Wait, which side of the argument are you trying to take here? Two messages ago you again reached for your tired and baseless accusation of me "defending" President Lawnchair. Now you claim I am "disowning" him instead.

                      It is noted that you again abandoned your entire argument and responded to not a single question. I'm sorry that i have angered you so.
                    • You defended him by voting for him, you dummy. Twice, was it? Sheesh!

                    • You defended him by voting for him, you dummy.

                      I voted for him because it was better than voting for someone who wanted me unemployed.

                      That said, I would not consider it the same as "defending" him, and it does not appear to be what smitty was referring to, either. After all, if that was it then all I would have to say is "I will never vote for President Lawnchair for POTUS again" and he should be happy. Instead he is going for some sense of "defending" that is vastly more obtuse.

                    • So, you voted for him for money. But you still voted for him. A better defense could not be offered. And you're just playing a victim card. Your dependency is noted. All your blabbering is just a lot of bs, very similar to your, um, counterpart here.

                      And do try to leave your "wasted vote" routine at the door.

                    • So, you voted for him for money

                      I voted for him because with him I had at least a meager chance of keeping my job. He does not pay my job himself, but others want people like me permanently unemployed. I do not expect him or anyone else to give me something for nothing.

                      A better defense could not be offered.

                      That makes no sense, whatsoever. I openly and repeatedly disagree with basically every piece of legislation that President Lawnchair has signed. I repeatedly point out that he has been the most conservative president to date in our country's history.

                      And you're just playing a victim card.

                      Victim of what, e

                    • You have to understand that fustakrakich's game could be summarized as: "T'was ever thus. I am become the Olympian Pot Stirrer: behold my stream of Yoda-isms."
                      Whereas you opt for the Rosseauian hooey, f (usually) affects a more hyper-materialist flavor of nonsense.
                    • Your rationalizations are bullshit, and you're just playing stupid games here. I'll leave that circle jerk to you and Smith. Your "disagreement" with the president's policies mean nothing when he has your vote. It couldn't be simpler. You are just so full of it.

                    • We live in a material world, babe. What goes in Vegas stays in Vegas...

                      I am become...?

                      Oh, and what's that brand of demons and wizards nonsense that you've been pimping all this time? I mean really, using your lord's name to prop up your empire of the "lesser evil". That's not very nice.

                    • you're just playing stupid games here.

                      Stupid games like not wanting to be unemployed? Stupid games like wanting to be able to take care of my family financially?

                      Your "disagreement" with the president's policies mean nothing when he has your vote.

                      One, you only vote for a president every four years. Voting once does not indicate that you endorse everything that person does after you vote for them - especially when they do essentially none of what they campaigned to do.

                      Second, had I voted for anyone else I would have been aiding the aspirations of someone who wants me unemployed.

                      It couldn't be simpler.

                      And you could hardly be more wrong or less lo

                    • Voting once does not indicate that you endorse everything that person does after you vote for them - especially when they do essentially none of what they campaigned to do.

                      And so you voted for him again! Apparently you will never see the stupidity in that...

                      Second, had I voted for anyone else I would have been aiding the aspirations of someone who wants me unemployed.

                      Such moronic bullshit the crap you make up...

                    • Wut?
                    • I have told you this before, and I am telling you this again. I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do. I had to choose between a candidate who plainly stated he would torpedo my career and one who did not. There was no other choice as a vote for any other would only end up working against me.

                      Now, I will concur that the results have been different from the promises. One could say that Lewis Black had it right in Stark Raving Black [goodreads.com]:

                      "I don't know if you've noticed, but our two-party system is a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror."

                      Now, if you want to try to make an argument that

                    • I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do.

                      There is always that whole "track record" thing, which is why I think guys like Scott Walker suck a bit less than other candidates.

                    • Your political sect is absolutely no better than Mr. Smith's. You are every bit as tribal about your affiliations and are gonna stand your ground...

                      I vote for the candidate based on what they say they will do.

                      Obviously.. a fatal flaw of your very narrow vision.

                      You complain, and then ask for more of the same. Is this some S&M kind of thing you have?

                    • Oops! Forgot to close a tag...

                      I am not aware of anything prior to 2008...

                      A good indication that was the year of your birth.

                      You obviously were not paying attention to where his money came from and the powerful alliances he kept that were grooming him for the job. You still believe in the fairy tales that a politician represents the voters and not the backdoor money that puts them in your face.

                    • This verb would imply far more competence than the phoned-in piece of work currently cluttering the Oval Office.
                    • In away, your superiority pose is as much as sham as Obama's blame pose: you both offer shag-all in the way of viable alternatives. Personally, I think that the Convention of States, in about 10 years, is going to be the horse to ride. Don't let my .000 batting average dissuade you on this. :-)
                    • Scott Walker

                      Ahh, yes. If the Teflon Candidate (TM) set your heart aflutter back in 08 and 12, then the Kevlar Kandidate should really get you going. Cast much in the same mold, the Kevlar Kandidate manages to turn many of the Teflon Candidate's most memorable traits up to 11:

                      • Proven and repeat animosity towards the working class
                      • Repeat and blatant disregard for the state's largest city (you know, where all those non-wealthy people live)
                      • Contempt towards public transportation
                      • Hatred towards DC
                        • With some added bonuses as
                    • Is smitty and d_r actually the same person talking to himself?

                      Yes [youtube.com]

                    • You are still in your little box. Everything is working perfectly smoothly. Everybody's performance has been top notch.

                    • What "superiority" are you talking about?? The truth is absolute. You yourself are saying that the time. The simple fact is that you guys are just fanbois. You're taking this professional wrestling soap opera seriously. You want to identify with the actors..

                    • "No' so fast," said Ambassador Stevens.
                    • Can it get any better than that?

                      I'm sure you could come up with some equally valid assertion that Walker drop-kicked someone's pet, as well.

                    • Stay beautiful, man.
                    • Can it get any better than that?

                      I'm sure you could come up with some equally valid assertion that Walker drop-kicked someone's pet, as well.

                      I'm not sure how to parse that statement. Are you saying that you are against something that Walker has been openly favoring, or are you taking a new stance in favor of kicking small animals?

                      Being as you already replied to my JE on the Kevlar Kandidate [slashdot.org] I don't see a reason to re-post the sources (not that you likely read them from there either).

                    • "Who's he?", says Mr. Moneybags..

                    • Eh, your standard CO these days... I can dig

                    • You're right; my time limit on this frippery is ~10 minutes. But if you're in Wisconsin, you really should peruse http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
                    • "What difference, at this point, does it make?" inquired Her Majesty.
                    • She works for Mr. Moneybags. Tell me why she should care. As always you're blaming the puppets for a bad show. Your cult of personality and mass media kool-aid will forever dominate the conversation.

                    • This US was never secular, and what the hell is it going to "recover" from? Everything it does now goes back to the earliest days....

                      I'll tell you what it can recover from. The damn government can start doing its own paperwork, instead of making us do it. The IRS should do my taxes, and just send me my refund. I shouldn't have to declare a damn thing, and the only thing I should sign is the check, and good day, sir! Same goes for my other earned benefits...

                    • Actually, I agitate for escaping the cult of personality, for all I think Living Colour is a great act.
                    • You're right; my time limit on this frippery is ~10 minutes.

                      Is that your standard response to any sourced material? I will say that the Communist Manifesto is short but does take more than 10 minutes to read through. That might also explain how you manage to occasionally post links to material that actually refute your preferred conclusions, if you give up on them after only 10 minutes of reading.

                      But if you're in Wisconsin, you really should peruse http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

                      Most of what I see there is the same kind of nonsense that reaffirms for me that it is a good idea to not use facebook. I didn't see anything on there in the first pag

                    • Bleh... just another brick in the wall.

                    • . . .of Voodoo.
                    • Indeed, I really should read the Communist Manifesto. [Lights off Kindle on 'Droid phone. . .] Wow, free as the Bible. We'll see if it's as useful. I'll try to get in a page or two before I go into the office every day.
                      "history of class struggles" Really? I'll suspend my disbelief, but I think "class" has precious little to do with mankind's existential woes. Clearly, though, this has been an effective sales pitch, in the "credit where due" department.

                      it is a good idea to not use facebook

                      Yeah, better stick to MySpace.

                    • Indeed, I really should read the Communist Manifesto.

                      Wow, did I finally manage to persuade you to actually read and learn? I'm not quite on par with these guys [imgur.com] but with the great wall of resistance you have constructed to keep learning away, I feel like I (may) have made a great breakthrough here.

                      That said, I'll have to wait and see if you show any understanding of the text or if you give up on it.

                      Wow, free as the Bible.

                      I'm quite sure I mentioned a few times that you can read it for free.

                      We'll see if it's as useful.

                      Would you consider someone who has not read the Bible in any way, shape, or form to be a

                    • ...that you do

                    • When a man could discriminate who he hires or how he treats his workers (again, see slavery), that's when you get the greatest economic benefit.

                      Ah, okay, you want to regress back to classical antiquity. Here's a little secret for ya, we never left.

                    • Oh, I thought you were making a joke about a Blogger blog being FaceBook, and so I was playing along with the MySpace gag.
                    • ...on a Mexican radio.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...