Author
No, Poe. What is truly ridiculous is the fact that you are claiming these regimes weren't dictatorships simply because they called themselves republics. They acted like no republic I recognize. They weren't governments ruled by the will of the people; they were governments ruled by the will of one person. Hence, dictatorships.
No matter how many formatting characters you use you're still wrong. What is a Soviet? What is the Supreme Soviet? What is the Council of Ministers? Who was in charge, the Premiere or the Presidium? Was the Premiere elected in the same way as the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
If Stalin was a dictator then so were FDR and Churchill. He wielded all that power because of the war. He held on to it for a while by keeping the Iron Curtain nations. He usurped power that didn't belong to him and was denounced by Nikita Khrushchev after his death and the period of de-Stalinization began. Stalin was elected by the Bolsheviks as part of a brokered deal to overthrow the provisional government that Stalin had, up until then, supported. He was an extremely ambitious opportunist who used the instability of a newly formed government and WWII to usurp as much power as possible from an elected position. He then used that power to break Soviet law and murder millions among his many, many crimes.
But none the less, at no time was he officially a dictator. He was a corrupt politician, a usurper, a murderer and a common criminal: but he was never a dictator.
I didn’t claim these regimes were dictatorships because they murdered millions of their own citizens. I pointed out those atrocities merely as evidence they were not republics in anything but name;
I didn't claim the lollipops tasted good because they were red. I merely pointed out that they were red to demonstrate that they couldn't taste bad. they were not governed by rule of law or the will of the people.
Well now, isn't that just always the rub with republics? Don't I hear millions of you conservatives claiming the federal government of the United States doesn't represent your will?
If they had been, it’s highly unlikely such atrocities would have taken place. Pretending they were anything like a republic because they chose to call themselves republics -- that is a red herring.
Because elected governments have never committed atrocities, right?
And just where did I claim Communism is always either bad or totalitarian, let alone based solely on the examples of Stalin and Mao? Right, I didn’t. You’re the one prone to making absolute statements like that. I do happen to think that, in the real world, communist regimes do tend to be both, Stalin and Mao being two prime examples. I could add the Eastern Bloc puppet regimes, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. Your reading comprehension hasn’t gotten any better.
My reading comprehension is bad because I was right? You were implying both, it wasn't much of a leap.
Wrong, again, Poe! I asked what you “thought” about the regime under Stalin (notice that little word “think” there in the middle of my question?). I already know the answer. I suspect you do, too, which makes your initial statement that “Communist governments are hardly dictatorships” an example of plain stupidity (unless I’m mistaken about your knowledge of the Stalin regime, in which case your statement is just an example of ignorance).
It was a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions by their very nature are burden of proof logical fallacies. So.....not wrong again. In fact, not wrong yet. But wait, I was wrong at the end of the last post. I talk about it below.
Well, no…you didn’t say flat out, “Chavez is not a dictator.” But you did contrast him with Kings David and Arthur – declaring them to be dictators. And you did say that communist regimes aren’t dictatorships. And you did say the world is too big for despots (whatever the hell the size of the planet has to do with that, I don’t know; you’ll have to elaborate on that one) and imply that Chavez isn’t one because he can’t “govern down to the municipal level” (although he certainly can through political appointees, etc.). So, yeah, you pretty much implied he wasn’t a dictator. But, hey, you seem to be thinking more clearly on that, so no worries.
To tell the truth, I don't know enough about the political infrastructure of Venezuela to know whether or not Hugo Chavez is actually a dictator. But that's not what I was saying there anyway. I was saying that he was just as responsible for the starving babies as the farmers. Not more, not less, exactly the same.
The population is too large for despotism to be effective. Is that better? I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Appeal to ridicule is another logical fallacy you know?
Yes, I can infer they were not.
So let's see. I ask, "do you know?" And you reply, "yes, I can infer."
KNOW:
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb
1 : to have knowledge
2 : to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech
INFER:
1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply
2 : guess, surmise <your letter…allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W. Holmes †1935>
3 a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought b : to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him — Shakespeare> <another survey…infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves — H. R. Chellman>
4 : suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
Before Chavez’s price controls, those farmers were selling their eggs and sugar and those products were readily available to the public. That means the prices were such that the public was able to buy those items at a price the farmers were willing and able to sell and still make a reasonable profit. See how that works?
Corruption may be the norm, but that usually affects the government.
Corruption may be the norm, but that usually affects the government.
All I see is you making assumptions. A reasonable profit? Do you have figures? Do you know it wasn't an unreasonable profit? Do you know they were readily available to the public. Or are you simply trying your hand at effective writing?
No need to explain; I know what one is and I’ve seen enough of them from you to last a lifetime. Now, how is your point straw man? Well, because you make an assumption that “republicans like [me]” have been okay with dictatorships as long as they’re not leftist dictatorships (I’ll put aside for a minute your confusion between “Republican” and “republican” and your mistake about my party affiliation); I don’t know any republican, conservative or person like me (let alone me, personally) who is okay with any dictatorship of any ilk. So, yes, you’ve certainly presented a distorted version of what I believe and what I understand most conservatives like me believe.
Presenting a distorted version does NOT make it a straw man argument. One has to then ATTACK that distorted view at the points of distortion to disparage the original, undistorted view.
A republican who is ok with right-leaning dictatorships? How about George W. Bush? How about George H. W. Bush? How about Ronald Reagan? Let's not play this stupid game. The Republican party has long supported dictatorships around the third world. I would LOVE to pull all the American troops out of the Middle East and let the Arab dictators fen for themselves.
You are a republican (regardless of how you chose to register). You don't capitalize fisherman because someone belongs to a fishing association. It's not a proper noun unless you are referring directly to the membership in the group. It's not grammatically necessary to do so.
No, that is substituting your own personal bias for substantive evidence. I’m sure you believe what you say to be true, but that hardly makes it so.
Give me a break. This line isn't worth arguing. If you are different, fine. That's good. But you would be different. The vast majority of the Glenn Beck audience would gladly turn rule of this country over to someone they believed willing to promote their fanaticism.
What you have proven is that you are as biased as you have always been and you still mistake those biases for any real proof or fact. I can assure you, when it comes to dictatorships, “left” and “right” are meaningless to me (and to every conservative I know). On that issue, the spectrum doesn’t run from left to right anyway. The spectrum runs from totalitarianism to anarchy with what you call left-leaning and right-leaning dictatorships occupying the same position – on the side of totalitarianism. Calling one dictator left-leaning and another right-leaning is a political distinction without a difference; they are both dictators and I have no love or affinity for either.
You and I as well as most thinking humans display our biases. That proves nothing except that we are products of society. Yes, I'm biased. So are you. We wouldn't be here arguing if we weren't.
You see, you were right to call me a “republican” (little “r”); I do believe in that form of government. Should I assume you don’t since you excluded yourself from that group? Or should I assume you really meant I am a “Republican” (big “R”, as in member of that party)? I am not; I’m a registered Democrat, as I’ve said before. Now, you’ve made it clear you dispute that claim. Why? Is it because my opinions differ from yours? Aren’t you the one who is always claiming “your party” is open to all positions? Why, then, would you dismiss the possibility I could belong to such a diverse party?
Again, this is dumb. It's up to the writer if they grant proper noun status to a member of an association. I prefer to use republican and democrat as political descriptors rather than to show membership to a group. The fisherman example is not perfect but I'm sure you get the point. Police Officer John Smith is a member of the Sarasota Police Department. He is a police officer.
Now, how about you? Aren’t you displaying the same double-standard that you claim I and other conservatives display? You don’t seem to have much of a problem with Chavez, a left-leaning dictator. But you do have a problem with the Saudis, right-leaning dictators. Don’t you get tired of projecting like that?
Twice now I've called him a baby killer. Would you like me to kick his mother? Would that convince you?
So, let me see. As you see it, I’m presenting a distorted view of my own position in order to disparage what original point? That Chavez is a dictator? That there is a history of communist regimes that were dictatorships in spite of the fact they called themselves republics? No, my friend, I haven’t distorted anything. Not my position on Chavez. Not my understanding of the nature of the Stalinist and Maoist regimes. Not my distaste for any dictatorship or totalitarian regime – be it left-leaning or right-leaning.
You're right, it's not a straw man argument. I should have said it was a red herring. But if you assert that you're opposed to all dictatorships then I will take you at your word. But I intend to remember that declaration.
Logged
?? NOT FEASIBLE...it is not.
