What I find most interesting about the impeachment coverage, though is that nobody is bringing up the biggest thing that makes impeachment a total losing proposition for the GOP:
They can't remove Obama before his term is up
you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
Is exactly what I'm trying to get you to do.
I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
You - incorrectly, I will again point out - offered the Nazis as examples of socialists. That certainly meets the criteria of
compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism
Particularly when you were trying to group all socialists together, does it not?
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude. National Socialist German Workers Party. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Own it.
I did not state that you were calling me a Nazi. I stated that you, in desperation, explicitly brought up the Nazis in your comments.
The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country.
If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - which is completely inaccurate. As I have stated multiple times now over the past several days, politicians can place whatever words they want in their (or their party's) description, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.
Quite honestly, if you wanted to discussion socialism, you would just abandon this distraction. You opt to bring it up fairly regularly instead. I presume that is a result of the fact that you know quite nearly nothing about socialism and for some reason take pride in that fact.
"How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them. "
Or none of them. The ones democracies participated in, were started by dictatorships invading their neighbors.
It may be that we are using different definitions of war. I include the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars started by democracies. If you want to exclude them due to the fact that the US did not declare war (and indeed it is well known that we haven't done so since WWII) then you might be closer to accurate in your statement.
But even if you add up all the dead in all the wars of the last 200 years- you're still at only a fraction of the 56 million that we've lost to abortion in America alone since 1973.
What does that have to do with anything? That number on its own is also meaningless as it tells us nothing of how long those 56 million would have lived had they not been aborted; that number almost certainly includes the termination of non-viable fetuses.
"How many wars have been waged by actual socialist countries - not just ones who were playing with words - in the past 200 years? Almost none of them."
By playing with words, do you mean the ones who have actually claimed to be socialist?
Exactly the opposite. The countries that some people have been failing again to label as socialist - based on only their use of the name in their PR - are not socialists in any meaningful way.
"Hell just the number of people that our democracy has killed in war in the past 15 years is likely larger than the total number killed by all the military actions of all actual socialist states in the past 200 years."
Hmm, larger than the 15 million Stalin killed outright?
Stalin was not a socialist. Period.
Your average modern war kills a few hundred thousand tops.
We still don't know how many have been killed in our war in Iraq. We have only a general idea of how many have been killed in our war in Afghanistan.
Mostly because as a general technical rule I don't trust my balls with private institutions unless they're highly regulated
If you go in for Lasik but they end up operating on your balls, I think there's a real problem there.
That might be overly discounted discount LASIK, probably the kind done in a van with a laser pointer. I would not advise taking up that offer.
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so
But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage
Only someone as arrogant as you would claim themselves as a source. Just because you use a word in a particular way does not mean that your use of the word is correct.
In fact, your repeat butchering of the English language is the common thread throughout this discussion (at least, since you injected yourself into it). There really isn't any reason to respond to anything else you wrote in your latest comment as everything you wrote was just more drivel in your futile attempt to twist and distort the English language under nothing but the force of your own will.
But go ahead, take the last word. We both know you're wrong, and we both know your ego won't allow you to walk away from yet another discussion where you have managed to make yourself look like a total buffoon without getting in the last word (even if it is also wrong). Say what you will, you didn't have a point when you started and I don't expect you will later either.
"Democracy has a body count many orders of magnitude higher than socialism."
Only if you take abortion into account.
How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them.
How many wars have been waged by actual socialist countries - not just ones who were playing with words - in the past 200 years? Almost none of them.
Hell just the number of people that our democracy has killed in war in the past 15 years is likely larger than the total number killed by all the military actions of all actual socialist states in the past 200 years.
Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used.
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so - but the dictionary is a generally agreed-upon source for the meanings of words. And as I demonstrated, the definition that is given by one of the most commonly cited dictionaries of the English language agrees with me and not you. Your hatred of facts is - again - noted.
Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point
Wrong. It means that the dictionary needs to be updated. You have not yet however demonstrated your interesting alternate use of the word "democracy" to be used by anyone other than yourself, hence your attempt to replace the dictionary is - like pretty much every argument you have attempted to present counter to the facts that I have presented here over the past several years - a complete failure.
And too bad you didn't look at that same dictionary for "socialism," because under that entry, you see definitions that well-describe the Soviet and Chinese regimes of the 20th century that you say are not socialist. So by your own logic, you proved yourself wrong.
I see that you didn't bother to present that definition. Did you actually look it up there or are you just pretending to have done so? Considering how much you openly despise the dictionary (likely as part of your war on facts and truth), I rather highly doubt that you looked up anything there.
Democracy is people voting for their leaders.
False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively
It appears to be - again - you versus the dictionary.
a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
So you fail again.
As Publius wrote in Federalist 10
Too bad he didn't refer to a dictionary, or he could have known what democracy actually means.
But voting for your leaders is not.
Except it is. I'd ask you to stop lying but that would be a futile request.
there are plenty of socialist regimes in this world.
There are plenty of countries with socialist leanings, but none that you have mentioned in this discussion so far (for that matter one you mentioned not only was not socialist but is not an extant government at all at this time).
It only seems that way to morons like you. Really.
I'm sorry that your inability to read has lowered you so quickly to slinging silly insults at me. Try reading some time, it might help you to some day present an argument of your own.
For someone who likes to bitch incessantly about politics, your knowledge is sorely lacking.
Literally no one agrees with you on this, no matter their opinions of my beliefs.
Now you're making shit up out of thin air, that you could never even hope to try to support. Hell, the length of your perma-hate list would be a good place to start looking for other people who can vouch for the lack of knowledge you routinely exhibit on matter of both national and international politics.
I can tell you're trying to hurt my ego
Your ego is fragile as you've already demonstrated by lowering yourself so quickly to silly insults. I don't need to do anything special to hurt it, as it is hurt gravely just by the presentation of facts.
by attacking my intelligence and knowledge
If you had demonstrated either I would happily have a discussion with you. Instead you demonstrate neither and offer up hatred in their place.
crap, you caught me in a lie again
I was just thinking (you might want to try this sometime, it might help you look a bit less silly in your comments here) that it had been a while since you had last come in a few layers in to a conversation to accuse me of lying. Welcome back.
Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism
I'm sorry that you struggle so mightily with facts.
even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century
If only there actually were socialist regimes in either case, you might have a point. Unfortunately anyone who knows what socialism actually entails knows that you are dead wrong. Not that this is surprising.
Well, there's never been a True Democracy either
Democracy is people voting for their leaders. You can make an argument for their being different degrees of democracy, but there are plenty of democracies in this world including the country you currently live in (unless you finally moved away from the USA).
In other words your attempt to make an argument on "True Socialism" : "True Democracy" is completely without merit (as usual). For someone who likes to bitch incessantly about politics, your knowledge is sorely lacking. I suspect even newsmax.com has more knowledgeable commentators than you (I guess you'll need to look for work somewhere other than there after your unemployment runs out).
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
Just as I cannot force you to read what I write, I cannot force you to read what you write, either.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.
Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism
You can use whatever words you want in naming your political party. That doesn't mean you actually reflect the beliefs associated with those words. There are plenty of obvious contradictions both in the present and in history between party names and party actions.
However, history plainly demonstrates that neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were actual socialists by any meaningful definition of the term. It's no different from the fact that the libertarians in this country generally don't give a shit about liberty, or that the Tea Party is not actually against imperialism.
rejecting Pres'ent Obama when he refers to "my Christian faith".
I read your statement multiple times and it still in unclear what you are after in that one. I suspect you intentionally wrote it for that purpose.
I'm certainly lacking the divine database to evaluate the claim, and thus must take the Nazis, Soviets, and Obama at face value.
That's just stupid. If Dick Cheney and George W Bush grouped up to run for president under a party called "Constitutionality and Peace" would you believe that they were interested in those aims because of the name? Of course not.
I like how you have so thoroughly embraced the idea of grouping all the people you hate under the same tent now, too. You don't acknowledge any differences between people who are different from you. You try to define all their characteristics as being 1000% interchangeable.
The most important early product on the way to developing a good product is an imperfect version.