That's the case once again with the latest post on this exchange, "Again with the Class Warfare." There's no need to even cite any passages, because this is the kind of guy who will invent a new reality upon every entry, since he lacks the dignity or integrity to simply admit that someone's offered a more powerful chain of logic. Folks who read Dr. Hussein will shake their heads, especially since the blather that's proposed is offered as "serious" Democratic Party talking points.
Here I'll just link to David Brooks' essay this morning, "A Moderate Manifesto," and his passage on the class warfare agenda being foisted by President Obama and his extreme, take-no-prisoners fiscal policy:
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.Keep in mind that this is coming from Brooks, who was recently critical of Bobby Jindal and the GOP rebuttal to Obama's presidential address. Note too that Brooks is not loved by Rush Limbaugh and heartland conservatives, so it'd be hard to attack Brooks' identification of Democratic class warfare as pure "winguttery."
Nope, the fact is that Democratic class warfare is a self-evident truth that even moderate "intellectual" conservatives have no problem attacking. But stayed tuned for another iteration of denialism from the freak Dr. Hussein.
More at Memeorandum.
3 comments:
Not only a Class War....a War on America, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and Capitalism.
Donald? You didn't even PRETEND to offer a rebuttal here. All you've done is point to one other person who believes that taxing the rich more than the poor is class warfare. But as I've said repeatedly, you believe the same thing. So does David Brooks. So does Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure if I know of ANYONE who thinks the rich should pay as much as the poor. So how can you claim it's class warfare when Obama uses the same tax theory that you, Brooks, and Limbaugh use? I don't know. I keep raising this point, yet you keep ignoring it and asserting yet again that your argument is self-evident. So self-evident, apparently, that you can't even explain it. Brilliant.
And just so it's known: Brooks is a Republican and a conservative. Is he as conservative as Rush? No, but he's still a moderate conservative Republican. How does quoting him prove anything? But of course, you could quote Noam Chomsky asserting that Obama's using class warfare and it wouldn't change anything. You still need to explain your position or you lose.
This is pathetic. Not only have you not offered an argument, but every "rebuttal" you make only confirms my initial argument. I said that you guys can't defend your premise of "class warfare" and you've only confirmed that. You can't explain it. And that's what I said in the beginning. And your only response is essentially "I assume that this is class warfare because I assume this is class warfare." To call that illogical would assume there was even a pretense to logic to it.
Look, I didn't ask you to debate me and if you can't show up with an argument, you really shouldn't have shown up at all. Again, unless you want to explain the basis for your assumption, you lose. It's that simple.
Here's my response to your update:
Admitting Defeat on Class Warfare
And just in case you're still as irony-impaired as you used to be, I'll be nice and warn you that this does involve quite a bit of mockery; so if you read it literally, you'll look like an idiot.
And again, if you expect to score points in a debate, you have to address what your opponent is saying. Otherwise, you're not really giving a rebuttal; you're just wanking off. And while that might impress your conservative friends, reality-based people will only mock you for it. I'm telling you, at least TRY to summarize what you think I'm saying. Because I seriously don't think you understand a word of it and it's making you look really stupid.
Post a Comment