Michele Bachmann: Spectacle or Prophet?

[Neosutra]

In the free market people will buy cheap, quality responses and the market will regulate itself.

Fucking awesome response that is responsible for my keyboard being covered in coffee lol.

And this is my favorite quote from Lief so far:

..Since liberals don't believe in God..

Because you're not really a christian/muslim if you're not a radical insurgent or ultra conservative clinic bomber right..? Never seen anyone use the reverse "no scottsman" argument in a political debate on conservative ethic prejudice and religious segregation..

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Fucking awesome response that is responsible for my keyboard being covered in coffee lol.

And this is my favorite quote from Lief so far:



Because you're not really a christian/muslim if you're not a radical insurgent or ultra conservative clinic bomber right..? Never seen anyone use the reverse "no scottsman" argument in a political debate on conservative ethic prejudice and religious segregation..

haha sorry about that!

[Elvis]

This is like saying I can't look up on Wikipedia what an apple is.

I am taking issue with your idiotic conclusions. Not with the data in and of itself.

There are plenty of horrible things the Christian Right has done that does not involve the more 'hands-on-approach' to their activism.

You cannot draw the conclusion that Islamic extremism is more extreme from your rigged premise.

In fact, I think this is an example of the logical fallacy of 'illicit process'.

(I could be mistaken actually. However, it definitely is some form of fallacy. I have to look up what kind specifically. The one I referred to, seems right...)

Defined in Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student:

3. Illicit Process: This is the fallacy in which a term in the conclusion [My interjection: Islamic extremism] has a wider extension than it has in the premises; or, to put it another way, a term is distributed or universal in the conclusion, but was undistributed or particular in the premise. It stands to reason that we cannot draw any conclusion about people if in the premises we have been talking only about people. Such a conclusion "simply does not follow."

To break it down:

(A)Suicide bombing is one manifestation of Islamic extremism.

(A)Killing abortion doctors is one manifestation of Christian extremism.

Suicide bombing kills more people than Christian extremists killing abortion doctors.

Hence, Islamic extremism is more extreme.

In both A and B, you identify one component of the respective ideologies. You then 'compare' them, and arrive at a generalization about one of the ideologies.

Not sure if that's 'illicit process' but it certainly "does not follow."

Rios Montt was a born-again Christian. His policies were informed by his religious extremism. The conflict involved various ideologies. Nationalism and religion were just a couple.

However, you can attribute the genocide of the Mayans in Guatemala (both physical and cultural destruction), to the efforts on part of Rios Montt, to get rid of a sector of the population that would not 'fit' in with his vision of a 'New Guatemala' (more or less a 'Kingdom of God' on Earth).

The Christian Right supported Rios Montt and AFAIK - still does.

Rios Montt's Church, Gospel Outreach, is based in the US.

The support of the Christian Right manifested in several ways. I will list 3 now, and then go into more detail in my final post on this issue, later:

1. Counter-activism (against the peace movement).
2. Funding of 'pacification centers' ("model villages"), as well as direct aid to the military juntas and counterinsurgency forces supported by the Reagan administration. I have only focused on Guatemala so far.
3. Propaganda and PR. For example, Pat Robertson wrote the Foreword to Rios-Montt's biography:

In a country that had been noted for corruption, oppression and violence, there was now joy and hope. A corrupt regime had been overthrown and a born-again Christian had been installed as president of the junta. I knew in my heart that Rios Montt offered the people of his country - indeed the people of all of Latin America - a true alternative between the oppression of corrupt oligrachies and the tyranny of Russian-backed communist totalitarianism.

[...]I enlisted the prayers of tens of thousands of evangelicals across America.

Who is the "New Right"? How is it a "struggle" to show that capitalism and freedom go hand in hand? How did the conservatives manage to "discredit liberal religious organizations"?

Last time I checked, liberals have been trying to infest the churches for decades, with the aid of the media to trump up anti-religious stories?

There is a cooperative relationship between multinational corporate greed and the ultraconservative Christians (Christian Right, etc. whichever term you prefer).

I will not educate you on this stuff. It's too much information to cover.

Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett's 1995 book, Thy Will Be Done, The Conquest Of The Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, is amazing and perhaps the definitive study of this relationship.

I will just cite some figures from the book for now. It is roughly 1000 pages, so I'm not going to be able to list all that I could. I've only just begun to read the book 'beginning' to 'end'. I've jumped around though, reading various sections that interested me (Guatemala for example).

(Sorry for how big it is....that's what she said)

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044354PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044022PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045057PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044900PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10050019PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045708PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045545PM.jpg

This collusion of interests also includes our government.

All 3 entities have worked in tandem, resulting in the manipulation of indigenous peoples to get virtually free labor and access/exploitation to their resources.

Here's an explicit example of that kind of manipulation, by the U.S. government:

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...sdescrib-1.jpg

Source: The Export of Fundamentalist Americanism: U.S. Evangelical Education in Guatemala, by Dr. Susan D. Rose and Steve Brouwer.

You have to purchase the article to view it in full. I have it if anyone is interested. The first page is available for free online though.

I also have the book from which the block-quote originates, Guatemala, by Susanne Jonas and David Tobis (can't find accurate infopage for him). I also ordered it from the hyperlink.

Great! I can't wait to see what this has to do with the "Religious Right", "Christian Right" or "New Right"!

They are all the same thing. "New Right' is self-explanatory. The Christian Right was 'New' in the 1980s in that (context) they had mobilized in such an unprecedented way to support, unequivocally, anti-Communist, counterinsurgency in Central America. The transition of their activism to a focus on foreign policy, etc.

I will make two more posts on this subject. Going to play Mass Effect 2 now though!

[Elvis]

Whoops, almost forgot to add this article from the Times, circa 1982, in the above post.

Although, Robertson was only able to raise, millions - not billions:

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10031115PM.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10031216PM.jpg

The above article is only available if you have a subscription to the Times online.

[Leif]

I am taking issue with your idiotic conclusions. Not with the data in and of itself.

Except you used the fact that I used Wikipedia as a pretext to complain about my facts.

There are plenty of horrible things the Christian Right has done that does not involve the more 'hands-on-approach' to their activism.

Amazingly, you haven't been able to find a single one!

You cannot draw the conclusion that Islamic extremism is more extreme from your rigged premise.

Except I never asserted such a thing. What would you propose I do, list out all of the great evils in the world (Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc), rank them by how evil they are, then stick in Muslim extremists somewhere?

I don't care who is more evil at heart. I do care about who kills more people and who poses the greatest threat to American interests.

To break it down:

(A)Suicide bombing is one manifestation of Islamic extremism.

(A)Killing abortion doctors is one manifestation of Christian extremism.

Suicide bombing kills more people than Christian extremists killing abortion doctors.

Hence, Islamic extremism is more extreme.

Except, I never said such a thing! Amazingly, you are able to tell me what's wrong about all the things I've never said. You've convinced me! From now on, I'll be sure not to make that argument.

In both A and B, you identify one component of the respective ideologies. You then 'compare' them, and arrive at a generalization about one of the ideologies.

Pretty sure my argument was something like:
- Muslim extremists have killed more than 3,000 Americans.
- Crazy Christians have killed six Americans.
- Therefore, when we prioritize who we're going to take down, we're going to take down the Muslim extremists.

Is that so hard? I've been explaining this over and over again, yet you always go into these long responses about how the "New Right" (or whatever faux term you use) is responsible for "Central America".

Not sure if that's 'illicit process' but it certainly "does not follow."

I find if you manage to quote me accurately, it follows quite nicely.

Rios Montt was a born-again Christian. His policies were informed by his religious extremism. The conflict involved various ideologies. Nationalism and religion were just a couple.

However, you can attribute the genocide of the Mayans in Guatemala (both physical and cultural destruction), to the efforts on part of Rios Montt, to get rid of a sector of the population that would not 'fit' in with his vision of a 'New Guatemala' (more or less a 'Kingdom of God' on Earth).

The Christian Right supported Rios Montt and AFAIK - still does.

Rios Montt's Church, Gospel Outreach, is based in the US.

Rios Montt was an opponent of Communism. He was funded by the Reagan administration, in line with America's interests.

This whole debate isn't determining who's good, who's bad, and who the US gave money to. The actual argument (not the make-believe argument) is that the US has to act in its own interest. If that means some group who isn't in the United States is worse off, that's an acceptable loss.

The support of the Christian Right manifested in several ways. I will list 3 now, and then go into more detail in my final post on this issue, later:

Make the next one relevant please.

1. Counter-activism (against the peace movement).

Which peace movement? And how is "counter-activism" bad? Considering half of about any particular peace movement is rooted in pacifism, the other half roots for the enemy.

2. Funding of 'pacification centers' ("model villages"), as well as direct aid to the military juntas and counterinsurgency forces supported by the Reagan administration. I have only focused on Guatemala so far.

And how does this jeopardize American interests?

3. Propaganda and PR. For example, Pat Robertson wrote the Foreword to Rios-Montt's biography:

Same question.

There is a cooperative relationship between multinational corporate greed and the ultraconservative Christians (Christian Right, etc. whichever term you prefer).

For those who missed Econ 101, massive greed (also known as "acting in your own best interest") is best for society as a whole. And what is an "ultraconservative"? Do I qualify? How do I join?

I will not educate you on this stuff. It's too much information to cover.

I have to admit, I'm disappointed I missed out.

I will just cite some figures from the book for now. It is roughly 1000 pages, so I'm not going to be able to list all that I could. I've only just begun to read the book 'beginning' to 'end'. I've jumped around though, reading various sections that interested me (Guatemala for example).

WONDERFUL! I bet there's lots of bullet points with a nice coherent flow!

(Sorry for how big it is....that's what she said)

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044354PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044022PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045057PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10044900PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10050019PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045708PM.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...10045545PM.jpg

Great. You scanned me a picture book with fun flow charts and dates from the 1930s!

This collusion of interests also includes our government.

What?

They are all the same thing. "New Right' is self-explanatory. The Christian Right was 'New' in the 1980s in that (context) they had mobilized in such an unprecedented way to support, unequivocally, anti-Communist, counterinsurgency in Central America. The transition of their activism to a focus on foreign policy, etc.

Connection to my actual argument?

[Leif]

I will make two more posts on this subject. Going to play Mass Effect 2 now though!

Please don't. You're welcome to post about my subject, though.

To refresh, my argument is...

1) Muslim extremists have killed 3,000 Americans in the past few decades.
2) Crazy Christians have killed 6 abortion doctors in the past few decades.
3) Therefore, because Muslims are killing and have killed more Americans than Christians, America should prioritize stopping the Muslim extremists from killing Americans.

Isn't that simple? If you're still having difficulty quoting me accurately, try this argument. At the end, replace any instance of "Happyland" with "America", "Wood Savages" with "Muslim extremists", "Fanatic Faries" with "Crazy Christians", and "voodoo doctors" with "abortion doctors".

1) Wood savages have killed 3,000 Happylanders in the past few decades.
2) Fanatic Faries have killed 6 voodoo doctors in the past few decades.
3) Therefore, because wood savages are killing and have killed more Happylanders than Fanatic Faries, Happyland should prioritize stopping the Wood Savages from killing Happylanders.

If it helps to think in fantasy land where you invent all of the things you claim I say, by all means go for it!

[Elvis]

Please don't. You're welcome to post about my subject, though.

To refresh, my argument is...

1) Muslim extremists have killed 3,000 Americans in the past few decades.
2) Crazy Christians have killed 6 abortion doctors in the past few decades.
3) Therefore, because Muslims are killing and have killed more Americans than Christians, America should prioritize stopping the Muslim extremists from killing Americans.

You've just changed your argument, from:

'Islamic extremism is more extreme than X and Y'

to

'Islamic extremism targets American interests and civilians, and should be a priority over Christian extremism'.

That's all that has happened. The original implication is that we should care when innocent people die. Whether it is Islamic extremism at fault, or other blah blah.

If your argument is now, whether our interests are at stake - then I would have to argue that our current policies are not even in our interests and that we help create extremism and perpetuate extremism (which we absolutely do).

You're a very very stupid person. I don't insult people often in these discussions unless it's justified.

[Leif]

You've just changed your argument, from:

'Islamic extremism is more extreme than X and Y'

I never said this . Never. Not Once.

And, I didn't "just" change my argument, I've been screaming this for pages.

If your argument is now, whether our interests are at stake - then I would have to argue that our current policies are not even in our interests and that we help create extremism and perpetuate extremism (which we absolutely do).

Respond to my actual argument. I never claimed some group was more extreme than another. Never. Not once. I've questioned this same point in at least two different posts so far and you keep ignoring it.

Unless you are aware of some "crazy scale" where there's a hierarchy of the most insane people ranked on a scale of "Donald Duck" to "Hitler", I really don't know what to tell you. You keep arguing with me as if I was making some insane argument, but that argument only exists in your head. I've never said anything like that.

You're a very very stupid person. I don't insult people often in these discussions unless it's justified.

Really? You can't even nail a simple argument down. You're like the guy who couldn't read the bar graph.

[Ksandra]

Don't bore me with your cheap responses.

In the free market people will buy cheap, quality responses and the market will regulate itself.

oh man, just saw this. a++

[Elvis]

You've just changed your argument, from:

'Islamic extremism is more extreme than X and Y'

I never said this . Never. Not Once.

And, I didn't "just" change my argument, I've been screaming this for pages.

So, now you're lying in addition to being willfully ignorant.

Once upon a time, you said this:

What negative effects of religion on politics?

If we only talk about Islam then we might have a discussion, but religion?

Neo responded with:

Oh I LOVE how christians can see so clearly the negative effects of Islam on politics but be completely blind to the same dogmas effecting their own government.

You responded with:

Last time I checked, the Christians/Jews/Amish aren't strapping bombs to their chests.

I then said this:

But you know, only Islam can have meaningful radicals (as implied by Leif and the other guy whose name I don't remember, since clearly, 'suicide bombing'[exotic violence] separates Islamic crazies from the rest of the religious crazies).

You responded with:

Yes, because the other "religious crazies" don't kill people like Muslims do.

The end.

[Leif]

The end? What?!

What you posted completely contradicts what you have been claiming that I have been saying. Where did I say Muslims were crazier than Christian crazies or any other lunatics?


What are you talking about?! I'm utterly baffled because you say something like "The End." and then I search through all of these statements that you claim speak for themselves and... they just don't...

oh man, just saw this. a++

I know right, especially because it doesn't... make any sense. In that case, I would be an internal regulating force.

[Elvis]

Unless you are aware of some "crazy scale" where there's a hierarchy of the most insane people ranked on a scale of "Donald Duck" to "Hitler", I really don't know what to tell you. You keep arguing with me as if I was making some insane argument, but that argument only exists in your head. I've never said anything like that.

See my above post. You have only recently re-framed your stupidity.

As to this 'hierarchy' - no, I am not implying the violence carried out by insane Christian wackos is unique to that carried out by their Muslim and Jewish counterparts.

I have explained in detail what my argument is. I am pretty sure most of the people in this thread get my point by now.

Only you seem to be confused. And I think that's because you're either fucking retarded or willfully ignorant.

[Saga]

This is like saying I can't look up on Wikipedia what an apple is.

Phew. Good thing you can't, you know, change anything on Wikipedia, even if for just a few moments, to try and illustrate a point that has no real substance to it in the first place. For a second there, I was worried that any old Joe the Plumber with access to an internet connection could log right in to Wikipedia and change things like statistics, or the description of an apple.

[Leif]

What?!

See my above post. You have only recently
re-framed, you stupidity.

I just did. See my above post. Also, "you stupidity" is about one million times more incoherent than I have ever been.

As to this 'hierarchy' - no, I am not implying the violence carried out by insane Christian wackos is unique to that carried out by their Muslim and Jewish counterparts.

This makes no sense because you haven't been making concise arguments at all.

I have explained in detail what my argument is. I am pretty sure most of the people in this thread get my point by now.

I'd be amazed if anyone got your point.

Only you seem to be confused. And I think that's because you're either fucking retarded or willfully ignorant.

Why is it that liberals always end by claiming their opponent is stupid?

Phew. Good thing you can't, you know, change anything on Wikipedia, even if for just a few moments, to try and illustrate a point that has no real substance to it in the first place. For a second there, I was worried that any old Joe the Plumber with access to an internet connection could log right in to Wikipedia and change things like statistics, or the description of an apple.

Funny that the guy who has been whining about Wikipedia for pages just filled his last post with Wikipedia references. Why are you still whining about this after the guy I'm actually arguing with said that he wasn't disputing the facts.

[Ksandra]

And I think that's because you're either fucking retarded or willfully ignorant or a persistent troll.

ftfy

[Elvis]

I'll let other people read the train of quotes, and then decide for themselves.

[Leif]

I'll let other people read the train of quotes, and then decide for themselves.

Here's a tip, explain your quotes and why they say what they claim they say.

Since you claim my argument is "Muslims are more crazy than Christians" (a very simple argument), it shouldn't take much effort to establish that's what I've said.

ftfy

Why does everyone whine about "trolls"? If you're going to label anyone a troll, it's the guy who keeps going into threads about computer processors and talks about penises.

[Elvis]

Just so it's made very clear:

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showp...&postcount=152

Check his entire posts via the link in the quote, and tell me where he makes this argument:

'Islamic extremism targets American interests and civilians, and should be a priority over Christian extremism.'

Or whatever his new argument is currently, since he realized the old one is bust.

[Correction]

What negative effects of religion on politics?

If we only talk about Islam then we might have a discussion, but religion?

Ever notice how Leif still doesn't have the balls to try to defend this bullshit?

[ZarakiKujata]

it's the guy who keeps going into threads about computer processors and talks about penises.

Who is this glorious man?