Keith Olbermann "Leaves" MSNBC

[thesadmafioso]

Any thoughts on this recent occurrence? Apparently it was quite sudden and it just so happens to of occurred less than a week after Comcast's takeover of NBC was approved by the FCC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/keith-olbermann-countdown-over_n_812506.html

[L.A.P.]

Who cares.

[thesadmafioso]

Who cares.

Well, it is indicative of possible trends caused by increased media consolidation and it marks a dramatic shift in the programming of a major media outlet. So anyone who follows modern politics cares.

[Rusty Shackleford]

never watched his show to know of the impact. sorry.

all i know is that Comcast has been growing like a wildfire these past few years.

[TC]

I loved his show, so I care - its about a million times better than the centrist daily show.

[L.A.P.]

Well, it is indicative of possible trends caused by increased media consolidation and it marks a dramatic shift in the programming of a major media outlet. So anyone who follows modern politics cares.

It really doesn't show any incredibly dramatic shift except that shows eventually end.


I loved his show, so I care - its about a million times better than the centrist daily show.

I used to love his show too when I was a Liberal but the only political commentator I still watch is Bill Maher.

[Robocommie]

Olbermann has been talking a lot about Net Neutrality lately. And Comcast just acquired NBC. Soooo...

[thesadmafioso]

It really doesn't show any incredibly dramatic shift except that shows eventually end.



I used to love his show too when I was a Liberal but the only political commentator I still watch is Bill Maher.

Yes, shows do eventually end. And when they end they are often times replaced with different shows that have a different ideology to them. As we are talking about a major news outlet, this denotes a notable enough ideological shift in the makeup of the mass media. He was an influential news anchor on a popular network, he had a substantial amount of clout and he was clearly an influential figure in the course of American politics. You cannot simply write him off in such a blunt fashion because you disagreed with him ideologically.

[Pierre.Laporte]

Before we get too end of the world-y here, let's not forget that he's getting replaced with Lawrence O'Donnell, a self-proclaimed "socialist."

[L.A.P.]

Yes, shows do eventually end. And when they end they are often times replaced with different shows that have a different ideology to them. As we are talking about a major news outlet, this denotes a notable enough ideological shift in the makeup of the mass media. He was an influential news anchor on a popular network, he had a substantial amount of clout and he was clearly an influential figure in the course of American politics. You cannot simply write him off in such a blunt fashion because you disagreed with him ideologically.

Yes, Keith Olberman is highly influential but there isn't any major change going on unless NBC purges Rachel Maddow and other Liberal commentators and replace them with commentators that subscribe to a different ideology.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Didn't he "leave" a few months ago too?

Olbermann's show is/was terrible. 1/3 of the show is dedicated to attacking right-wing pundits and shock-jocks (Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc.) in a typical liberal, snotty, elitist attitude. Why spend so much time on morons? THIS is news?
The rest of his show is interviews that are dreadfully boring because he finds people who will always agree with his viewpoint. He's scared of criticism, and always seeks to look perfect, intelligent, and rehearsed. It's the same show everyday, trust me.

[CleverTitle]

Olbermann's politics are far different than most people on this site, but I preferred him to Fox's constant reactionary garbage. He was the most vocal critic of their obnoxious ignorance. Even if he was coming from a mostly pro-capitalism perspective, I appreciated much of what he said.

[thesadmafioso]

Before we get too end of the world-y here, let's not forget that he's getting replaced with Lawrence O'Donnell, a self-proclaimed "socialist."

Very true, but he has already had a show on the network for a while now so that is really not much more than a change in scheduling.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Before we get too end of the world-y here, let's not forget that he's getting replaced with Lawrence O'Donnell, a self-proclaimed "socialist."
Ed Schultz: supporter of labor bureaucracy and all things Obama

Chris Matthews: moron.

Lawrence O'Donnell: Medicare is socialism, right? Therefore, I am a socialist because I support Medicare!

Rachel Maddow: Maybe the only one with some brains on the network, but still a democrat (claims to be independent :rolleyes:) who has surprisingly become more supportive of Obama over the last 2 years rather than critical.

Olbermann: see my last post. Thy almighty pretentious Democrat God.

[~Spectre]

Lawrenece O'Donnel is a reactionary scumbag.

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, Keith Olberman is highly influential but there isn't any major change going on unless NBC purges Rachel Maddow and other Liberal commentators and replace them with commentators that subscribe to a different ideology.

He acted as a powerful and forceful counterweight to the right and he offset the influence of Fox in the realm of media, his departure may not mark much of a literal shift in the overall ideology of MSNBC itself, but it will still upset the balance of power within the media.

[~Spectre]

Yes, Keith Olberman is highly influential but there isn't any major change going on unless NBC purges Rachel Maddow and other Liberal commentators and replace them with commentators that subscribe to a different ideology.

/offtopic

Question: What drives a person to label them self all sorts of "ists" including Stalinist, yet exclude Marx?

[L.A.P.]

/offtopic

Question: What drives a person to label them self all sorts of "ists" including Stalinist, yet exclude Marx?

A person who doesn't have enough space to write it in and assumes that people on a leftist forum should be informed enough to know that Marxist should already be assumed when using Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist and Castroist.


He acted as a powerful and forceful counterweight to the right and he offset the influence of Fox in the realm of media, his departure may not mark much of a literal shift in the overall ideology of MSNBC itself, but it will still upset the balance of power within the media.

Capitalists debating other Capitalists. I've lost interest and I would usually care a little bit more.

[thesadmafioso]

Capitalists debating other Capitalists. I've lost interest and I would usually care a little bit more.

OK, well thank you for the update on your level on interest here. You don't have to continue posting in this topic if it is boring you.

But seriously, some of those capitalists happen to be far more conservative and much more opposed to the left than others. It is a gross understatement to access the situation in such simplistic and blunt terms. Distinctions between the programming put out by MSNBC and FOX matter in the context of American politics, and it is simply foolish to ignore that basic fact.

[~Spectre]

A person who doesn't have enough space to write it in and assumes that people on a leftist forum should be informed enough to know that Marxist should already be assumed when using Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist and Castroist.


Last I'll say of it so as not to drive this more off-topic, but "Marxist" should definitely NOT be assumed out of that word vomit. I can see why you'd like Bill Maher.

[~Spectre]

OK, well thank you for the update on your level on interest here. You don't have to continue posting in this topic if it is boring you.

But seriously, some of those capitalists happen to be far more conservative and much more opposed to the left than others. It is a gross understatement to access the situation in such simplistic and blunt terms. Distinctions between the programming put out by MSNBC and FOX matter in the context of American politics, and it is simply foolish to ignore that basic fact.

Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).

[Lucretia]

Before we get too end of the world-y here, let's not forget that he's getting replaced with Lawrence O'Donnell, a self-proclaimed "socialist."

Lawrence O'Donnell's supposed "socialism" has been discussed in another thread, and has shown to be as mythical as my status as the Princess of Wales. If you love hearing "socialists" defend things like Obama's extension of tax breaks for millionaires or the corporate health care bill, you'll love, absolutely LOVE Lawrence O'Donnell.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Personally, I'm a bit sad that Olbermann lost his show because I found it interesting even though he is an elitist ass at times. Nevertheless though, I am now wondering what comcast is going to do with MSNBC... something tells me that they are going to either try to make it like CNN or (worse), another Fox News... hell, who knows... they might give Alex Jones his own show... then Glenn Beck will have some competition as to who is the most delusional dumb fuck...

[Political_Chucky]

I didn't read any post besides the OP, but I definitely think anything in the MAJOR MEDIA is particularly relevant just because of the fact of how popular it is, whether its leftist or not. Many communists or anarchists are going to push this aside as an irrelevant event because they don't watch it, and because of their ignorance, its justified and I understand. But we have to remember that we are not the only souls who have considered mainstream media a lie, a factory of propaganda(as I see it) and we have to understand what the "people" watch. It might be irrelevant to the bigger issue, but it is not irrelevant to what the people are fed and to what they ultimately think.

I never have really watched Olbermann to be truthful, but I do find a some news from this because the majority of listeners who did watch Olbermann are going to try and find a new speaker to watch. Whether this is justified is not right or wrong. Your not going to persuade these people. The main point here is that a major persona in the broadcasting system has now stepped down. Who is going to be the new face in the major NBC network? This is relevant.

[L.A.P.]

Last I'll say of it so as not to drive this more off-topic, but "Marxist" should definitely NOT be assumed out of that word vomit. I can see why you'd like Bill Maher.

Blow it out your ass you sectarian fuck. Is their some correlation with Bill Maher and Marxist-Leninist leaders? No, not at all but you said it anyways because you suck at making cheap shots. If you don't think Marx should be associated with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro then why would you ask why I don't include Marxist in there?

[thesadmafioso]

Lawrence O'Donnell's supposed "socialism" has been discussed in another thread, and has shown to be as mythical as my status as the Princess of Wales. If you love hearing "socialists" defend things like Obama's extension of tax breaks for millionaires or the corporate health care bill, you'll love, absolutely LOVE Lawrence O'Donnell.

Nothing of the sort was shown about Lawrence O'Donnell, all that was shown was your persistence in levying false accusations towards his ideology and your inability to grasp the nature of the american political spectrum. Compromise plays a prominent role in the balance of American politics, and if one party looks too unwilling to participate in such and pushes their agenda too far it generally results in mediocre electoral results. And you can't govern or have much of a say at all in the process if you are out of power. His ability to understand the intricacies of political reality does not make him much more than a socialist who has a solid grasp on reality.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nothing of the sort was shown about Lawrence O'Donnell, all that was shown was your persistence in levying false accusations towards his ideology and your inability to grasp the nature of the american political spectrum. Compromise plays a prominent role in the balance of American politics, and if one party looks too unwilling to participate in such and pushes their agenda too far it generally results in mediocre electoral results. And you can't govern or have much of a say at all in the process if you are out of power. His ability to understand the intricacies of political reality does not make him much more than a socialist who has a solid grasp on reality.

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/155622_o.gif

[Lucretia]

Nothing of the sort was shown about Lawrence O'Donnell, all that was shown was your persistence in levying false accusations towards his ideology and your inability to grasp the nature of the american political spectrum. Compromise plays a prominent role in the balance of American politics, and if one party looks too unwilling to participate in such and pushes their agenda too far it generally results in mediocre electoral results. And you can't govern or have much of a say at all in the process if you are out of power. His ability to understand the intricacies of political reality does not make him much more than a socialist who has a solid grasp on reality.

It very much was shown that a pragmatic socialist supports none of the things O'Donnell supports on a nightly basis on his dreary show. You never responded to my last round of remarks, and I can only assume the reason is that you understand that there is no reasonable response to them. Your argument here is that in order for socialists to be realistic, they have to support the democratic party, even when it does things like extend tax breaks for millionaires, bail out private banks with taxpayer dollars, cut social entitlement programs, etc. Otherwise, "the left" deserves to be criticized for being so idealistic and non-pragmatic that they won't have an impact on governing. Sorry, but if I have to advance positions that are a setback to the socialist movement in order to have some unspecified impact on governance, then I will simply bide my time organizing and persuading the masses until such time that I can do both, rather than pretend that my goal is to be a part of a governing clique no matter the cost.

By the way, you DO know this is a forum for revolutionary leftists, right? Not reformists. I am not sure this is the place for you.

[thesadmafioso]

It very much was shown that a pragmatic socialist supports none of the things O'Donnell supports on a nightly basis on his dreary show. You never responded to my last round of remarks, and I can only assume the reason is that you understand that there is no reasonable response to them. Your argument here is that in order for socialists to be realistic, they have to support the democratic party, even when it does things like extend tax breaks for millionaires, bail out private banks with taxpayer dollars, cut social entitlement programs, etc. Otherwise, "the left" deserves to be criticized for being so idealistic and non-pragmatic that they won't have an impact on governing. Sorry, but if I have to advance positions that are a setback to the socialist movement in order to have some unspecified impact on governance, then I will simply bide my time organizing and persuading the masses until such time that I can do both, rather than pretend that my goal is to be a part of a governing clique no matter the cost.

By the way, you DO know this is a forum for revolutionary leftists, right? Not reformists. I am not sure this is the place for you.

I didn't respond to your last round of remarks because you said nothing in them. Perhaps if you had actually presented a point and you had furthered the discussion a bit, I would of given you a response. I know the purpose of this forum as well, but I also realize the futile nature of the sort of 'political action' you suggest. I recognize the significance of the modern media, and I recognize that someone like Lawrence O'Donnell has a lot more potential to shape the course of public discourse than you will likely ever have. It is a complete waste of effort to think that such outmoded tactics will be able to have any meaningful political effect, comparatively speaking. Criticizing the left most aspects of the media in such an absolute fashion is simply a futile effort. One can reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action, your point is devoid completely of substance.

[Lucretia]

I didn't respond to your last round of remarks because you said nothing in them. Perhaps if you had actually presented a point and you had furthered the discussion a bit, I would of given you a response.

On the contrary, I showed that your arguments about pragmatism were deeply flawed. Since you still haven't responded to them with anything beyond a vacuous and unsupported claim that "they don't say anything," I will interpret your deafening silence as a backdoor admission that you are simply intellectually incapable of substantively rebutting my points.



I know the purpose of this forum as well, but I also realize the futile nature of the sort of 'political action' you suggest.I was referring in my previous post to grassroots political organizing. You think that grassroots political organizing is futile in nature? Again, what exactly do you think you're doing on this forum besides making an ass of yourself?


I recognize the significance of the modern media, and I recognize that someone like Lawrence O'Donnell has a lot more potential to shape the course of public discourse than you will likely ever have.I also recognize that Lawrence O'Donnell has a much larger megaphone than you or I as individuals. But unlike you, I recognize that the reason he is given such a large megaphone is not that he's a force for progressive change trailblazing a path to socialism. He's been given his own show for exactly the opposite reason. He's a safe tv personality who rejoices in criticizing "the left." With your idiotic strawmen arguments about "ideological purity," you sound very similar to O'Donnell. No wonder you praise him to the high heavens.


It is a complete waste of effort to think that such outmoded tactics will be able to have any meaningful political effect, comparatively speaking.Again: which tactics? Grassroots organizing? You're just making sweeping statements about ambiguous concepts. This is a sign of intellectual laziness and arrogance.


Criticizing the left most aspects of the media in such an absolute fashion is simply a futile effort.Wrong. Even a pragmatic, non-socialist liberal recognizes that criticizing the left-most "acceptable" elements of the political establishment is how what comes to be defined as "acceptable" is made to move leftward. Even rightwing nuts understand this, which helps to explain the dramatic rightward movement in American politics in the past thirty years. You, on the other hand, demonstrate a stunningly naive, almost-brainwashed understanding of history and of the way politics works in the real world.


One can reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action, your point is devoid completely of substance.Of course a person can reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action. I am not contesting the truth of this abstract statement, and never have. My point, the one you will not and cannot refute, is about this concrete case of a person supposedly trying to reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action. Not every attempt to reconcile ideology with praxis is effective, and therefore not every attempt to put into practice a kind of ideology results in a politics that advances that ideology. If a political practice is undermining the ideology it is attempting to advance, it doesn't deserve to bear the name of that ideology. This is what is happening on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, which is why Lawrence O'Donnell's claim to being a socialist is full of shit. Sorry you can't comprehend thought processes that can't be reduced to a single-sentence slogan.

[Lucretia]

This monologue by Lawrence O'Donnell, from his show of November 9, is included below so people can understand what Lawrence O'Donnell means when he talks about socialism. Note the end of the passage, where O'Donnell clues us in to what his definition of socialism is, by saying that people like John Boehner and Rand Paul are also socialists. This should leave no doubt that his definition of socialism is completely different from the revolutionary socialist's understanding of it as a society in which economic exploitation based on private ownership or control of the means of production has been abolished.


The policies advocated by the British economist John Maynard Keynes were, not wrongly, regarded as socialistic. When I was working in the Senate in 1993, trying to pass a large package of Medicare cuts advocated by a Democratic president and opposed by Republicans, I realized we`re all socialists now.

The enactment of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 were opposed by conservatives on the grounds that both were socialism. They were right. A government funded pension and welfare benefits for poverty stricken mothers was a European socialistic idea imported whole to the United States by President Franklin Roosevelt.

But by 1935, enough members of Congress in both parties regarded the cruelties of unbridled capitalism as too much to bear. Capitalism was not to be overthrown, but tempered at its harshest edges with doses of practical socialism.

At that time, the elderly were the most poverty stricken among us, and utterly helpless in a job market that had no use for 75-year-olds. The opposition was right about Medicare, too. It was a socialist idea, a socialist idea whose time had come in a capitalist society. And so it, too, was supported by enough Democrats and Republicans who saw the need for a socialistic model to completely replace the truly lethal cruelty of capitalism in the health care marketplace for people 65 and older.

And so by the middle of the 20th century, the United States had become what economists call a mixed economy. It was no longer a capitalist economy, nor was it a socialist economy. It was a mixed economy. And so is now every country in the world, including China and Cuba.

There are no capitalist countries anymore. And there are no socialist countries. Every country has a mix of both. The argument in this country is not socialism or no socialism. Glenn Beck and no one else on the Fox News payroll advocate the abolition of any of the socialist programs that the government enacted in the 20th century. All right, maybe Glenn Beck is opposed to agriculture subsidies or something like that. I don`t know about you, but I find him very hard to follow.

But everyone else at Fox News is. of a sudden, up in arms about President Obama`s tepid contribution to our already socialistic health care system. But that`s more about hating Obama than hating socialism. Glenn Beck and Bill O`Reilly seem to think that I cracked on the air last week and finally admitted my darkest secret, my acceptance of the practical socialism that has allowed the United States to continue to be a humane and great country.

They haven`t been listening. Two weeks ago, on Bill Maher`s show, Bill and I both admitted to being socialists. And we threw Barack Obama in with us. Back in September, I talked to the "Hollywood Reporter." This was their headline: "New MSNBC Host Admits to Being a Socialist."

I started saying things like that publicly over ten year ago. What I`ve been trying to do by saying is make people understand what socialism is, and that every taxpayer in this country, every Social Security recipient, every Medicare beneficiary, and everyone who uses the Post Office is participating in successful socialism, practical socialism every day.

We need to take the political sting out of the word socialist. In the presidential campaign, when silly old John McCain began calling Barack Obama a socialist, everyone, not just me, should have said, so are you and so am I.


Socialists like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and now Rand Paul should not be able to hurl that word as a slur against other socialists. There is good socialism and bad socialism. Socialism that won`t work is ill conceived, too expensive, not grounded in reality. I will join Glenn Beck in the opposition to that kind of socialism. Bad socialism is bad.

But not all socialistic notions are bad. We should not allow this country to live in fear of a word. Socialism has contributed mightily to the quality of life in this country, as has capitalism, and both will continue to.

We can continue to lie to ourselves about this the way Glenn Beck and Bill O`Reilly do, or we can look to the truth of ourselves and realize what "Newsweek" realized in 2009, 16 years after I did, we are all socialists now.

[thesadmafioso]

This monologue by Lawrence O'Donnell, from his show of November 9, is included below so people can understand what Lawrence O'Donnell means when he talks about socialism. Note the end of the passage, where O'Donnell clues us in to what his definition of socialism is, by saying that people like John Boehner and Rand Paul are also socialists. This should leave no doubt that his definition of socialism is completely different from the revolutionary socialist's understanding of it as a society in which economic exploitation based on private ownership or control of the means of production has been abolished.

He was being clever with the application of a more historical use of the term, nothing more. He obviously does not think that John Boehner and Rand Paul are socialists, he was merely pointing out that they support policies that would once of been considered such due to their widespread popular support. You cannot realistically try to discern his personal ideology and his view of socialism from this passage, as it is being taken entirely out of context to prove a fault riddled point.

[thesadmafioso]

On the contrary, I showed that your arguments about pragmatism were deeply flawed. Since you still haven't responded to them with anything beyond a vacuous and unsupported claim that "they don't say anything," I will interpret your deafening silence as a backdoor admission that you are simply intellectually incapable of substantively rebutting my points.


I was referring in my previous post to grassroots political organizing. You think that grassroots political organizing is futile in nature? Again, what exactly do you think you're doing on this forum besides making an ass of yourself?

I also recognize that Lawrence O'Donnell has a much larger megaphone than you or I as individuals. But unlike you, I recognize that the reason he is given such a large megaphone is not that he's a force for progressive change trailblazing a path to socialism. He's been given his own show for exactly the opposite reason. He's a safe tv personality who rejoices in criticizing "the left." With your idiotic strawmen arguments about "ideological purity," you sound very similar to O'Donnell. No wonder you praise him to the high heavens.

Again: which tactics? Grassroots organizing? You're just making sweeping statements about ambiguous concepts. This is a sign of intellectual laziness and arrogance.

Wrong. Even a pragmatic, non-socialist liberal recognizes that criticizing the left-most "acceptable" elements of the political establishment is how what comes to be defined as "acceptable" is made to move leftward. Even rightwing nuts understand this, which helps to explain the dramatic rightward movement in American politics in the past thirty years. You, on the other hand, demonstrate a stunningly naive, almost-brainwashed understanding of history and of the way politics works in the real world.

Of course a person can reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action. I am not contesting the truth of this abstract statement, and never have. My point, the one you will not and cannot refute, is about this concrete case of a person supposedly trying to reconcile ideological purity with pragmatic action. Not every attempt to reconcile ideology with praxis is effective, and therefore not every attempt to put into practice a kind of ideology results in a politics that advances that ideology. If a political practice is undermining the ideology it is attempting to advance, it doesn't deserve to bear the name of that ideology. This is what is happening on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, which is why Lawrence O'Donnell's claim to being a socialist is full of shit. Sorry you can't comprehend thought processes that can't be reduced to a single-sentence slogan.

I am not trying to avoid confronting your skewered interpretation of pragmatism, I have said plenty on the matter and you have bluntly avoided a response to the substance of my point. Pragmatism is often used to justify compromise, but that does not make it a 'tool of the establishment' as you seem to think it is. In the US you have two politically polarized parties trying to govern, it is something that is all but inevitable. Yes it is used to justify policy that is not as left as many people on this board would like, but what more would you expect from the American political system? It is not very well possible to govern more to the left given the well funded, well organized, and solidified resistance that would ensue from the extreme right. The populace itself is quite apolitical and moderate, with those who identify themselves as conservative outnumbering those who identify themselves as liberal. You can only do so much with this, and when you are in government you are going to be forced to work with these prevailing conditions. I am not saying I agree with the literal policy which he advocates for on occasion, and I don't really think that he does, it just stems out of the basic notion of working with what is available.

Lawrence O'Donnell is acting as a voice on realism on the left, and he is using his political experience to show that blind partisan confrontation is not going to further a progressive agenda. I would agree that he is not furthering a revolutionary agenda, but he is working within the difficult and constricting constructs of the American system to the best of his ability, and we should take into account this context when we are judging his use to the left. Through giving sound political advise to the Democrats, he is furthering an agenda which would allow them to stay in government and which would allow them to continue on with their relatively progressive agenda. This agenda is not as leftist as many people on this board would like surely, but the fact is that it is better than that of the Republicans. I am not saying that we should blindly support the Democratic party or anything of the sort, but just that this sort of rhetoric does have its potential use value in the short term.

And the last bit about not understanding thoughts which are not slogans was nice, I feel that it really furthered the quality of debate here and that it served an integral role in the substance of your response. I anxiously await your next clever insult that will invariably find its way into your response.

[Lucretia]

I am not trying to avoid confronting your skewered interpretation of pragmatism, I have said plenty on the matter and you have bluntly avoided a response to the substance of my point.
I responded to the very centerpiece of your point. Your whole argument boils down to: a person's support for "reforms" within capitalism does not mean that somebody isn't a socialist, for that person could just be clever at translating their socialist political ideals into practical actions.

I rebutted this argument, first, by noting that nobody in this forum is arguing that support for reforms is a sign that a person isn't a socialist (in other words, your claim was a strawman), and second, that the kinds of "pragmatic" positions that O'Donnell has staked out - including criticism for people who dare to disagree with Obama's most corporatist and right-wing policies - does not suggest that he is trying to advance socialist ideals.


Pragmatism is often used to justify compromise, but that does not make it a 'tool of the establishment' as you seem to think it is.Did it ever occur to you that it could be used by different parties for different purposes? The fact that some people might use it to justify necessary compromises does not mean that other people, including powerful politicians, don't often use it to mask their original intentions and dress them up in noble rhetoric.


In the US you have two politically polarized parties trying to govern, it is something that is all but inevitable. Yes it is used to justify policy that is not as left as many people on this board would like, but what more would you expect from the American political system?Another strawman. You seem to be arguing against the position that compromises are never necessary, but who here is making the argument? I'm not, and I don't think anybody else here is. Nice try.


It is not very well possible to govern more to the left given the well funded, well organized, and solidified resistance that would ensue from the extreme right.So what do we do? We follow the Lawrence O'Donnell model of "pragmatism" and throw our full weight behind politicians like Obama who are advancing the causes of these well funded interest groups?


The populace itself if quite apolitical and moderate, with those who identify themselves as conservative outnumbering those who identify themselves as liberals. You can only do so much with this, and when you are in government you are going to be forced to work with prevailing conditions. I am not saying I agree with the literal policy which he advocates for on occasion, and I don't really think that he does, it just stems out of the basic notion of working with what is available.Again, please try responding to what I am actually arguing. I am NOT arguing that any political action short of an immediate socialist revolution does not deserve any support. I am not going to repeat this again.


And the last bit about not understanding thoughts which are not slogans was nice, I feel that it really furthered the quality of debate here and that it served an integral role in the substance of your response. I anxiously await your next clever insult that will invariably find its way into your response.I'm glad you liked it. It was the only conclusion I could reach after repeating a simple point multiple times, only to have you come back with responses suggestion you did not understand that simple point at all.

[thesadmafioso]

I responded to the very centerpiece of your point. Your whole argument boils down to: a person's support for "reforms" within capitalism does not mean that somebody isn't a socialist, for that person could just be clever at translating their socialist political ideals into practical actions.

I rebutted this argument, first, by noting that nobody in this forum is arguing that support for reforms is a sign that a person isn't a socialist (in other words, your claim was a strawman), and second, that the kinds of "pragmatic" positions that O'Donnell has staked out - including criticism for people who dare to disagree with Obama's most corporatist and right-wing policies - does not suggest that he is trying to advance socialist ideals.

Did it ever occur to you that it could be used by different parties for different purposes? The fact that some people might use it to justify necessary compromises does not mean that other people, including powerful politicians, don't often use it to mask their original intentions and dress them up in noble rhetoric.

Another strawman. You seem to be arguing against the position that compromises are never necessary, but who here is making the argument? I'm not, and I don't think anybody else here is. Nice try.

So what do we do? We follow the Lawrence O'Donnell model of "pragmatism" and throw our full weight behind politicians like Obama who are advancing the causes of these well funded interest groups?

Again, please try responding to what I am actually arguing. I am NOT arguing that any political action short of an immediate socialist revolution does not deserve any support. I am not going to repeat this again.

I'm glad you liked it. It was the only conclusion I could reach after repeating a simple point multiple times, only to have you come back with responses suggestion you did not understand that simple point at all.

To use your own false accusation in the correct context, how is your argument in regards to the use of pragmatism not a strawman itself? Of course different political parties are capable of using the same tactics, was that not already implied? I had presumed that to be common enough knowledge that when I worded that phrase in that manner that pragmatism would be noted as referring to positive political action for the left.

Since you suddenly seem keen to back up on your prior remarks and their inflammatory nature, why is compromise not acceptable in this situation? My remarks obviously did not imply you to be against compromise in every context, but since you seem to have skewered them terribly and from that written them off as a strawman I will explain the intent of my comments in more detail. Compromise and its potential stems out of the context of circumstance, and those do not allow for the degree of compromise which you seem to be in favor of. You seem to be in favor of compromise only when it falls nicely enough in line with your ideology, and you seem to neglect context almost entirely. If you did not you would see that the current political environment in the US is simply not open to the leftist politics which you seem to be in favor of. Pragmatism is a concept of understanding a situation and of dealing with the factors present within in, regardless of how disagreeable they are with your ideology. You cannot call yourself a pragmatist but mean it to only apply to a select few situations, to do such is to completely underwrite the use of the term in the political context.

I never said anything to the point that individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell deserve out full support, but rather implied that they are a part of a very large equation and that they deserve a certain degree of support due to their important role in the political process.

Perhaps I should shoot back with a comment about how you don't seem to understand my point, because that would seem to be more applicable to your comments than my own at this point as you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with drawing basic connotations from my writing.

[Amphictyonis]

pragmatism

Eternal facepalm of doom.

[Lucretia]

To use your own false accusation in the correct context, how is your argument in regards to the use of pragmatism not a strawman itself? Of course different political parties are capable of using the same tactics,

Where did I mention "political parties" using the same tactics? You are stuck in this Republican-vs-Democratic frame of thinking, and it's obvious in every post you make. I mentioned different "parties" as in different groups of people using pragmatism to suit different purposes.

This was in response to your claim that "pragmatism is often used to justify compromise, but that does not make it a 'tool of the establishment' as you seem to think it is." You were claiming pragmatism wasn't necessarily a tool of the establishment because (at least the implication is) that sometimes pragmatism is used to justify compromises that are good. And my response is: of course it is sometimes used to justify compromises that are good. For the most part, though, it is used to disguise the bad intentions of politicians who don't want to be caught out with what their agenda really is.


Since you suddenly seem keen to back up on your prior remarks and their inflammatory nature, why is compromise not acceptable in this situation?Which situation? What are you talking about?


My remarks obviously did not imply you to be against compromise in every context,Really? Because when you wrote "In the US you have two politically polarized parties trying to govern, it is something that is all but inevitable. Yes it is used to justify policy that is not as left as many people on this board would like, but what more would you expect from the American political system?" you seemed to be under the misconception that I needed to be persuaded that sometimes compromise is necessary. How else could this statement be interpreted?


but since you seem to have skewered them terribly and from that written them off as a strawman I will explain the intent of my comments in more detail.At long last.


Compromise and its potential stems out of the context of circumstance, and those do not allow for the degree of compromise which you seem to be in favor of.I must once more ask: what the hell are you talking about? Compromise about what? Moreover, even your remarks about compromise in the abstract are confused. You start off by stating the obvious--that compromise is between real people in definite circumstances--then claim that I am frustrated because circumstances don't allow the "degree of compromise" I want. Yet, as I showed, you earlier implied that I am not aware of the fact that the American political system requires compromise. Which is it? Do I like compromise and think there's not enough, or do I not understand its importance and don't want any compromise?


You seem to be in favor of compromise only when it falls nicely enough in line with your ideologyAnd you've reached this conclusion on what basis? You've seen a thread where I've criticized O'Donnell for three of his positions, and now you're drawing sweeping conclusions about when I do or do not welcome compromise.


, and you seem to neglect context almost entirely.Or I might just have a different interpretation of the context.


If you did not you would see that the current political environment in the US is simply not open to the leftist politics which you seem to be in favor of.What do you mean when you say "open to leftist politics"? Debating you is like pinning jello to a wall. If you mean that people aren't on the streets calling for a socialist revolution, then no shit, of course there's no opening for that kind of politics at the present time. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be more specific. Are you suggesting that there's no "opening" for a public option on health care? But wait -- public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of the population supports it! Yet leave it to the likes of you and Lawrence O'Donnell to criticize people who support such things as not being "pragmatic."


Pragmatism is a concept of understanding a situation and of dealing with the factors present within in, regardless of how disagreeable they are with your ideology.Wait -- you mean something isn't a compromise if you get everything you want? No fucking shit, Einstein.


You cannot call yourself a pragmatist but mean it to only apply to a select few situations, to do such is to completely underwrite the use of the term in the political context.And I do this where?


I never said anything to the point that individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell deserve out full support, but rather implied that they are a part of a very large equation and that they deserve a certain degree of support due to their important role in the political process.They deserve support when they are engaged in worthwhile activities. You seem to think he combines socialist ideology with a "realistic" approach to politics. Yet I've just shown you that O'Donnell's definition of socialism is so broad that it includes libertarians like Rand Paul. When O'Donnell claims he's a socialist, he doesn't mean he's a Marxist or even a social democrat. He means he supports some programs that vitiate the pure logic of capitalism (as Teddy Roosevelt did), but as ODOnnell notes, even libertarians support such programs and are "socialists" in that sense. Should we happy that O'Donnell is grouping himself with the likes of John Boehner and Rand Paul?

I've watched his show enough to know O'Donnell wasn't a socialist without needing to dig up his little soliloquy where he defines socialism so broadly it includes George W. Bush. I could tell by his constant criticism of leftists, his insistent support of Obama's health care plan and his extension of tax cuts for millionaires, that he was in no way a socialist. He's not even a European-style social democrat. Does this mean nothing on his show is of value? Of course not. But it does mean we shouldn't be idiotically celebrating Lawrence O'Donnell getting a primetime slot on MSNBC because we're deluded into thinking that he's some kind of leftist. He's clearly and plainly not.


Perhaps I should shoot back with a comment about how you don't seem to understand my point, because that would seem to be more applicable to your comments than my own at this point as you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with drawing basic connotations from my writing.If I'm not understanding your points, it's because you're not articulating them clearly enough. I am understanding what you write perfectly fine. If you aren't translating the points in your head clearly onto the forum, then of course I am not understanding your points. But is that my fault?

[Lucretia]

He obviously does not think that John Boehner and Rand Paul are socialists, he was merely pointing out that they support policies that would once of been considered such due to their widespread popular support.

If you honestly think this, you do not know how to read. O'Donnell said: "In the presidential campaign, when silly old John McCain began calling Barack Obama a socialist, everyone, not just me, should have said, so are you and so am I. Socialists like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and now Rand Paul should not be able to hurl that word as a slur against other socialists." O'Donnell then closes with a stirring defense of a Newsweek magazine cover proclaiming "we are all socialists now." The operative word there is NOW. He refers to Boehner and Mcconnell as "socialists" (not "people who would have been called socialists 75 years ago") and ends with a conclusion that today everybody is a socialist, the only question being whether they are good socialists or bad socialists. It's clear to anybody with basic reading comprehension that O'Donnell defines socialism so broadly that the label "socialist" encompasses virtually everybody in the modern Western world.


You cannot realistically try to discern his personal ideology and his view of socialism from this passage, as it is being taken entirely out of context to prove a fault riddled point.Stunning that you think I'm leaving out important context, considering I posted his ENTIRE MONOLOGUE. Which context do you think I'm leaving out? If you're going to claim that I am leaving out important context that would change the meaning of this quote, you have to prove it by providing me portions of the text I left out, and how that would affect people's understanding of it. Somehow, I suspect you're not going to provide any evidence, yet you're also not going to retract your accusation that I am taking something out of context. This is a clear sign that you are not participating in this discussion in good faith.

His definition of socialism is entirely clear from the passage. It might not be a definition that is convenient for your silly arguments in this thread, but it's clear nonetheless.

[thesadmafioso]

Where did I mention "political parties" using the same tactics? You are stuck in this Republican-vs-Democratic frame of thinking, and it's obvious in every post you make. I mentioned different "parties" as in different groups of people using pragmatism to suit different purposes.

This was in response to your claim that "pragmatism is often used to justify compromise, but that does not make it a 'tool of the establishment' as you seem to think it is." You were claiming pragmatism wasn't necessarily a tool of the establishment because (at least the implication is) that sometimes pragmatism is used to justify compromises that are good. And my response is: of course it is sometimes used to justify compromises that are good. For the most part, though, it is used to disguise the bad intentions of politicians who don't want to be caught out with what their agenda really is.

Which situation? What are you talking about?

Really? Because when you wrote "In the US you have two politically polarized parties trying to govern, it is something that is all but inevitable. Yes it is used to justify policy that is not as left as many people on this board would like, but what more would you expect from the American political system?" you seemed to be under the misconception that I needed to be persuaded that sometimes compromise is necessary. How else could this statement be interpreted?

At long last.

I must once more ask: what the hell are you talking about? Compromise about what? Moreover, even your remarks about compromise in the abstract are confused. You start off by stating the obvious--that compromise is between real people in definite circumstances--then claim that I am frustrated because circumstances don't allow the "degree of compromise" I want. Yet, as I showed, you earlier implied that I am not aware of the fact that the American political system requires compromise. Which is it? Do I like compromise and think there's not enough, or do I not understand its importance and don't want any compromise?

And you've reached this conclusion on what basis? You've seen a thread where I've criticized O'Donnell for three of his positions, and now you're drawing sweeping conclusions about when I do or do not welcome compromise.

Or I might just have a different interpretation of the context.

What do you mean when you say "open to leftist politics"? Debating you is like pinning jello to a wall. If you mean that people aren't on the streets calling for a socialist revolution, then no shit, of course there's no opening for that kind of politics at the present time. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be more specific. Are you suggesting that there's no "opening" for a public option on health care? But wait -- public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of the population supports it! Yet leave it to the likes of you and Lawrence O'Donnell to criticize people who support such things as not being "pragmatic."

Wait -- you mean something isn't a compromise if you get everything you want? No fucking shit, Einstein.

And I do this where?

They deserve support when they are engaged in worthwhile activities. You seem to think he combines socialist ideology with a "realistic" approach to politics. Yet I've just shown you that O'Donnell's definition of socialism is so broad that it includes libertarians like Rand Paul. When O'Donnell claims he's a socialist, he doesn't mean he's a Marxist or even a social democrat. He means he supports some programs that vitiate the pure logic of capitalism (as Teddy Roosevelt did), but as ODOnnell notes, even libertarians support such programs and are "socialists" in that sense. Should we happy that O'Donnell is grouping himself with the likes of John Boehner and Rand Paul?

I've watched his show enough to know O'Donnell wasn't a socialist without needing to dig up his little soliloquy where he defines socialism so broadly it includes George W. Bush. I could tell by his constant criticism of leftists, his insistent support of Obama's health care plan and his extension of tax cuts for millionaires, that he was in no way a socialist. He's not even a European-style social democrat. Does this mean nothing on his show is of value? Of course not. But it does mean we shouldn't be idiotically celebrating Lawrence O'Donnell getting a primetime slot on MSNBC because we're deluded into thinking that he's some kind of leftist. He's clearly and plainly not.

If I'm not understanding your points, it's because you're not articulating them clearly enough. I am understanding what you write perfectly fine. If you aren't translating the points in your head clearly onto the forum, then of course I am not understanding your points. But is that my fault?

I never mentioned the Democrats or the Republicans in that particular excerpt, and I was applying a more loose definition of political organization to political party. Rather ironic that you would blatantly misinterpret my clear remarks while accusing someone else of just the same error. You seem to be stuck in the frame of thought that portrays me as someone only capable of thinking in the constructs of the American two party system.

I would love to continue on with this debunking of your 'argument', but there is not much beyond that point that is not punctuated with a question mark. Your thought process in regards to this question is tainted and skewered beyond a point where it can be saved through discussion on a forum, it would appear. Most all of the 'points' which you levy against my position are based in a false interpretation of what I originally said, which obviously leads to a mess of an argument. I did not ever state or imply that you are absolutely against compromise in every imaginable situation, I was referring to its use in this context. But perhaps I should steer away from the term context as you have been experiencing a great deal of difficulty in discerning the meaning of that term as well. I will not make any more futile efforts to argue against your nonsensical points. Your questions are rudimentary to a point where it would be nothing less than patronizing for myself to even bother with providing them with an answer. Every attempt which I make is met with nothing less than a wall of idiocy, so why bother really?

And to elaborate on my point of your misuse of the term context, one needs to look no further than your last post. When O'Donnell said that, he did not intend his comments to be read so literally. He was taking a dated and limited use of the term socialism and using it to prove a political point. He surely choose his language more for the connotative impact than anything else, as it makes a mockery of certain aspects of the Republican agenda. What was being shown in that usage of the term was that the GOP is open to more liberal and left leaning politics when the people support them, and that they are willing to allow their party line to be altered when it will be to the benefit of their electoral chances. I do not doubt that to be a full monologue, but to think that was what my use of context was aimed at would simply be foolish. I was referencing your tendency to take certain excerpts and to completely ignore important variables which are present in their context. You overlooked the larger point which O'Donnell was making and you take his line of thought and expand it to a point unintended by the individual who made it. This is simply ridiculous though, I should not have to explain these readily apparent and overtly transparent points to most anyone on this board. Perhaps you should scurry off to learning and spew your wretched drivel in a place where you will be able to justify your insufferable ignorance and use of Jello metaphors.

[Lucretia]

I would love to continue on with this debunking of your 'argument', but there is not much beyond that point that is not punctuated with a question mark.

I am very impressed with your ability to make claims. I am not so impressed with your ability to support them with evidence.

I have asked you plenty of questions, and you've failed to answer any of them. Instead, like somebody trying to divert the discussion, you change the subject entirely, don't address my questions, and claim victory by saying you've debunked my arguments. Let's look at the questions you've dodged just in our latest exchange.

1) You claimed that I took O'Donnell's remarks out of context, and I asked you where. I notice there's no response to that question here. You simply repeat the accusation without showing where I've taken any specific quote or group of quotes of context to change their meaning.

2) I asked you how you thought you could draw sweeping conclusions about my philosophy on compromise when all you've seen in this thread is my criticism of three of O'Donnell's positions. I notice you aren't bothering to answer that question either.

3) I asked you to clarify what you mean when you asked me "why is compromise not acceptable in this situation?" (because I have no idea what "this situation" was referring to), and you failed to answer that question.

4) I asked you where I called myself a "pragmatist" (I never have), and you didn't bother answering that question.

The list goes on and on.


I did not ever state or imply that you are absolutely against compromise in every imaginable situation, I was referring to its use in this context.Are you on some kind of drugs? What "context" are you talking about? I very clearly showed that your smug "explanations" of the importance of compromise in general (not about a specific issue) implied that I didn't understand the importance of compromise. Yet instead of addressing the specific passage I used to make my argument, you just make another sweeping declaration about how I am misrepresenting what you're saying. Well, do us all a favor and show specifically where I am misrepresenting what you're saying. I won't be holding my breath.


But perhaps I should steer away from the term context as you have been experiencing a great deal of difficulty in discerning the meaning of that term as well.I understand what the word context means. I don't understand what you mean when you're using it in the context of this discussion. You waffle between making sweeping statements about how I fail to understand the importance of compromise in general, and claiming that I am just too stupid to understand that you're talking about compromise on some specific (and as yet unspecified) issue. If anybody's confused here, it's you.


I will not make any more futile efforts to argue against your nonsensical points.Yes, like the nonsensical point that when Lawrence O'Donnell argues that "we're all socialists NOW," he's not making a historical argument.

You're very clearly a troll or somebody incapable of engage in serious intellectual exchange beyond one-line sloganeering. No wonder you're apparently a fan of Lawrence O'Donnell.


And to elaborate on my point of your misuse of the term context, one needs to look no further than your last post. When O'Donnell said that, he did not intend his comments to be read so literally. He was taking a dated and limited use of the term socialism and using it to prove a political point.Here you go again. You're making another sweeping conclusion but then do not provide any rationale for why anybody should agree with your conclusion. What specifically did O'Donnell say that you leads to believe that his comments shouldn't be taken literally? The fact that you don't agree with him? That's hardly a reason to think O'Donnell was being tongue-in-cheek. It's obvious from the text presented, wherein he calls Rand Paul a socialist, implies that "we're all socialists now," and distinguishes between "good socialism" and "bad socialism," that O'Donnell has a very expansive definition of socialism. So when O'Donnell proclaims on national TV that he's socialist, we shouldn't mistake his proclamation as proof that he's some far-left champion of revolutionary Marxist ideals.

If you want people to believe your interpretation of the text, the burden of proof is in your court to convince us otherwise by quoting and analyzing specific passages of the monologue. You know, engaging in the kind of serious analysis you've proven utterly incapable of pulling off up to this point.


He surely choose his language more for the connotative impact than anything else, as it makes a mockery of certain aspects of the Republican agenda. How do you know this? You're asking us to believe that we shouldn't interpret O'Donnell to mean exactly what he said, that when he uses the word "socialism" he doesn't mean "socialism." This requires more than just you stating it flatly in one sentence without any proof whatsoever.


What was being shown in that usage of the term was that the GOP is open to more liberal and left leaning politics when the people support them, and that they are willing to allow their party line to be altered when it will be to the benefit of their electoral chances.It's obvious what O'Donnell is doing: he's making that point that right-wingers who use the word "socialism" as a insult are hypocritical because they themselves are socialists (according to O'Donnell's definition of the term) because they support some social programs that undermine the pure logic of capitalism.

He's not using the word socialist in this context in a subtle or clever or mocking way. He's making a clear point about the hypocrisy of right-wingers who speak as though socialism is bad, but then turn around and support policies that are in his view "socialist."

He makes the same point on his show from October 31st in exchange he had with tea party members he invited to be on his program. The context of this situation is O'Donnell asking each of the tea party members, who proclaimed to be so totally opposed to "socialism" and in favor of balancing the budget, where they would cut the budget and whether they would eliminate what O'Donnell calls "socialist" programs:

O'DONNELL: Let's try to get these groups described by answering some policy questions and where you stand on things. Judson Phillips, you mentioned that you're opposed to socialism, so, let's start with social security and Medicare. I assume that means that your group, Tea Party Nation, wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare.


PHILLIPS: No we - excuse me, I'm sorry. We've never said that we want to abolish it. We do want to fundamentally change government because the way government's been working for the last 50 years hasn't been working very well. You talk about --


O'DONNELL: Can I, Judson, can I stop you right there? Let's go back to the full screen of everyone because just let's see a raised hand on this one, okay? Let's see if we agree, if we can get an agreement on this. Do you all agree that social security is socialism? No one agrees with that? No one thinks it's socialism? Okay, do you agree that Medicare is socialism? No one thinks Medicare is socialism. Well, you're all wrong on that.

Surprise, surprise. It's O'Donnell making the exact same argument he did a couple of weeks later: that the people decrying socialism are in fact, literally, socialists. Is O'Donnell being "connotative" there also? Or are you willing to admit you're as full of shit in this thread as O'Donnell was when he claimed to be a socialist?


I do not doubt that to be a full monologue, but to think that was what my use of context was aimed at would simply be foolish. I was referencing your tendency to take certain excerpts and to completely ignore important variables which are present in their context.Where specifically do I "take certain excerpts" and "completely ignore variables" that might lead people to interpret those excerpts differently? Here you are again making a sweeping claim with absolutely NO evidence. You're just being a troll.


You overlooked the larger point which O'Donnell was makingI understand the point O'Donnell was making, which is that everybody is a socialist to some extent, and that to use the word 'socialist' as a political insult is both hypocritical and stupid.

Again, I must ask you: do you not know how to read?

[thesadmafioso]

I am very impressed with your ability to make claims. I am not so impressed with your ability to support them with evidence.

I have asked you plenty of questions, and you've failed to answer any of them. Instead, like somebody trying to divert the discussion, you change the subject entirely, don't address my questions, and claim victory by saying you've debunked my arguments. Let's look at the questions you've dodged just in our latest exchange.

1) You claimed that I took O'Donnell's remarks out of context, and I asked you where. I notice there's no response to that question here. You simply repeat the accusation without showing where I've taken any specific quote or group of quotes of context to change their meaning.

2) I asked you how you thought you could draw sweeping conclusions about my philosophy on compromise when all you've seen in this thread is my criticism of three of O'Donnell's positions. I notice you aren't bothering to answer that question either.

3) I asked you to clarify what you mean when you asked me "why is compromise not acceptable in this situation?" (because I have no idea what "this situation" was referring to), and you failed to answer that question.

4) I asked you where I called myself a "pragmatist" (I never have), and you didn't bother answering that question.

The list goes on and on.

Are you on some kind of drugs? What "context" are you talking about? I very clearly showed that your smug "explanations" of the importance of compromise in general (not about a specific issue) implied that I didn't understand the importance of compromise. Yet instead of addressing the specific passage I used to make my argument, you just make another sweeping declaration about how I am misrepresenting what you're saying. Well, do us all a favor and show specifically where I am misrepresenting what you're saying. I won't be holding my breath.

I understand what the word context means. I don't understand what you mean when you're using it in the context of this discussion. You waffle between making sweeping statements about how I fail to understand the importance of compromise in general, and claiming that I am just too stupid to understand that you're talking about compromise on some specific (and as yet unspecified) issue. If anybody's confused here, it's you.

Yes, like the nonsensical point that when Lawrence O'Donnell argues that "we're all socialists NOW," he's not making a historical argument.

You're very clearly a troll or somebody incapable of engage in serious intellectual exchange beyond one-line sloganeering. No wonder you're apparently a fan of Lawrence O'Donnell.

Here you go again. You're making another sweeping conclusion but then do not provide any rationale for why anybody should agree with your conclusion. What specifically did O'Donnell say that you leads to believe that his comments shouldn't be taken literally? The fact that you don't agree with him? That's hardly a reason to think O'Donnell was being tongue-in-cheek. It's obvious from the text presented, wherein he calls Rand Paul a socialist, implies that "we're all socialists now," and distinguishes between "good socialism" and "bad socialism," that O'Donnell has a very expansive definition of socialism. So when O'Donnell proclaims on national TV that he's socialist, we shouldn't mistake his proclamation as proof that he's some far-left champion of revolutionary Marxist ideals.

If you want people to believe your interpretation of the text, the burden of proof is in your court to convince us otherwise by quoting and analyzing specific passages of the monologue. You know, engage in the kind of serious analysis you've shown utterly incapable of pulling off up to this point.

How do you know this? You're asking us to believe that we shouldn't believe O'Donnell mean what he said. This requires more than just you stating it flatly in one sentence without any proof whatsoever.

It's obvious what O'Donnell is doing: he's making that point that right-wingers who use the word "socialism" as a insult are hypocritical because they themselves are socialists (according to O'Donnell's definition of the term) because they support some social programs that undermine the pure logic of capitalism.

He's not using the word socialist in this context in a subtle or clever or mocking way. He's making a clear point about the hypocrisy of right-wingers who speak as though socialism is bad, but then turn around and support policies that are in his view "socialist."

Where specifically do I "take certain excerpts" and "completely ignore variables" that might lead people to interpret those excerpts differently? Here you are again making a sweeping claim with absolutely NO evidence. You're just being a troll.

I understand the point O'Donnell was making, which is that everybody is a socialist to some extent, and that to use the word 'socialist' as a political insult is both hypocritical and stupid.

Again, I must ask you: do you not know how to read?

I showed you how you took his comments out of context, I will not reiterate myself in such a redundant fashion. And if you understood his point, than what point where you trying to make? He used socialism in a somewhat liberal fashion, and that is bad how? You are the one who quoted that excerpt with the clear intent to discredit O'Donnell and his ideological position as a socialist, and now you seem to be backing up from that point. You have said that you understood his more abstract usage of the term in the bit which you have quoted, but yet at the same time you are using it to argue that through saying such he is discrediting himself as a socialist? Words can have multiple definitions, by this I am referring to socialism. When he applied it to the situation of which you have quoted, he did not mean to apply every facet of the term to the situation, and it was meant to be interpreted in a more refined and exact fashion. He was making a clear and cohesive point, not providing a definition of his ideology. Your interpretation is devoid of any nuance and thus you are left with such a flawed outcome. You seem to be incapable of separating his point from his ability to use the word socialism in a variety of situations, and you seem to be confusing socialism as a word which is devoid of any variation in its usage. Your point hinges entirely upon drawing a nonexistent correlation between two entirely different uses of a complex term, and it simply is devoid of any real substance. Honestly how can anyone be expected to argue against such a fragile and hollow remark?

I drew some basic connotations from your statements which were rather clear, and you were the one bringing your personal ideology into the forefront of this debate. I cannot exactly be held responsible for your own missteps in describing your personal ideology. You have said that you are open to compromise in some situations, and from that it can be deducted that you are pragmatic in at least a limited sense of the term. I don't very well care if you never used the word as it was heavily implied, it would be helpful if you would cut out the 'I never said that' defense. I don't exactly feel like skimming through your the archives of our previous posts to find your exact language, is that really an issue here? Perhaps you should focus on the debate at hand and quit trying to derail it even further off of the original topic.

As for what I meant by this situation, I meant the current situation which was the basis for this topic. Perhaps you forgot what this topic was originally about, but it once dealt with the state of the modern US media. Compromise referring to ideological reconciliation with certain factions of this organization for larger political purposes.


Are you on some kind of drugs? What "context" are you talking about? I very clearly showed that your smug "explanations" of the importance of compromise in general (not about a specific issue) implied that I didn't understand the importance of compromise. Yet instead of addressing the specific passage I used to make my argument, you just make another sweeping declaration about how I am misrepresenting what you're saying. Well, do us all a favor and show specifically where I am misrepresenting what you're saying. I won't be holding my breath.

Ok, I will go ahead and use this bit for an example of you distorting the clearly defined intent of my statements. I was referring to compromise in the lens of the contemporary US media, and my remarks which pertained to your apparent disdain for compromise were said with that in mind, as it was the the backdrop of the topic. You seem to be losing sight of the original causation behind this discussion, and it is showing in your disjointed and rambling arguments.

As I have said previously though, I am not going to hold your hand and guide you through my remarks word for word. If you have trouble understanding basic points and if you cannot draw some simple connotations from my remarks, then my continued explanations are not going to have any notable effect here. Honestly this discussion has devolved into an argument of who meant what when they said what, and it is going no where. I heard you bit a while ago, and you have not added anything else of value to it for quite some time now. Your endless stream of flustered questions are not providing any meaningful insight to this discussion, and they are only making your inadequacies in the field of comprehension more visible.

So why don't you go troll about in another thread for a while and let some of us who understand the nature of modern politics discuss the potential effect that this will have on the political process.

[Lucretia]

I showed you how you took his comments out of context,

No, you didn't. Quote specifically the parts of his monologue I took out of context, explain how I took them out of context, and how my taking them out of context changes the meaning that O'Donnell was attempting to convey.

We'll stick to this one issue until you can put up or shut up.

[thesadmafioso]

No, you didn't. Quote specifically the parts of his monologue I took out of context, explain how I took them out of context, and how my taking them out of context changes the meaning that O'Donnell was attempting to convey.

We'll stick to this one issue until you can put up or shut up.

I already have done this, it is not my fault if you are incapable of understanding the nature or basis of my point.

This discussion is just descending further and further into absolute nonsense though. You have said nothing in this response of any value, all this contains is a hollow and desperate demand for me to dumb down my position even further so as to allow your mind to grasp it.

[Lucretia]

I already have done this, it is not my fault if you are incapable of understanding the nature or basis of my point.

Me: O'Donnell defines socialism broadly, saying that anybody who supports a collective social program is a socialist.

You: You're taking O'Donnell's remarks out of context. O'Donnell doesn't mean "socialist" literally.

Me: Really? Where did I take O'Donnell's remarks out of context.

You: You're an idiot if you can't see where I've already shown you! I won't repeat myself again!

Me: No you haven't. Show me SPECIFICALLY what excerpts I've taken out of context in a misleading way.

You: You ass! I've shown you so many times before! I won't do it again!

It's obvious at this point you are either unwilling or incapable of engaging in serious discussion about any issue.

[thesadmafioso]

Me: O'Donnell defines socialism broadly, saying that anybody who supports a collective social program is a socialist.

You: You're taking O'Donnell's remarks out of context. O'Donnell doesn't mean "socialist" literally.

Me: Really? Where did I take O'Donnell's remarks out of context.

You: You're an idiot if you can't see where I've already shown you! I won't repeat myself again!

Me: No you haven't. Show me SPECIFICALLY what excerpts I've taken out of context in a misleading way.

You: You ass! I've shown you so many times before! I won't do it again!

It's obvious at this point you are either unwilling or incapable of engaging in serious discussion about any issue.

A clever little fictitious interpretation of this topics contents does not make up for an inability to understand the full extent of my point.

[Lucretia]

I am also waiting for a response regarding the second excerpt I provided, where O'Donnell clearly defines socialism extremely broadly.

From his show from October 31st (the context of this situation is O'Donnell asking each of the tea party members, who proclaimed to be so totally opposed to "socialism" and in favor of balancing the budget, where they would cut the budget and whether they would eliminate what O'Donnell calls "socialist" programs):

O'DONNELL: Let's try to get these groups described by answering some policy questions and where you stand on things. Judson Phillips, you mentioned that you're opposed to socialism, so, let's start with social security and Medicare. I assume that means that your group, Tea Party Nation, wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare.

PHILLIPS: No we - excuse me, I'm sorry. We've never said that we want to abolish it. We do want to fundamentally change government because the way government's been working for the last 50 years hasn't been working very well. You talk about --

O'DONNELL: Can I, Judson, can I stop you right there? Let's go back to the full screen of everyone because just let's see a raised hand on this one, okay? Let's see if we agree, if we can get an agreement on this. Do you all agree that social security is socialism? No one agrees with that? No one thinks it's socialism? Okay, do you agree that Medicare is socialism? No one thinks Medicare is socialism. Well, you're all wrong on that.

It's O'Donnell making the exact same argument he did a couple of weeks later: that the people decrying socialism are in fact, literally, socialists. Is O'Donnell being "connotative" there also? Am I taking something out of context again? Or are you willing to admit you're as full of shit in this thread as O'Donnell was when he claimed to be a socialist?

[Lucretia]

A clever little fictitious interpretation of this topics contents does not make up for an inability to understand the full extent of my point.

Shocking! Another assertion without a shred of evidence. :thumbdown:

[thesadmafioso]

I am also waiting for a response regarding the second excerpt I provided, where O'Donnell clearly defines socialism extremely broadly.

From his show from October 31st (the context of this situation is O'Donnell asking each of the tea party members, who proclaimed to be so totally opposed to "socialism" and in favor of balancing the budget, where they would cut the budget and whether they would eliminate what O'Donnell calls "socialist" programs):

O'DONNELL: Let's try to get these groups described by answering some policy questions and where you stand on things. Judson Phillips, you mentioned that you're opposed to socialism, so, let's start with social security and Medicare. I assume that means that your group, Tea Party Nation, wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare.

PHILLIPS: No we - excuse me, I'm sorry. We've never said that we want to abolish it. We do want to fundamentally change government because the way government's been working for the last 50 years hasn't been working very well. You talk about --

O'DONNELL: Can I, Judson, can I stop you right there? Let's go back to the full screen of everyone because just let's see a raised hand on this one, okay? Let's see if we agree, if we can get an agreement on this. Do you all agree that social security is socialism? No one agrees with that? No one thinks it's socialism? Okay, do you agree that Medicare is socialism? No one thinks Medicare is socialism. Well, you're all wrong on that.

It's O'Donnell making the exact same argument he did a couple of weeks later: that the people decrying socialism are in fact, literally, socialists. Is O'Donnell being "connotative" there also? Am I taking something out of context again? Or are you willing to admit you're as full of shit in this thread as O'Donnell was when he claimed to be a socialist?

Yes, I think at this point everyone knows that you cannot understand most anything which comes out of the mainstream media, and that you have a taste for abusing and misusing the term context. The additional evidence to support this point is appreciated, but more or less unnecessary.

[Lucretia]

Yes, I think at this point everyone knows that you cannot understand most anything which comes out of the mainstream media, and that you have a percent for abusing and misusing the term context. The additional evidence to support this point is appreciated, but more or less unnecessary.

Paraphrase: Instead of trying to address the substance of your post, which completely shows up my argument, I am going to repeat my sweeping accusation that you just don't understand anything in the media.

:laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

Paraphrase: Instead of trying to address the substance of your post, which completely shows up my argument, I am going to repeat my sweeping accusation that you just don't understand anything in the media.

:laugh:

You are the one who completely ignored the brunt of my last post which was of length, and now you are accusing me of avoiding a direct argument? I would say that there certainly is a bit of irony to that.

[Lucretia]

You are the one who completely ignored the brunt of my last post which was of length, and now you are accusing me of avoiding a direct argument? I would say that there certainly is a bit of irony to that.

Are you going to address the second excerpt or aren't you? Put up or shut up, kid.

[thesadmafioso]

Are you going to address the second excerpt or aren't you? Put up or shut up, kid.

It does not bring any new point into the discussion which I have not already dealt with, so it would be quite redundant to even bother with such an attempt.

[Lucretia]

It does not bring any new point into the discussion which I have not already dealt with, so it would be quite redundant to even bother with such an attempt.

I agree that it doesn't provide anything new. It just shows O'Donnell using socialism literally to mean the same thing he did in the other excerpt I posted. It clearly shows O'Donnell defining socialism as support for a social program operating at cross purposes with the logic of capitalism. If you want us to believe O'Donnell has a different definition, and that he's just using this "connotatively" and not in a "literal" way, you'll need to explain why he has this horrible habit of making direct statements defining socialism in one way, when according to you that's not how he really means to definine socialism. This will require that you provide evidence. Not simply claim that you've presented evidence, but actually present evidence. This is not your high school forensics team.

[thesadmafioso]

Shocking! Another assertion without a shred of evidence. :thumbdown:

Did you honestly expect a complete analysis of the factual discrepancies and inaccuracies in a crude synopsis of this topics discussion? Am I to provide you with a detailed response to any and every quote which you pull from the internet?

[Lucretia]

Did you honestly expect a complete analysis of the factual discrepancies and inaccuracies in a crude synopsis of this topics discussion? Am I to provide you with a detailed response to any and every quote which you pull from the internet?

I don't expect academic essays. I expect something more than baseless assertions that any idiot with a keyboard can rattle off.

[thesadmafioso]

I agree that it doesn't provide anything new. It just shows O'Donnell using socialism literally to mean the same thing he did in the other excerpt I posted. It clearly shows O'Donnell defining socialism as support for a social program operating at cross purposes with the logic of capitalism. If you want us to believe O'Donnell has a different definition, and that he's just using this "connotatively" and not in a "literal" way, you'll need to explain why he has this horrible habit of making direct statements defining socialism in one way, when according to you that's not how he really means to definine socialism. This will require that you provide evidence. Not simply claim that you've presented evidence, but actually present evidence. This is not your high school forensics team.

You either did not read my last detailed response to this claim or you did not understand it. Your argument is based entirely in an incredibly flawed premise that their is a connection between his use of the term in this context and in the context of his definition of his ideology. Why don't you stop spewing your obnoxious drivel around about how I haven't responded to your point when I have on multiple occasions and defend this hole in your argument for a change?

Your banal and witless attempts at humor are not furthering any point here and they are only detracting from the discussion.

[Lucretia]

You either did not read my last detailed response to this claim or you did not understand it.

Maybe I am just too stupid to understand unless it's presented to me multiple times. Where's your evidence that I've taken O'Donnell's remarks out of context to change the meaning? Where's your evidence that O'Donnell does not mean to define Medicare as socialism when he flatly states that Medicare is socialism? If you've already presented the evidence, all you'll need to do is just copy and paste it below.

If you can't do that, I'll just assume you didn't really provide any evidence, and are just claiming that you did as a way to save face.

[thesadmafioso]

Maybe I am just too stupid to understand unless it's presented to me multiple times. Where's your evidence that I've taken O'Donnell's remarks out of context to change the meaning? Where's your evidence that O'Donnell does not mean to define Medicare as socialism when he flatly states that Medicare is socialism? If you've already presented the evidence, all you'll need to do is just copy and paste it below.

If you can't do that, I'll just assume you didn't really provide any evidence, and are just claiming that you did as a way to save face.

Are you even reading my responses at this point? There is a major hole in your argument. You are taking one use of a term, and applying it to an entirely different context. You are taking a word that had a specific intent tailored to a certain argument and situation and exporting it to an entirely separate environment. I would like to here you try and defend that, and I would like to hear your explanation for your blatant opportunistic abuse of context. You are making a mockery of reason and logic in a pitiful attempt to prop up a fallacy riddled wreck of a point, and it is getting you no where.

[Lucretia]

Are you even reading my responses at this point? There is a major hole in your argument. You are taking one use of a term, and applying it to an entirely different context. You are taking a word that had a specific intent tailored to a certain argument and situation and exporting it to an entirely separate environment.

Now, we're getting somewhere. It appears that instead of trying to argue that I misrepresented O'Donnell's definition of socialism by taking it out of context, you are now trying to argue that O'Donnell has used the word "socialism" in different senses, with different definitions depending on the context. Where have you seen O'Donnell define socialism differently than the way he defines the word in the multiple excerpts I have posted here? Provide evidence of where he does this.

[Amphictyonis]

mafioso -O'Donnell is not a socialist. He's an actual progressive and the "progressives" are actually neoconservatives. Hillary Clinton considers herself a 'progressive'. MSNBC, FOX, CNN or any other capitalist media conglomerate is never going to put an actual socialist on air with their own show.

[thesadmafioso]

Now, we're getting somewhere. It appears you are trying to argue that O'Donnell has used the word "socialism" in different senses depending on the context. Where have you seen O'Donnell define socialism differently than the way he defines the word in the multiple excerpts I have posted here? Provide evidence of where he does this.

We were already at this point, it just took you a while to realize it.

But it would seem that a great deal of work is still required for you to understand the rest of the point here, and that is quite a shame as I don't know if my point can be reduced to a simpler form at this point. I don't much feel up for giving detailed explanations of the two different situations in which he used the term and how they differed, as such information is so rudimentary and basic I presumed it to be more common knowledge than anything else.

[Lucretia]

We were already at this point, it just took you a while to realize it.

Wrong. Arguing that O'Donnell has defined socialism in different ways is totally different than saying that I am misconstruing how he was defining socialism in the excerpts I have provided. I admit that it's possible that O'Donnell might use the word in different senses. My point is that (a) I have only seem him use the word in the way he does in the two excerpts I provided, and (b) that it is clear from the excerpts I provided that he means socialism to be broad label covering any support of collective social programs. If you want me to believe O'Donnell has defined socialism in a different way because of a different context, and that this affects how we should view his present political affiliations, you'll have to provide some kind of evidence.


But it would seem that a great deal of work is still required for you to understand the rest of the point here, and that is quite a shame as I don't know if my point can be reduced to a simpler form at this point. I don't much feel up for giving detailed explanations of the two different situations in which he used the term and how they differed, as such information is so rudimentary and basic I presumed it to be more common knowledge than anything else.Not much work at all is required. If you want to convince me that O'Donnell has defined socialism differently in other contexts, provide evidence, like some sort of quote.

It's pretty simple, yet I would be willing to bet you won't do it. Instead, you'll just claim you've already provided all the evidence you needed to.

[thesadmafioso]

Wrong. Arguing that O'Donnell has defined socialism in different ways is totally different than saying that I am misconstruing how he was defining socialism in the excerpts I have provided by not taking the context into consideration. I admit that it's possible that O'Donnell might use the word in different senses. My point is that (a) I have only seem him use the word in the way he does in the two excerpts I provided, and (b) that it is clear from the excerpts I provided that he means socialism to be broad label covering any support of collective social programs.

Not much work at all is required. If you want to convince me that O'Donnell has defined socialism differently in other contexts, provide evidence, like some sort of quote.

It's pretty simple, yet I would be willing to bet you won't do it. Instead, you'll just claim you've already provided all the evidence you needed to.

It's a mixture of the two, you gleefully distorted his use of the term while at the same time taking it out of context. The two are rather intertwined, and by treating them as separate factors you are underwriting a major point here.

And I don't really think Lawrence O'Donnell has ever taken his viewers through his personal ideology in the sort of depth that you would like, but he certainly has shown himself to be left leaning enough on his program. Of course you need to be able to separate his understanding of political reality from his ideology, which you seem to be incapable of. So I really don't think the sort of hard, empirical evidence you seek is at hand here, but that does not necessarily make my point any less effective. He has experience working in the upper stratas of the US government, I think that we can take him for his word when he identifies himself as a socialist who is to the left of liberals and of progressives. It is more than safe to say that he realizes what separates the two and that he is capable of associating himself with an ideology. You are obviously not going to find a quotation or video clip of O'Donnell himself explaining any of this, but that does in itself is not a point. A full enough picture of his ideology can be created without resorting to lowly tactics of distorting the intent of his words, and without him directly explaining what he has meant by socialism in various different situations.

[Lucretia]

It's a mixture of the two, you gleefully distorted his use of the term

Explain how I've done that by engaging with what he said, and how I've interpreted what he said. All you've done over and over and over again is repeat that I've distorted what he's said. You've never at any point provided any evidence that I have distorted what he said.

Where's your evidence? I've asked for it three or four times, and all I've gotten in response is (a) you ignore my request for evidence and start talking about something else, or (b) you claim you've already provided evidence, and claim I was just too stupid to understand the nature of the evidence you've presented.


And I don't really think Lawrence O'Donnell has ever taken his viewers through his personal ideology in the sort of depth that you would like, but he certainly has shown himself to be left leaning enough on his program. Of course you need to be able to separate his understanding of political reality from his ideology, which you seem to be incapable of.

See, this is the problem with this discussion and why it has dragged on. I asked you for something very simple: an example of where O'Donnell has used the word "socialism" in a way that was different than how he used it in the two previous excerpts I provided -- where he clearly means socialism to refer to any support for non-capitalistic social welfare programs. And what do I get in response? A meandering and disjointed discussion of how to separate O'Donnell's "understanding of political reality" from his "ideology" (which is an odd thing to say, since ideology is the way people understand their political reality).

Answer the question: do you or don't you have any evidence that O'Donnell used the word socialism to mean anything other than support for social welfare programs?


So I really don't think the sort of hard, empirical evidence you seek is at hand here, but that does not necessarily make my point any less effective.

Actually, it does. You are disputing my claim that O'Donnell defines socialism only as support for social welfare programs. I responded by asking where he has defined the term differently. And here, at last, we have the truth of the matter: you have no evidence for your claim, yet you want to pretend that not having evidence doesn't affect your argument.


He has experience working in the upper stratas of the US government, I think that we can take him for his word when he identifies himself as a socialist who is to the left of liberals and of progressives.

The fact that O'Donnell worked on capital hill is not evidence that he defines socialism the way you think he does.


A full enough picture of his ideology can be created without resorting to lowly tactics of distorting the intent of his words, and without him directly explaining what he has meant by socialism in various different situations.

Stop changing the topic of the discussion. We are currently discussing O'Donnell's definition of socialism. You claimed that I have distorted his definition by taking a couple of his uses of the term out of their wider context, presumably by ignoring other ways he has used the term. Where do you have any evidence that he has used socialism to mean something different than support for social welfare programs? Hint: pointing out that O'Donnell worked on capitol hill is not evidence in this regard.

[thesadmafioso]

Explain how I've done that by engaging with what he said, and how I've interpreted what he said. All you've done over and over and over again is repeat that I've distorted what he's said. You've never at any point provided any evidence that I have distorted what he said.

Where's your evidence? I've asked for it three or four times, and all I've gotten in response is (a) you ignore my request for evidence and start talking about something else, or (b) you claim you've already provided evidence, and claim I was just too stupid to understand the nature of the evidence you've presented.



See, this is the problem with this discussion and why it has dragged on. I asked you for something very simple: an example of where O'Donnell has used the word "socialism" in a way that was different than how he used it in the two previous excerpts I provided -- where he clearly means socialism to refer to any support for non-capitalistic social welfare programs. And what do I get in response? A meandering and disjointed discussion of how to separate O'Donnell's "understanding of political reality" from his "ideology" (which is an odd thing to say, since ideology is the way people understand their political reality).

Answer the question: do you or don't you have any evidence that O'Donnell used the word socialism to mean anything other than support for social welfare programs?



Actually, it does. You are disputing my claim that O'Donnell defines socialism only as support for social welfare programs. I responded by asking where he has defined the term differently. And here, at last, we have the truth of the matter: you have no evidence for your claim, yet you want to pretend that not having evidence doesn't affect your argument.



The fact that O'Donnell worked on capital hill is not evidence that he defines socialism the way you think he does.



Stop changing the topic of the discussion. We are currently discussing O'Donnell's definition of socialism. You claimed that I have distorted his definition by taking a couple of his uses of the term out of their wider context, presumably by ignoring other ways he has used the term. Where do you have any evidence that he has used socialism to mean something different than support for social welfare programs? Hint: pointing out that O'Donnell worked on capitol hill is not evidence in this regard.

O'Donnell and his political experience is perfectly relevant to this subject, as it shows how he is more than qualified to make a judgement in regards to his own personal ideology. His work in the upper chamber of the legislative branch shows that he would obviously have a decent bit of working knowledge in regards to the nature of the American political spectrum.

Once more though, your argument hinges upon nothing other than the fact that O'Donnell has not explained every single facet of his ideology on his show or through other means. Your argument says nothing, and it shows a reckless disregard for the truth of the matter. You clearly do not watch his program and you clearly have not read much of his writing. I am not going to go ahead and do some basic research for you, your incomplete base of knowledge is not something which I can reasonably be held responsible for. The sort of evidence you seek does not exist, and you know that as there is no rational explanation for why it would. You are taking this fact and twisting it into a meaningless argument which says nothing. You are intentionally overlooking a multitude of relevant variables just so that you may continue on with your baseless demands for proof. A clever tactic though, as this facade allows you to look as if you are taking some sort of factual high ground, but the reality of the matter couldn't be further from that. I know that your demand is simple, you purposefully intended it to be so.

[Lucretia]

O'Donnell and his political experience is perfectly relevant to this subject, as it shows how he is more than qualified to make a judgement in regards to his own personal ideology.

Nobody is arguing that O'Donnell doesn't know what he believes. You're making it sound like that's what I am arguing (a strawman), when in fact my whole point is that O'Donnell is very clear in what he believes. He has proclaimed himself a socialist, and has defined on multiple occasions that in his view socialism means support for social welfare programs. This makes it clear that O'Donnell supports social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. You're the one arguing that he has some secret unexpressed socialist agenda that there's no empirical evidence for. O'Donnell's experience on Capitol Hill does not prove that his definition of socialism is different than the one he offered in the multiple excerpts I provided. You can keep repeating that it is, but that doesn't make it so.


His work in the upper chamber of the legislative branch shows that he would obviously have a decent bit of working knowledge in regards to the nature of the American political spectrum.I am not claiming that he doesn't understand the nature of the American political spectrum (which may or may not be the case). I am saying that the way he demarcates that spectrum with the label "socialist" is not restrictive or "progressive" as you seem to think. You've yet to provide any evidence that my argument in this regard is flawed. All you've done is just declare it flawed.


Once more though, your argument hinges upon nothing other than the fact that O'Donnell has not explained every single facet of his ideology on his show or through other means.My argument is that O'Donnell defines socialism to mean support for social welfare programs. I have provided multiple excerpts from his show that demonstrate this fact. Therefore we cannot accept O'Donnell's proclamation that he is a "socialist" as evidence that he is a leftist. We have to look specifically at his different policies, and determine whether they are consistent with somebody who wants to advance the cause of abolishing class society.


Your argument says nothing, and it shows a reckless disregard for the truth of the matter.Yeah, yeah, we've heard this all before. "You're wrong, but I won't actually provide any evidence that you're wrong. Just take my word for it."



You clearly do not watch his program and you clearly have not read much of his writing.Judging from this thread, where I have quoted excerpts from multiple shows and you have quoted absolutely nothing he has said, I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe this desperate argument you're making that you are more knowledgeable about the content of his program than I am.


I am not going to go ahead and do some basic research for you, your incomplete base of knowledge is not something which I can reasonably be held responsible for.Paraphrase: I am either too lazy or too incompetent to provide any evidence to support the claims that I make, but I can't admit that. So I'll pretend that when people ask me to support my claims with evidence, that THEY are the ones being lazy and incompetent! (How clever!)


The sort of evidence you seek does not exist, and you know that as there is no rational explanation for why it would.I was asking for an example of where O'Donnell verbally uses the word socialism, on his program on in his writings, in a way that would lead anybody to believe his definition of the word is different than the one the excerpts clearly prove he has. Why would you claimed that you had evidence that I was misconstruing his definition of socialism, if you didn't have evidence of where O'Donnell uses the word "socialism" in a way that shows he defines it differently than what I said?


You are taking this fact and twisting it into a meaningless argument which says nothing. You are intentionally overlooking a multitude of relevant variables just so that you may continue on with your baseless demands for proof.Another vacuous assertion that I am wrong, without any substantive points backing up this claim, followed by an equally meaningless statement that I am overlooking unspecified "relevant variables" (really? which variables? and if we incorporate these "variables," how does that undermine the points I am making?).

[Idahoan]

Keith Olbermann is a paid advertiser for his network. The same goes for every paid anchor. The fact of the matter is "news" is whatever will get the most viewership. Therefore one should not mourn the loss of an advertiser. Instead one should hope a true Socialist news agency will become popular. It should be non-doctrinal to attract more viewers and should allow competing viewpoionts air time. It's not a matter of who owns what because in the end it's always just one man who owns the most in this type of system. One cog lost doesn't end the machine, it just means another replacement is on the way. Such a system isn't organic and will fail, sure, but it needs to be proven to be a failure before it can happen, and this turnover can allow that to be proven should enough be spoken in proper ways. Influence can be bought and sold but it can also be gained. Maybe a youtube socialist will have more views than Glenn Beck and then debates will start. Of course they will be capitalist debates, but still, debates of many capitalists against one comrade will still be better than none to begin with.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

TSM, nobody really cares about this. Not only that, but nobody on this forum is willing to defend your position on Lawrence O'Donnell and his "socialism". Please stop this nonsense back-and-forth argument about an insignificant liberal corporate-media anchor.

[thesadmafioso]

Nobody is arguing that O'Donnell doesn't know what he believes. You're making it sound like that's what I am arguing (a strawman), when in fact my whole point is that O'Donnell is very clear in what he believes. He has proclaimed himself a socialist, and has defined on multiple occasions that in his view socialism means support for social welfare programs. This makes it clear that O'Donnell supports social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. You're the one arguing that he has some secret unexpressed socialist agenda that there's no empirical evidence for. O'Donnell's experience on Capitol Hill does not prove that his definition of socialism is different than the one he offered in the multiple excerpts I provided. You can keep repeating that it is, but that doesn't make it so.

I am not claiming that he doesn't understand the nature of the American political spectrum (which may or may not be the case). I am saying that the way he demarcates that spectrum with the label "socialist" is not restrictive or "progressive" as you seem to think. You've yet to provide any evidence that my argument in this regard is flawed. All you've done is just declare it flawed.

My argument is that O'Donnell defines socialism to mean support for social welfare programs. I have provided multiple excerpts from his show that demonstrate this fact. Therefore we cannot accept O'Donnell's proclamation that he is a "socialist" as evidence that he is a leftist. We have to look specifically at his different policies, and determine whether they are consistent with somebody who wants to advance the cause of abolishing class society.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard this all before. "You're wrong, but I won't actually provide any evidence that you're wrong. Just take my word for it."


Judging from this thread, where I have quoted excerpts from multiple shows and you have quoted absolutely nothing he has said, I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe this desperate argument you're making that you are more knowledgeable about the content of his program than I am.

Paraphrase: I am either too lazy or too incompetent to provide any evidence to support the claims that I make, but I can't admit that. So I'll pretend that when people ask me to support my claims with evidence, that THEY are the ones being lazy and incompetent! (How clever!)

I was asking for an example of where O'Donnell verbally uses the word socialism, on his program on in his writings, in a way that would lead anybody to believe his definition of the word is different than the one the excerpts clearly prove he has. Why would you claimed that you had evidence that I was misconstruing his definition of socialism, if you didn't have evidence of where O'Donnell uses the word "socialism" in a way that shows he defines it differently than what I said?

Another vacuous assertion that I am wrong, without any substantive points backing up this claim, followed by an equally meaningless statement that I am overlooking unspecified "relevant variables" (really? which variables? and if we incorporate these "variables," how does that undermine the points I am making?).

This is a futile endeavor. For every one relevant remark I make you provide a wall of nonsense skewering its original intent, for every valid point I raise you counter with a barrage of menial and poorly thought out questions with no relevance to this discussion. The additional repetition of your position that a lack of literal, empirical evidence that is dumbed down to a level where you can understand it is not making it any less wrong. You have said nothing here that you have not already said or that is even remotely related to what I said, my point, or this topic.

[thesadmafioso]

TSM, nobody really cares about this. Not only that, but nobody on this forum is willing to defend your position on Lawrence O'Donnell and his "socialism". Please stop this nonsense back-and-forth argument about an insignificant liberal corporate-media anchor.

I have a minor correction to this, communists and anarchists on the internet don't care about this, and that says nothing to this events relevance. The fact that you do not agree with a major news anchor does not make said individual irrelevant.

[Lucretia]

TSM, nobody really cares about this. Not only that, but nobody on this forum is willing to defend your position on Lawrence O'Donnell and his "socialism". Please stop this nonsense back-and-forth argument about an insignificant liberal corporate-media anchor.

As the free speechers at Berkeley used to say in the 1960s, "the issue is not the issue." I am engaging in this discussion with thelazymafioso not because I think it's extremely important to determine whether Larry O'Donnell is a socialist or not. I am using this as a way to drill into thelazymafioso's mind that if he wants people to respect and accept the plausibility of things he has to say, he has to do more than just declare them to be true in sweeping and unsupported generalities. I don't expect him to admit I've helped him be more self-conscious about how he presents his ideas, just as I would never expect him to concede he was wrong about O'Donnell's idiotic proclamation of being a socialist. But the point is to influence his future behavior, not extract an admission of wrongdoing. (How's that for pragmatic?)

[GPDP]

Bernie Sanders claims to be a socialist. He's currently a senator. I guess because he works on Capitol Hill we're also supposed to take him at his word, right? Despite the fact that Sanders has repeatedly made it clear that his definition of socialism extends to little more than looking at the Western European social-democracies.

Even if we concede that they are indeed secret dyed-in-the-wool socialists, for worker's power and anti-capitalism and all that, their actions and deeds speak another story. They could be the reincarnation of Marx and Lenin. They would be shitty socialists at best, and outright traitors at worst.

Moreover, the rhetoric of pragmatism in American politics is the rhetoric of defeat at the hands of the right-wing corporate agenda. This has always been so. Ever wonder why it is only the liberals in government who succumb to demands and are always expected in the media to "move to the center," while the right never gives an inch unless fought to the bitter end?

Christ, even Bill fucking Maher pointed this out.

[thesadmafioso]

As the free speechers at Berkeley used to say in the 1960s, "the issue is not the issue." I am engaging in this discussion with thelazymafioso not because I think it's extremely important to determine whether Larry O'Donnell is a socialist or not. I am using this as a way to drill into thelazymafioso's mind that if he wants people to respect and accept the plausibility of things he has to say, he has to do more than just declare them to be true in sweeping and unsupported generalities. I don't expect him to admit I've helped him be more self-conscious about how he presents his ideas, just as I would never expect him to concede he was wrong about O'Donnell's idiotic proclamation of being a socialist. But the point is to influence his future behavior, not extract an admission of wrongdoing. (How's that for pragmatic?)

Oh, well that would certainly help to explain your ridiculous points of argumentation, it was all a lesson in dealing with idiocy firsthand. Thanks for that then, though I don't know if it was the most effective way to go about teaching that lesson and I already have a good deal of experience with this sort of thing.

Seriously though, all you did was waste a good deal of your time making a fool of yourself. Your entire point was based around your own inability to do your own research and your dependence upon hard empirical evidence in a field that is built around connotations, implied meaning, and abstract thought. Your outmoded thought models taught no lesson beyond a rather simplistic one in how to deal with arguments that are based in nothing beyond baseless demands for proof. Honestly, I felt like I was arguing against a hardened Christian here, with their incessant and blind demands for proof of gods nonexistence despite the clear facts against their point, it all seems oddly similar to your own conduct in a debate.

[Lucretia]

Your entire point was based around your own inability to do your own research

Yes, after all, I was the person who was making sweeping and baseless claims, whereas you were citing Lawrence O'Donnell's show transcripts verbatim.

Oh, wait... I see what you did there. :laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, after all, I was the person who was making sweeping and baseless claims, whereas you were citing Lawrence O'Donnell's show transcripts verbatim.

Oh, wait... I see what you did there. :laugh:

I am not going to walk you through the content of Lawrence O'Donnell's ideology on a show by show basis, explaining to you which bits are a reference to politics and which are legitimate points upon which his personal ideology can be discerned from. I don't even want to think about how much time would be wasted in such an ultimately fruitless process.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

As the free speechers at Berkeley used to say in the 1960s, "the issue is not the issue." I am engaging in this discussion with thelazymafioso not because I think it's extremely important to determine whether Larry O'Donnell is a socialist or not. I am using this as a way to drill into thelazymafioso's mind that if he wants people to respect and accept the plausibility of things he has to say, he has to do more than just declare them to be true in sweeping and unsupported generalities. I don't expect him to admit I've helped him be more self-conscious about how he presents his ideas, just as I would never expect him to concede he was wrong about O'Donnell's idiotic proclamation of being a socialist. But the point is to influence his future behavior, not extract an admission of wrongdoing. (How's that for pragmatic?)

Extremely. It still annoys me that this continues to be on the list of recent post, though.

[NGNM85]

... They could be the reincarnation of Marx and Lenin. They would be shitty socialists at best, and outright traitors at worst.

If you lower the bar for socialism to include Lenin you can't really, justifiably, exclude Sanders or O'Donnell.

[Amphictyonis]

It looks like a "thank post" war in here. I'm not going to thank the liberals. I'll give thanks to anyone who takes the opposite side, my side :) the side of....a heck, I can't think of anything funny to say.

But seriously, thesadmafioso, just go join the democrat party and follow Obama around with red lipstick so when you kiss it his ass will look nice and pretty. Just remember when you kiss his ass you're kissing Goldman Sachs ass. Also, pertaining to this thread, O'Donnell is there to present this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


One this side we have "free market capitalism (which has never existed) and on the other side we have liberal capitalism with a few state benefits. It's a false dilemma and your biting the hook like a big old fish.

[Lucretia]

It looks like a "thank post" war in here. I'm not going to thank the liberals. I'll give thanks to anyone who takes the opposite side, my side :) the side of....a heck, I can't think of anything funny to say.

But seriously, thesadmafioso, just go join the democrat party and follow Obama around with red lipstick so when you kiss it his ass will look nice and pretty. Just remember when you kiss his ass you're kissing Goldman Sachs ass. Also, pertaining to this thread, O'Donnell is there to present this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


One this side we have "free market capitalism (which has never existed) and on the other side we have liberal capitalism with a few state benefits. It's a false dilemma and your biting the hook like a big old fish.

The ultimate irony is that the same person arguing for a very moderate kind of "pragmatism" that sets itself up against the wickedly evil "purists" who aren't as excited as O'Donnell is about defending Obama is the person with a signature quote noting how rigged and and ineffective elections are at bringing significant political change within the context of a capitalist economy.

[Amphictyonis]

The ultimate irony is that the same person arguing for a very moderate kind of "pragmatism" that sets itself up against the wickedly evil "purists" who aren't excited about voting for Obama is the same person who has a signature quote talking about how rigged and and ineffective elections are at moving us beyond capitalism.

Ya, I saw the Ferguson quote. Read the 'Golden Rule' a while back. Maybe she/he should re-read it if he/she doesn't understand it? I'm pretty sure the liberals would be into Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'. This thread is proof Chomsky was right.

[Lucretia]

Ya, I saw the Ferguson quote. Read the 'Golden Rule' a while back. Maybe she/he should re-read it if he/she doesn't understand it? I'm pretty sure the liberals would be into Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'. This thread is proof Chomsky was right.

Clearly wouldnt be the first piece of writing that thelazymafioso has been incapable of understanding.

[GPDP]

If you lower the bar for socialism to include Lenin you can't really, justifiably, exclude Sanders or O'Donnell.

oh I get it, it's because Lenin is really an authoritarian bastard so he's not a good example of socialism so my argument is moot hahahaha

I was trying to get a point across. I could've said Peter Kropotkin, Noam Chomsky, or your heroes Bill Maher or Sam Harris. My point stands. O'Donnell is a shitty socialist if he is indeed one.

[ed miliband]

There's this great Lawrence O'Donnell interview where he complains about people who think child exploitation is bad in a manner that would make the most right-wing of British Conservatives blush. He actually says "[t]here are children in the world who would be lucky – lucky – to be employed 12 hours a day in exploitive child labor situations where they are making 10 cents a day".

http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={3C798B88-CC34-4D12-865C-B7E91A29F0CE}

Some more gems:


The free-market position actually doesn’t have a lot of rhetoric that goes along with it. It has a lot of logic and it has a lot of rational analysis that you need a fair amount of education to do. Unfortunately, I suspect it takes almost at least a college level of education in economics to fully embrace the market’s power or to fully go that way.
And I try to make it simple for her. I say, “Here’s my position: My position is slavery is better than death. Employment is better than slavery. That exploitative wages are better than nothing. And that a fair wage and justice is the ideal.”
Unfortunately, I think respect for the market seems to be something that I have not seen anyone derive outside education. I haven’t seen people gravitate toward a natural respect for the market.
We have a lot of great and responsible American corporations who are delivering great things to the world and American liberalism has to get in synch with that and not sound so anti-business
That line that Vinick had in the debate, where he said the market has the power to change the way we think and the government can never do that. You need to dwell on that a while, which of course all libertarians have done. But most people haven’t. They don’t really get it. There have been totalitarian regimes all over the planet for the last century desperately trying to change the way people think – and failing. Every government that has tried to impose thought has failed. The market effortlessly – effortlessly – is manipulating our thought all the time.He's actually amazing. Read that shit. Anyone who thinks he is a socialist, or who tries to defend any of the bollocks he spews in that particular interview, should probably be restricted.

[ed miliband]

MQT_d2YPimI

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh:

[thesadmafioso]

Well, I think that this topic has become derailed to a point where it looks to be more or less irretrievably past the point of salvage, but I suppose I could take a go at some of the attacks which have been levied at my position in the past page or so.

I have a quote in my signature which deals with corporate influence in the democratic process, how is that in any way ironic? That is actually an issue which has been taken up by a great many liberals as well as leftists, my inclusion of that quote in my signature certainly proves not point of irony. I have also read a great deal of Chomsky as well, and once more the views which he exposes are not in direct confrontation with my own. He has stated before that he recognizes the significance of the seemingly minuscule political differences between Democrats and Republicans, and through such has shown how working within present structures is often times still a means of progress. My entire argument here is based around the concept of understanding the necessity of political action which may not always be ideal on premise of practicality. Lawrence O'Donnell is just one example of this sort of thought, as he realizes that his ideology is not applicable in its entirety due to the current state of modern society. The entire argument against him is based around his show, which functions in the lens of the mass media and the American political spectrum. Most all of the attacks against his ideology have been using an outmoded and irrelevant scale to judge his political leanings, and they have been ignoring various situational aspects of his occupation which need to be accounted for. He cannot go on his show every night and talk about the downfall of capitalism or of a grand revolution, it would be impractical and it would spoil his opportunity to have an effect on the political process almost entirely. That last round of quotes displays just that sort of thought. O'Donnell choose his language in a careful and political manner, and that sort of subtly is necessary at times. So he realizes that the image of being anti-business is politically hazardous, what is the significance of that? It shows that he is a realistic and rational political actor, and that he is capable of understanding the nature of American politics. If anything those quotations serve to further my point rather than to make it an less effective.

These blind and poorly rendered assaults on my own ideology and character have not weakened my point in the slightest, the only purpose they are serving is one of degrading the quality of this discussion further.

[thesadmafioso]

It looks like a "thank post" war in here. I'm not going to thank the liberals. I'll give thanks to anyone who takes the opposite side, my side :) the side of....a heck, I can't think of anything funny to say.

But seriously, thesadmafioso, just go join the democrat party and follow Obama around with red lipstick so when you kiss it his ass will look nice and pretty. Just remember when you kiss his ass you're kissing Goldman Sachs ass. Also, pertaining to this thread, O'Donnell is there to present this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


One this side we have "free market capitalism (which has never existed) and on the other side we have liberal capitalism with a few state benefits. It's a false dilemma and your biting the hook like a big old fish.

Is there any real issue with being a registered Democrat given the current state of the left in America? It is not as if any actual party on the left has the organization or the support to run viable candidates in major electoral races. I also happen to live in the state of New York, meaning that state wide races are more often than not decided in closed primaries. I would more or less be disfranchised if I was not registered as a Democrat here.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Stop watching tv. It's poison.

[Lucretia]

Is there any real issue with being a registered Democrat given the current state of the left in America? It is not as if any actual party on the left has the organization or the support to run viable candidates in major electoral races. I also happen to live in the state of New York, meaning that state wide races are more often than not decided in closed primaries. I would more or less be disfranchised if I was not registered as a Democrat here.

Yes, there is an issue, because the democratic party actively subverts the left, and tries to ensure that it will continue to remain marginal.

While I am not a member of the organization, and have some issues with it, the International Socialist Organization has a nice summation of why there's an issue with supporting the democrats given the state of the left. You can find it at http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/democrats_lesserevilism.pdf

[Lucretia]

There's this great Lawrence O'Donnell interview where he complains about people who think child exploitation is bad in a manner that would make the most right-wing of British Conservatives blush. He actually says "[t]here are children in the world who would be lucky – lucky – to be employed 12 hours a day in exploitive child labor situations where they are making 10 cents a day".

http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={3C798B88-CC34-4D12-865C-B7E91A29F0CE}

Some more gems:

He's actually amazing. Read that shit. Anyone who thinks he is a socialist, or who tries to defend any of the bollocks he spews in that particular interview, should probably be restricted.

That's ok, aufkleben. O'Donnell has worked on capitol hill, so we should just assume he knows what socialism is. ;)

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, there is an issue, because the democratic party actively subverts the left, and tries to ensure that it will continue to remain marginal.

While I am not a member of the organization, and have some issues with it, the International Socialist Organization has a nice summation of why there's an issue with supporting the democrats given the state of the left. You can find it at http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/democrats_lesserevilism.pdf

That's nice, I am not going to read some nonsense from the ISO though. I know the argument they are raising well enough and I don't need to read some poorly written and logically disjointed filth that they have put out to understand it any more.

[Lucretia]

That's nice, I am not going to read some nonsense from the ISO though. I know the argument they are raising well enough and I don't need to read some poorly written and logically disjointed filth that they have put out to understand it any more.

Really? How do you know the argument the ISO is raising in their ebook if you've never read it?

This strikes me as just another sweeping claim, a sign of more arrogant behavior from you.

[thesadmafioso]

Really? How do you know the argument the ISO is raising in their ebook if you've never read it?

This strikes me as just another sweeping claim, a sign of more arrogant behavior from you.

I skimmed the chapter titles and I read an argument against Chomsky and his position on this matter, it was a generic argument against working with the Democrats that I have heard on more than one occasion. When I said that I was not going to read it, I meant that I was not going to read it in its entirety as it did not appear to be a source with anything to add to this discussion.

[~Spectre]

Anyone who thinks he is a socialist, or who tries to defend any of the bollocks he spews in that particular interview, should probably be restricted.


He's an asshole. Glenn Greenwald had to spank him a while back:

NmCt4ltBTzg

[NGNM85]

oh I get it, it's because Lenin is really an authoritarian bastard so he's not a good example of socialism so my argument is moot hahahaha

My point was simply if we stretch the definition of socialism to include someone like Lenin, you've already accepted a sufficiently broad interpretation to include Sanders or O'Donnell.


I was trying to get a point across.

I think your point is dubious.



I could've said Peter Kropotkin, Noam Chomsky,

They would have been better examples.


..or your heroes Bill Maher or Sam Harris.

Now you’re just being a child. I generally think it’s better not to elevate people to that extent because you end up mythologizing them. However, if I made a list of my ‘heroes’ neither of these men would be on it.


My point stands. O'Donnell is a shitty socialist if he is indeed one.

No, it doesn’t. You simply state your conclusion as if it was self-evident. I haven’t paid much attention to O’Donnell, but, so far, the case for the prosecution isn’t even shallow.

[NGNM85]

There's this great Lawrence O'Donnell interview where he complains about people who think child exploitation is bad in a manner that would make the most right-wing of British Conservatives blush. He actually says "[t]here are children in the world who would be lucky – lucky – to be employed 12 hours a day in exploitive child labor situations where they are making 10 cents a day".

http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={3C798B88-CC34-4D12-865C-B7E91A29F0CE}

Some more gems:

He's actually amazing. Read that shit. Anyone who thinks he is a socialist, or who tries to defend any of the bollocks he spews in that particular interview, should probably be restricted.

I assume it's too much to expect you to provide any sort of context...???

[ed miliband]

'Cos context changes everything he said in that particular interview, right? I haven't taken any of those quotes out of context and haven't edited or deliberately shortened any passages in an attempt to make his politics look even worse than they already are.

How do you think I could have made my post more objective?

[NGNM85]

'Cos context changes everything he said in that particular interview, right? I haven't taken any of those quotes out of context and haven't edited or deliberately shortened any passages in an attempt to make his politics look even worse than they already are.

How do you think I could have made my post more objective?

You haven't provided any context. It would be difficult to be less objective. If you scan everything he ever wrote you could probably find the words "I", "hate", and "Jews." However, it would be disingenuous, among other things, to post 'O'Donnell says; "I... hate... Jews..."' This isn't that far from what you've done, here. I don't claim to know what his politics are, but I'm sure you don't, either.
'

[ed miliband]

You haven't provided any context. It would be difficult to be less objective. If you scan everything he ever wrote you could probably find the words "I", "hate", and "Jews." However, it would be disingenuous, among other things, to post 'O'Donnell says; "I... hate... Jews..."' This isn't that far from what you've done, here. I don't claim to know what his politics are, but I'm sure you don't, either.
'


Except that isn't even slightly comparable to what I have done and you can read the interview that I provided if you wish to read everything within its original context. I haven't misquoted him or knowingly taken what he said in the interview out of context, and that is quite clear if you read the interview.

Once again:

http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={3C798B88-CC34-4D12-865C-B7E91A29F0CE}

It isn't as if he is playing a role in this interview and I have failed to provide that information when quoting him or anything like that.

(I don't know why the link doesn't format properly).

[~Spectre]

You haven't provided any context. It would be difficult to be less objective. If you scan everything he ever wrote you could probably find the words "I", "hate", and "Jews." However, it would be disingenuous, among other things, to post 'O'Donnell says; "I... hate... Jews..."' This isn't that far from what you've done, here. I don't claim to know what his politics are, but I'm sure you don't, either.
'

This is really beneath you.

[L.A.P.]

MQT_d2YPimI

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh:

He kind of reminds me of my mother in a political sense but more mediocre.

[NGNM85]

This is really beneath you.

It's a perfectly legitimate complaint.

[ed miliband]

It's a perfectly legitimate complaint.


It would have been had I not provided a link to the interview that I was quoting from.

[NGNM85]

Except that isn't even slightly comparable to what I have done and you can read the interview that I provided if you wish to read everything within its original context. I haven't misquoted him or knowingly taken what he said in the interview out of context, and that is quite clear if you read the interview.

Once again:

http://www.caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={3C798B88-CC34-4D12-865C-B7E91A29F0CE}

It isn't as if he is playing a role in this interview and I have failed to provide that information when quoting him or anything like that.

(I don't know why the link doesn't format properly).

You didn't provide any context. Now, you have, that's better. However, this is a fairly shallow exploration of his politics, the responses are generally only one or two sentences long. After reading the whole thing twice, there's still a lot that isn't clear.

[GPDP]

My point was simply if we stretch the definition of socialism to include someone like Lenin, you've already accepted a sufficiently broad interpretation to include Sanders or O'Donnell.

Look, I know you have beef with Lenin. Hell, so do I. But like it or not, he at least is universally recognized as a socialist figure, in the MARXIST sense. O'Donnell is not. I don't see where I'm "stretching" the definition of socialism here. I'd say your definition of socialism is too narrow, but you'd like to include O'Donnell within it, so I think the more apt description is that your definition of socialism is too liberal.


I think your point is dubious.

cool story bro



They would have been better examples.

According to you. But I'm not about to tailor all my rhetoric around your particular views on who counts as a socialist or not.


Now you’re just being a child. I generally think it’s better not to elevate people to that extent because you end up mythologizing them. However, if I made a list of my ‘heroes’ neither of these men would be on it.

I admit I was more or less trolling with that. However, the amount of time you spend defending those despicable men merely because they are champions of anti-theism astounds me, which is why they come across to me as if they are important figures to you.


No, it doesn’t. You simply state your conclusion as if it was self-evident. I haven’t paid much attention to O’Donnell, but, so far, the case for the prosecution isn’t even shallow.

My conclusion goes in tandem with all that Lucretia has said. I think he is by far the winner of this discussion, and I find his evidence for O'Donnell's lack of real socialist credentials to be compelling. If anything is shallow here, it's his defense.

[Lucretia]

You haven't provided any context. It would be difficult to be less objective. If you scan everything he ever wrote you could probably find the words "I", "hate", and "Jews." However, it would be disingenuous, among other things, to post 'O'Donnell says; "I... hate... Jews..."' This isn't that far from what you've done, here. I don't claim to know what his politics are, but I'm sure you don't, either.
'

This is such a broken record. Any time evidence is presented that O'Donnell clearly loves the market instead of wishing to abolish it, a chorus of apologists comes forth to whine about context being omitted in a way that makes the quotes distorted, yet have no evidence to support this claim. I hate to break this to you liberal O'Donnell apologists, but no socialist would say those O'Donnell quotes in any context.

Provide an example of a context in which any of those quotes aufkleben posted might be compatible with a socialist politics.

[thesadmafioso]

This is such a broken record. Any time evidence is presented that O'Donnell clearly loves the market instead of wishing to abolish it, a chorus of apologists comes forth to whine about context being omitted in a way that makes the quotes distorted, yet have no evidence to support this claim. I hate to break this to you liberal O'Donnell apologists, but no socialist would say those O'Donnell quotes in any context.

Provide an example of a context in which any of those quotes aufkleben posted might be compatible with a socialist politics.

You should really stop asking questions that have already been answered, it is becoming quite redundant and annoying at this point. I know you love to kick and scream about your empirical evidence in a field which is by its inherent nature inexact and abstract, but now you are just ignoring valid points so that you may go right ahead and continue to blather on with your irrelevant and insentient line of questioning. But I suppose that you didn't take the time to actually read my last post of significance, based upon your 'broken record' line of reasoning.

[Lucretia]

You should really stop asking questions that have already been answered, it is becoming quite redundant and annoying at this point.

In the post you're responding to, I asked for examples of different contexts where the O'Donnell quotes aufkleben provided might take on a different meaning.

You are now claiming that I am asking questions people have already answered.

Do you mind responding to this post with a quote from a post where this has been answered?

[thesadmafioso]

In the post you're responding to, I asked for examples of different contexts where the O'Donnell quotes aufkleben provided might take on a different meaning.

You are now claiming that I am asking questions people have already answered.

Do you mind responding to this post with a quote from a post where this has been answered?

Are you five years old? Honestly, you do not provide a legitimate defense for your position in a discussion by asking your opponent to go back and find the answers to your own questions, because you were to inattentive to catch them when they were originally made.

[Lucretia]

Are you five years old? Honestly, you do not provide a legitimate defense for your position in a discussion by asking your opponent to go back and find the answers to your own questions, because you were to inattentive to catch them when they were originally made.

Notice you haven't answered the question: can you provide a quote from a post where somebody has provided a context in which aufkleben's O'Donnell quotes take on a less pro-capitalist meaning?

Can you do it or can't you?

Stop calling names, stop characterizing my behavior, just answer the question, troll.

[~Spectre]

Nothing of the sort was shown about Lawrence O'Donnell, all that was shown was your persistence in levying false accusations towards his ideology and your inability to grasp the nature of the american political spectrum. Compromise plays a prominent role in the balance of American politics, and if one party looks too unwilling to participate in such and pushes their agenda too far it generally results in mediocre electoral results. And you can't govern or have much of a say at all in the process if you are out of power. His ability to understand the intricacies of political reality does not make him much more than a socialist who has a solid grasp on reality.

See the video I posted where Glenn Greenwald destroys him on this point.

Speaking of which, since the thread has several unmanageable pages. Where exactly is the evidence that Lawrence O'Donnell is ANY sort of socialist? Because he jokingly said it once? By this logic the DPRK is a democratic people's republic. He himself even cleared up what he meant by "socialist"!

O'Donnell is one of the worst people on television.

[thesadmafioso]

Notice you haven't answered the question: can you provide a quote from a post where somebody has provided a context in which aufkleben's O'Donnell quotes take on a less pro-capitalist meaning?

Can you do it or can't you?

Stop calling names, stop characterizing my behavior, just answer the question, troll.

Notice how you have the audacity to insinuate that I am lazy and yet at the same time you can not even bother to read my responses to your drivel?

Here you go though, since you haven proven yourself to be ignorant of the most basic variables of reading and research. Of course this is not which I have said on the matter, but it was my most recent addition to the surplus of points in support of my point which you have ignored.


My entire argument here is based around the concept of understanding the necessity of political action which may not always be ideal on premise of practicality. Lawrence O'Donnell is just one example of this sort of thought, as he realizes that his ideology is not applicable in its entirety due to the current state of modern society. The entire argument against him is based around his show, which functions in the lens of the mass media and the American political spectrum. Most all of the attacks against his ideology have been using an outmoded and irrelevant scale to judge his political leanings, and they have been ignoring various situational aspects of his occupation which need to be accounted for. He cannot go on his show every night and talk about the downfall of capitalism or of a grand revolution, it would be impractical and it would spoil his opportunity to have an effect on the political process almost entirely. That last round of quotes displays just that sort of thought. O'Donnell choose his language in a careful and political manner, and that sort of subtly is necessary at times. So he realizes that the image of being anti-business is politically hazardous, what is the significance of that? It shows that he is a realistic and rational political actor, and that he is capable of understanding the nature of American politics. If anything those quotations serve to further my point rather than to make it an less effective.

[Lucretia]

See the video I posted where Glenn Greenwald destroys him on this point.

Speaking of which, since the thread has several unmanageable pages. Where exactly is the evidence that Lawrence O'Donnell is ANY sort of socialist? Because he jokingly said it once? By this logic the DPRK is a democratic people's republic. He himself even cleared up what he meant by "socialist"!

O'Donnell is one of the worst people on television.

Haven't you seen the pages and pages of evidence that thelazymafioso has provided?

Ahhh, nevermind. It's just pages and pages of thelazymafiosio claiming he's already provided the evidence. Silly me!

[Lucretia]

Notice how you have the audacity to insinuate that I am lazy and yet at the same time you can not even bother to read my responses to your drivel?

Here you go though, since you haven proven yourself to be ignorant of the most basic variables of reading and research. Of course this is not which I have said on the matter, but it was my most recent addition to the surplus of points in support of my point which you have ignored.

You're an idiot. You're quoting from a post that was made before aufkleben provided the quotes relevant to my question.

Read very carefully and slowly so you can understand this.

1) Aufkleben provided a series of quotes in which Lawrence O'Donnell says ostensibly pro-capitalist, right-wing things.

2) Another poster claimed that Aufkleben might have taken the quotes out of context.

3) I responded that no context could possibly transform the meaning of quotes so dramatically as to make them anti-capitalist or pro-socialist.

4) You neurotically jumped in claiming that I was ignoring where other people already answered my questions.

5) I asked you to quote from a post where somebody answered that specific question about aufkleben's quotes.

6) You respond by quoting from a post dated from before aufkleben ever posted the O'Donnell quotes.

Are you really this stupid?

I ask you again: can you provide any quotes where a poster provides examples of different context where aufkleben's specific O'Donnell quotes might take on a meaning that is not pro-capitalist?

If you can't, why don't you admit I was asking a question that had not been answered? Are you ever capable of admitting when you're wrong? Who's the person acting like a 5 year old here?

[thesadmafioso]

See the video I posted where Glenn Greenwald destroys him on this point.

Speaking of which, since the thread has several unmanageable pages. Where exactly is the evidence that Lawrence O'Donnell is ANY sort of socialist? Because he jokingly said it once? By this logic the DPRK is a democratic people's republic. He himself even cleared up what he meant by "socialist"!

O'Donnell is one of the worst people on television.

Yes, I saw him say that when he said that and I have posted that link before. I also happen to know, like anyone read in the most basic aspects of political science, that Glen Greenwald was making a point which simply defied the logic of the American political structure. But the actual discussion in that video was on the matter of the mid term elections and more or less irrelevant to the larger point of discussion in this topic. I will not walk you through a basic lesson of political science so that you may actually understand the extent of O'Donnell's remarks.

Also, he has gone by the title for years, he did not just say it jokingly once.

[~Spectre]

Yes, I saw him say that when he said that and I have posted that link before. I also happen to know, like anyone read in the most basic aspects of political science, that Glen Greenwald was making a point which simply defied the logic of the American political structure. But the actual discussion in that video was on the matter of the mid term elections and more or less irrelevant to the larger point of discussion in this topic. I will not walk you through a basic lesson of political science so that you may actually understand the extent of O'Donnell's remarks.

How did Greenwald's point "defy logic" and "political science"? If it's that obvious you should have no problem explaining it.





Also, he has gone by the title for years, he did not just say it jokingly once.

Let's pretend that's true, this still applies:

Where exactly is the evidence that Lawrence O'Donnell is ANY sort of socialist? Because he jokingly said it once? By this logic the DPRK is a democratic people's republic. He himself even cleared up what he meant by "socialist"!



I honestly think you're just trolling now.

[thesadmafioso]

You're an idiot. You're quoting from a post that was made before aufkleben provided the quotes relevant to my question.

Read very carefully and slowly so you can understand this.

1) Aufkleben provided a series of quotes in which Lawrence O'Donnell says ostensibly pro-capitalist, right-wing things.

2) Another poster claimed that Aufkleben might have taken the quotes out of context.

3) I responded that no context could possibly transform the meaning of quotes so dramatically as to make them anti-capitalist or pro-socialist.

4) You neurotically jumped in claiming that I was ignoring where other people already answered my questions.

5) I asked you to quote from a post where somebody answered that specific question about aufkleben's quotes.

6) You respond by quoting from a post dated from before aufkleben ever posted the O'Donnell quotes.

Are you really this stupid?

I ask you again: can you provide any quotes where a poster provides examples of different context where aufkleben's specific O'Donnell quotes might take on a meaning that is not pro-capitalist?

If you can't, why don't you admit I was asking a question that had not been answered? Are you ever capable of admitting when you're wrong? Who's the person acting like a 5 year old here?

Oh the crushing irony of this post. I did all of the hard research for you, and yet you still manage to make yourself into more of a fool. I would strongly suggest that you go back and check that comment about my comment being before the list of quotes in question.

[Lucretia]

Yes, I saw him say that when he said that and I have posted that link before. I also happen to know, like anyone read in the most basic aspects of political science, that Glen Greenwald was making a point which simply defied the logic of the American political structure. But the actual discussion in that video was on the matter of the mid term elections and more or less irrelevant to the larger point of discussion in this topic. I will not walk you through a basic lesson of political science so that you may actually understand the extent of O'Donnell's remarks.

Also, he has gone by the title for years, he did not just say it jokingly once.

That's "Glenn Greenwald." And while I happen to agree that Greenwald was making a specious argument, O'Donnell's counter-claim of being a socialist was equally laughable. I guess this is what we can expect from corporate "news" propaganda.

[Lucretia]

Oh the crushing irony of this post. I did all of the hard research for you, and yet you still manage to make yourself into more of a fool. I would strongly suggest that you go back and check that comment about my comment being before the list of quotes in question.

You're clearly not reading my posts at all, and you're just making a fool of yourself at this point. The post you quoted from was a (breathtakingly idiotic) response to a question I asked before aufkleben ever posted quotes that my present question deals with. It therefore is logically impossible that the quote you provided could be a response to a question about a series of O'DOnnell remarks that had not even been provided at the time you made the post.

[thesadmafioso]

How did Greenwald's point "defy logic" and "political science"? If it's that obvious you should have no problem explaining it.





Let's pretend that's true, this still applies:



I honestly think you're just trolling now.

I might just start trolling you, Spectre. You do not belong in this discussion as you, like many other people in this topic, do not have the prerequisite base of knowledge required for the level of discussion here. I will not go through this topic catching you up on the most simplistic elements of political science. Why don't you go scurry off to learning if you need help with that?

[~Spectre]

I might just start trolling you, Spectre. You do not belong in this discussion as you, like many other people in this topic, do not have the prerequisite base of knowledge required for the level of discussion here. I will not go through this topic catching you up on the most simplistic elements of political science. Why don't you go scurry off to learning if you need help with that?


You don't have a clue, do you?

[thesadmafioso]

You're clearly not reading my posts at all, and you're just making a fool of yourself at this point. The post you quoted from was a (breathtakingly idiotic) response to a question I asked before aufkleben ever posted quotes that my present question deals with. It therefore logically could not possibly be a response to a question about a series of quotes that had not even been provided at the time you made the post.

It actually wasn't even a response to your post. Please continue on with your insistence that it was though, as it is only 2 pages back and is there for anyone to go look at.

All your posts consist of are a collection of poorly written and insultingly mediocre assaults on my character, and a repetition of your tired demand for 'facts'. I have read all of them, unlike you have for mine, and it would appear that I understand there nature better than you actually do.

[Lucretia]

You don't have a clue, do you?

At first I thought this mafioso fellow was just really young, hot-headed, and dumb. Now I am beginning to suspect that he's just a troll with a lot of time to waste, who needs to be banned so he cannot waste other people's time. Nobody could possibly behave as cluelessly as mafioso without deliberately trying.

[Lucretia]

It actually wasn't even a response to your post. Please continue on with your insistence that it was though, as it is only 2 pages back and is there for anyone to go look at.

All your posts consist of are a collection of poorly written and insultingly mediocre assaults on my character, and a repetition of your tired demand for 'facts'.

Whether it was a response to my post or not, it was a post made before the series of aufkleben quotes was posted. So my point still stands. Either we are to believe (a) you are psychic, and answered a question dealing specifically with a set of quotes before those quotes were ever posted, or (b) you're a troll who is wasting people's time.

Let's pick which one sounds more believable. :rolleyes:

[~Spectre]

At first I thought this mafioso fellow was either really young, hot-headed, and dumb. Now I am beginning to suspect that he's just a troll with a lot of time to waste, who needs to be banned so he cannot waste other people's time. Nobody could possibly behave as cluelessly as mafioso without deliberately trying.

Agreed. I fully expect him to make a thread about how he's some libertarian "infiltrator" who studies at Hebrew University, here to show us how socialism "will never win the heart of man!"

[thesadmafioso]

You don't have a clue, do you?

No you do not have a clue.

Great refutation of your point, I should say.

[thesadmafioso]

Agreed. I fully expect him to make a thread about how he's some libertarian "infiltrator" who studies at Hebrew University, here to show us how socialism "will never win the heart of man!"

Oh dear, it would appear that my cover has been blown. This certainly foils my plans to crush the ever so powerful socialist movement.

[thesadmafioso]

Whether it was a response to my post or not, it was a post made before the series of aufkleben quotes was posted. So my point still stands. Either we are to believe (a) you are psychic, and answered a question dealing specifically with a set of quotes before those quotes were ever posted, or (b) you're a troll who is wasting people's time.

Let's pick which one sounds more believable. :rolleyes:

Yes, this is lovely. You really are not going to go back and read that selection or to see the order of it relative to the post in question, are you? I even referenced the list of quotes in my post.

[Lucretia]

Oh dear, it would appear that my cover has been blown. This certainly foils my plans to crush the ever so powerful socialist movement.

Why would you be trying to crush the socialist movement? In your book the movement is headed by your hero Lawrence O'Donnell.

I thought you were here fighting for the one, true socialism!

[Lucretia]

Yes, this is lovely. You really are not going to go back and read that selection or to see the order of it relative to the post in question, are you? I even referenced the list of quotes in my post.

You have me laughing out loud. The quote you excerpted from an earlier post of yours is a rambling statement about the nature of Lawrence O'Donnell's show, and how the nature of that show supposedly reflects on O'Donnell's ideological commitments in certain ways. It does not in any way deal with the specific question I asked, which has absolutely nothing to do with O'Donnell's show, but instead deals with a series of quotes aufkleben posted.

:laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

Why would you be trying to crush the socialist movement? In your book the movement is headed by your hero Lawrence O'Donnell.

I thought you were here fighting for the one, true socialism!

You should steer away from that sort of humor, it doesn't really work too well for you. It was amusing when I did it, as it was a play on a nonsensical post using the same language. Now you are just being ridiculous.

And it still avoids the point that you were dead wrong just now, and that there is no possible way of avoiding that basic fact. My post was in fact after that list of quotes, and you very well know it presuming you read it. Your failure to understand the apparent complexity of my point does not automatically make it rambling, it just shows that I should of watered it down a bit for someone with your intellectual credentials.

[Lucretia]

My post was in fact after that list of posts

No, the post you quoted from was not after the list of quotes (not posts) provided by aufkleben.

The post you're quoting from is post #63 on this thread, linked at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1998729&postcount=63

The aufkleben quotes were introduced in post #83, linked at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1999339&postcount=83

You're once again just making an ass of yourself. Anybody with functional literacy can go back and read posts #63 and 83, look at the time stamps, and determine you're either an obvious troll or a surprisingly stupid person. Your discussion of "that last round of quotes" that you keep quoting as proof that my question about aufkleben's quotes has been answered were clearly referencing quotes that I had earlier provided, not quotes aufkleben provided. So why you think your earlier ramblings address a specific question I have about quotes that were later introduced is beyond me.

:laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

No, the post you quoted from was not after the list of quotes (not posts) provided by aufkleben.

The post you're quoting from is post #63 on this thread, linked at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1998729&postcount=63

The aufkleben quotes were introduced in post #83, linked at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1999339&postcount=83

You're once again just making an ass of yourself. Anybody with functional literacy can go back and read posts #63 and 83, look at the time stamps, and determine you're either an obvious troll or a surprisingly stupid person. Your discussion of "that last round of quotes" that you keep quoting as proof that my question about aufkleben's quotes has been answered were clearly referencing quotes that I had earlier provided, not quotes aufkleben provided. So why you think your earlier ramblings address a specific question I have about quotes that were later introduced is beyond me.

:laugh:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1999590&postcount=85

Yeah, it is pretty funny. Perhaps you should of actually of read what I posted, that would of helped matters surely. I now understand why you needed me to point that post out to you, as you couldn't find it even after you were given a direct quote from it.

[Lucretia]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1999590&postcount=85

Yeah, it is pretty funny. Perhaps you should of actually of read what I posted, that would of helped matters surely. I now understand why you needed me to point that post out to you, as you couldn't find it even after you were given a direct quote from it.

It's pretty funny that you can't engage in basic reasoning skills. You're linking to post #85 like that's proof that it is a response to aufkleben's question in post #83, yet the quoted portion of that post is just a verbatim copy-paste job from post #63. It is therefore logically impossible that there's anything in post #85 that deals specifically with aufkleben's post. If there were, you would not have been able to simply copy and paste your earlier post, which was made before aufkleben provided his quotes. You might think post #63 is a brilliant post, and a catch-all defense of any criticism that people might want to make of O'Donnell's show, but let's be honest here. It doesn't address my specific question about aufkleben's quotes.

Is this clear now, or would you like a flowchart? :)

[thesadmafioso]

It's pretty funny that you can't engage in basic reasoning skills. You're linking to post #85 like that's proof that it is a response to aufkleben's question in post #83, yet the quoted portion of that post is just a verbatim copy-paste job from post #63. It is therefore logically impossible that there's anything in post #85 that deals specifically with aufkleben's post. If there were, you would not have been able to simply copy and paste your earlier post, which was made before aufkleben provided his quotes.

Is this clear now, or would you like a flowchart? :)

Yeah, most clever. Taking your obvious mistake and then covering up only after you have been proven to be dead wrong with some pathetic attempt to say that I was simply repeating myself. This is just sheer nonsense, nothing you have said logically follows in any imaginable way. You are continuing on in your ignorance out of a love for argumentation more than anything else clearly, as logic and reason would have prevented you from putting yourself into such an impossible situation.

[Lucretia]

Yeah, most clever. Taking your obvious mistake and then covering up only after you have been proven to be dead wrong with some pathetic attempt to say that I was simply repeating myself. This is just sheer nonsense, nothing you have said logically follows in any imaginable way. You are continuing on in your ignorance out of a love for argumentation more than anything else clearly, as logic and reason would have prevented you from putting yourself into such an impossible situation.

I showed that the content of the excerpt you keep quoting originated in post #63, twenty posts before aufkleben posted the quotes I was asking about. The fact that you might have copied wholesale from post #63 again and again throughout the thread, in posts that came after aufkleben introduced the quotes, doesn't alter the fact that its content cannot possibly address a specific question about a series of quotes that had yet to be introduced into the discussion.

I am sorry basic logic eludes you.

[thesadmafioso]

I showed that the content of the excerpt you keep quoting originated in post #63, twenty posts before aufkleben posted the quotes I was asking about. The fact that you might have copied wholesale from post #63 again and again throughout the thread, in posts that came after aufkleben introduced the quotes, doesn't alter the fact that its content cannot possibly address a specific question about a series of quotes that had yet to be introduced into the discussion.

I am sorry basic logic eludes you.

Your entire argument hinges upon your inability to comprehend anything but the most basic of language, and your failure to discern the differences between two posts which are quite separate in their content.

[NGNM85]

Look, I know you have beef with Lenin. Hell, so do I. But like it or not, he at least is universally recognized as a socialist figure, in the MARXIST sense.

I think a number of contemporaneous Marxists would have disagreed with that. However, if you’re using it specifically in the Marxist context that is, certainly, different. We’d have to have to settle that, first, in order to proceed.


O'Donnell is not. I don't see where I'm "stretching" the definition of socialism here. I'd say your definition of socialism is too narrow, but you'd like to include O'Donnell within it, so I think the more apt description is that your definition of socialism is too liberal.

I haven’t really chosen a side. Personally, I’m inclined to say people like Lenin are fake socialists, and I think you can make a significant case for that. However, again, we’d have to agree on a basic common definition, or, rather, I should say, a common context.


According to you. But I'm not about to tailor all my rhetoric around your particular views on who counts as a socialist or not.

Well, in this case, it’s pretty important.


I admit I was more or less trolling with that.

Don’t do that, especially if you want to be taken seriously.


However, the amount of time you spend defending those despicable men merely because they are champions of anti-theism astounds me, which is why they come across to me as if they are important figures to you.

Nine times out of ten I talk about them because somebody like you brings it up. I am not going to listen to any criticism that I talk about them too much when every ten seconds somebody demands that I defend them. The really depressing part is that they can’t even come up with original questions, it’s just the same horseshit over and over again. People are still regurgitating the rumor that Harris suggested nuking the Middle East nomatter how many times that’s been debunked. I’ve posted the passage in question and it doesn’t make any difference.

Unless you are privilege to some heretofore unreleased information, I fail to see what Sam Harris or Bill Maher have done that would merit being described as despicable.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that it seems the most venom, the most vitriol coming from the radical Left isn’t reserved for the right, but for more moderate, or more center-Left individuals. Interestingly, the greatest venom is not reserved for those who would be classified as barely Left-wing, but, rather, those who are further to the Left, that the bile actually increases as you move Leftward. It’s just one of those pathologies, to my knowledge, unique to the Left. That’s just an observation.


My conclusion goes in tandem with all that Lucretia has said. I think he is by far the winner of this discussion, and I find his evidence for O'Donnell's lack of real socialist credentials to be compelling. If anything is shallow here, it's his defense.

What evidence? I have seen one interview, which, as interviews go, is not especially informative. Also, I don’t think this interview really persuaded anybody, I think their minds were made up from the very beginning. Is O’Donnell a socialist? By some people’s definition, his own, certainly. I have no idea. I reserve judgment.

[~Spectre]

. People are still regurgitating the rumor that Harris

The most offensive thing about Harris is simply that he's a proud idiot that enables others of the same cloth.



that the bile actually increases as you move Leftward. It’s just one of those pathologies, to my knowledge, unique to the Left. That’s just an observation.

Another Chomskyism, though I'd agree with it if you rephrase it.



Is O’Donnell a socialist? By some people’s definition, his own, certainly. I have no idea. I reserve judgment.

Why?

[NGNM85]

The most offensive thing about Harris is simply that he's a proud idiot that enables others of the same cloth.

So his mortal sin is hubris? More so than anybody else? This is baffling.



Another Chomskyism, though I'd agree with it if you rephrase it.

It’s very possible Chomsky has said something like this, but I cannot recall anything really comparable. Therefore it is not a ‘Chomskyism’, whatever that may be.


Why?

Because I haven’t seen anything convincing. Find me an article, or an interview where he talks about his political views for more than two sentences, so I actually know what his deal is. What bothers me is that I don’t think that would necessarily make a difference.

[~Spectre]

So his mortal sin is hubris? More so than anybody else? This is baffling.

It shouldn't be, as you invented it. All I said was that he was a proud idiot, that inspires other proud idiots.





It’s very possible Chomsky has said something like this, but I cannot recall anything really comparable. Therefore it is not a ‘Chomskyism’, whatever that may be.


http://www.wired.com/video/reddit

Even the wording is similar.



Because I haven’t seen anything convincing. Find me an article, or an interview where he talks about his political views for more than two sentences, so I actually know what his deal is. What bothers me is that I don’t think that would necessarily make a difference.

To you, perhaps it wouldn't. There's been abundant evidence in this thread that he isn't a socialist. He's advocated that the democrats run as an even more right wing party ("Blue dog dominance").

That's not socialist. Better yet, what's your definition of socialist, since you're playing relativist with the term as you know you have not a single leg to stand on?

[DuracellBunny97]

I like Olbermann, but he is kind of a douch nozzle

[Red Commissar]

TBH I never watched his show or any of the other ones on MSNBC (Maddow), so it really won't affect me. What I'm more concerned about is the impact of the Comcast-NBC Merger on the media.

[NGNM85]

It shouldn't be, as you invented it. All I said was that he was a proud idiot, that inspires other proud idiots.

Ok, I can only assume there’s no actual substance to this.


http://www.wired.com/video/reddit


Even the wording is similar.

It’s a 30 minute video, and I’m not inclined to watch the whole thing right now. I assume you’re talking about the part about ten minutes in where he talks about factionalism (???) I have heard that, that’s part of it, but I was talking about something much more specific. I mean, it doesn’t really matter, you’re going to accuse me of whatever you feel like, regardless.



To you, perhaps it wouldn't. There's been abundant evidence in this thread that he isn't a socialist.

If this is what you call ‘abundant’ evidence I certainly hope you are never asked to be a juror on a capital case.


He's advocated that the democrats run as an even more right wing party ("Blue dog dominance").

He seemed to be saying that, but he and Greenwald were arguing about an earlier statement or article which I have not seen, and, apparently, neither has anyone else.


That's not socialist.

By itself? Certainly not.


Better yet, what's your definition of socialist, since you're playing relativist with the term as you know you have not a single leg to stand on?

Well, no, I thought we were talking about it in a general sense, apparently GPDP was speaking in specific Marxist jargon, that’s different. That matters. I’m also not saying that O’Donnell is a socialist, I'm saying I don't know enough about his political views. Again, my bigger concern is that his actual views are, very possibly, a secondary concern, or, perhaps, completely irrelevent.

[Klaatu]

In my opinion, MSNBC "moving toward the right" in order to match Fox News' ratings is hogwash.
If MSNBC takes such a move, they will lose their audience completely, because no sane, intelligent person
watches Fox and takes their gangster-like propaganda seriously. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

According to the news today, he left over a pay dispute. He wanted more than the $7,000,000 he was getting. This was in the works before his suspension.

[Klaatu]

I don't think I will miss K.O. all that much. MSNBC still has Ed Schultz, a socialist-leaning commentator. :D

[Jose Gracchus]

My point was simply if we stretch the definition of socialism to include someone like Lenin, you've already accepted a sufficiently broad interpretation to include Sanders or O'Donnell.

Its a descriptive term. Do you think socialism means "really authentic and honest guy who never got his hands dirty"? I'm no Leninist, but you're essentially arguing because in his capacity as Bolshevik party and Soviet state leader after October 1917, he pursued within his capacities, policies and choices that were anti-socialist. That's fine - you may also regard his personality to be hypocritical and self serving; his politics incoherent or theologian full of old-fashioned Marxoid Hegels-esque "historical science" nonsense. However, he was a major figure in workers' struggles and workers' revolutionary politics in 1917, and he was a major figure in campaigning against capitalism and imperialism in the years up until the Russian Revolution. The Bolshevik party, its organizational schemes, its ideological doctrinal core, and its evolution and nature following the assumption of power in October 1917, ratified by the exit of the socialist right, social democrat and socialist revolutionary alike aside, was one of the key mass democratic and popular revolutionary organizations of 1917. It was filled with militant worker recruits and by October 1917 was often decentralized with polycentric nature of policy and authority. It was at least as chaotic as centralized. This is just modern scholarship. It also buttressed the Russian Republic against far-right reaction in the Kornilov affair. Because Lenin, in your view, became scab and ended up institutionally serving to repress workers, doesn't mean he was not ever a socialist. This kind of obsession with personality-based political assessments suggests a liberal outlook, not a very materialistic and class-based one.


I haven’t really chosen a side. Personally, I’m inclined to say people like Lenin are fake socialists, and I think you can make a significant case for that. However, again, we’d have to agree on a basic common definition, or, rather, I should say, a common context.

Again, if you were actually interested in discussing this constructively at length, you could provide a baseline for defining and evaluating claims to be "a socialist" such that it could be transparently evaluated. Instead you give half-judgments (like here about Lenin) and refuse to elaborate. It does not suggest a sincere desire to discuss the facts.


Nine times out of ten I talk about them because somebody like you brings it up. I am not going to listen to any criticism that I talk about them too much when every ten seconds somebody demands that I defend them. The really depressing part is that they can’t even come up with original questions, it’s just the same horseshit over and over again. People are still regurgitating the rumor that Harris suggested nuking the Middle East nomatter how many times that’s been debunked. I’ve posted the passage in question and it doesn’t make any difference.

Unless you are privilege to some heretofore unreleased information, I fail to see what Sam Harris or Bill Maher have done that would merit being described as despicable.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that it seems the most venom, the most vitriol coming from the radical Left isn’t reserved for the right, but for more moderate, or more center-Left individuals. Interestingly, the greatest venom is not reserved for those who would be classified as barely Left-wing, but, rather, those who are further to the Left, that the bile actually increases as you move Leftward. It’s just one of those pathologies, to my knowledge, unique to the Left. That’s just an observation.

To be quite honest, I think I know where you're coming from. You sound like a radical, disaffected liberal who has started reading/watching Chomsky, and has decided that based on his criticisms of Establishment liberalism that you're a "libertarian socialist" because that sounds like the most "emancipatory" "position" you can take. You sound like you've gone to there from the Sam Harris and Bill Mayer kind of "new atheism".

Look, there are real reasons leftists are hostile to "new atheism" as a movement. First of all, lots of the "new atheist" thinkers indulge extensive liberal propaganda diatribes against revolutionary socialism. They may call Marxism as "religion" and such and you sympathize. And that's fair. I was a "new atheist". I still do like some of the polemics offered against religion. However, the millieu is highly ensconced in ethnocentricism and imperialism. Harris and Hitchens, and more passively, people like Dawkins, provide a left-liberal cosmopolitan's path to the same anti-Islamic, pro-imperialist position that hysterical Christian nationalism plays on the right. There's an excessive fixation with foreign backwardness which suggests a kind of "white man's burden." The role of religion as a fundamental causal factor for social backwardness is frequently invoked. The sad thing is, Chomsky, who seems - no offense, and he is one of my core influences - one of your major inspirations, has himself affirmed secularism while backing away from much of the "new atheists" claims. Why? Well its often a very elitist kind of worldview, spurning individual irrationality. Working people have been systemically denied meaningful means of community organizing, frequently, all that remains of civil society is the local church. Many old working people have no family support, no mass surplus of money to move to Florida and get a home. Many people turn to the church as the only way out of their material, social, and community deprivation.

Failure to consider things in a comprehensively social and class way - what Chomsky himself calls the definition of "the left" - is a recipie for a kind of vague, individualistic and moralistic liberalism. Leftism is about class society, class relations, and the changing dynamics between classes and states.

Therefore, I don't think many people have trouble dismissing O'Donnell out of hand. I don't see why you should be all up in arms about him. As for Bill Maher, he is a stalwart of Zionism and constantly arrogantly turns his nose up at working and poor people as uneducated simpletons obsessed with myths. Meanwhile this ambiguous liberal polemicist (who has his funny and excellent polemic moments, balanced out by arrogant absurdity) believes in conspiracy theories regarding prescription medicine and other nonsense. Sam Harris attacked Chomsky for his criticism of Western state crimes with the most bland and rehashed "collateral damage"/"they aren't trying to kill thousands, it just always happened inevitably but incidentally" excuses.


What evidence? I have seen one interview, which, as interviews go, is not especially informative. Also, I don’t think this interview really persuaded anybody, I think their minds were made up from the very beginning. Is O’Donnell a socialist? By some people’s definition, his own, certainly. I have no idea. I reserve judgment.

I think it is reflexive that major corporate media networks will not offer bona fide class-struggle socialist narratives and agitators primetime air-time. Chomsky and Herman established this decades ago in Manufacturing Consent.

[Broletariat]

I just got done reading page 5 but.... holy crap what the fuck happened in here. Why are there so many unrestricted liberals on a revolutionary leftist website? I thought we restricted them so we don't get in to 8 pages of wasted debate over shit like this.

Edit: okay I just finished and I concluded the discussion should have ended at post 27.

[NGNM85]

Its a descriptive term. Do you think socialism means "really authentic and honest guy who never got his hands dirty"? I'm no Leninist, but you're essentially arguing because in his capacity as Bolshevik party and Soviet state leader after October 1917, he pursued within his capacities, policies and choices that were anti-socialist.That's fine - you may also regard his personality to be hypocritical and self serving; his politics incoherent or theologian full of old-fashioned Marxoid Hegels-esque "historical science" nonsense. However, he was a major figure in workers' struggles and workers' revolutionary politics in 1917, and he was a major figure in campaigning against capitalism and imperialism in the years up until the Russian Revolution. The Bolshevik party, its organizational schemes, its ideological doctrinal core, and its evolution and nature following the assumption of power in October 1917, ratified by the exit of the socialist right, social democrat and socialist revolutionary alike aside, was one of the key mass democratic and popular revolutionary organizations of 1917. It was filled with militant worker recruits and by October 1917 was often decentralized with polycentric nature of policy and authority. It was at least as chaotic as centralized. This is just modern scholarship. It also buttressed the Russian Republic against far-right reaction in the Kornilov affair. Because Lenin, in your view, became scab and ended up institutionally serving to repress workers, doesn't mean he was not ever a socialist. This kind of obsession with personality-based political assessments suggests a liberal outlook, not a very materialistic and class-based one.

No, Lenin isn’t a socialist because he had no interest in, and was, in fact, both bitterly opposed to, and instrumental in dismantling, workers’ democracy. In my view that’s fundamental to socialism. That has nothing to do with his personality.



Again, if you were actually interested in discussing this constructively at length, you could provide a baseline for defining and evaluating claims to be "a socialist" such that it could be transparently evaluated. Instead you give half-judgments (like here about Lenin) and refuse to elaborate. It does not suggest a sincere desire to discuss the facts.

Discussing what at length? Lenin is not the subject, here. However, Lawrence O’Donnell wasn’t supposed to be the subject, here, either.


Therefore, I don't think many people have trouble dismissing O'Donnell out of hand. I don't see why you should be all up in arms about him.

Who the fuck is ‘up in arms’ about him? All I said, all I said was I have no idea what his political convictions are, and based on that lack of knowledge I cannot justifiably determine whether or not he is a Socialist.

[CleverTitle]

This conversation is still happening? Jesus Christ.

[Jose Gracchus]

No, Lenin isn’t a socialist because he had no interest in, and was, in fact, both bitterly opposed to, and instrumental in dismantling, workers’ democracy. In my view that’s fundamental to socialism. That has nothing to do with his personality.

So only people who "improve workers' democracy" can be socialists? I mean there were socialist thinkers most people accept, like Saint-Simon, who certainly didn't have socialist democracy at their core. Furthermore, I think it is childish to regard Lenin's "personal convictions" as being a substantial historical factor in the equation. Do you regard Lenin as some sort of insincere demagogue who inserted his intellectuals' snake oil into workers' democracy in 1917? Why was the Bolshevik party the most popular party of the militant Russian proletariat? What was the alternative to it in 1917? Was the Bolshevik party some organ of demagoguery and state authoritarianism laid in Lenin's hands? What's your position?

I think you have a very unrealistic and moralistic evaluation of historical figures. "Being a socialist" isn't some quasi-moral judgment of your personal essence. There's a reason I asked what I did; if Lenin of September 1917 wasn't a socialist, by what definition of socialist do you use? Is his politics and actions of October dissipate his entire historical being of the 'essence' labeled 'socialist'? I would not dispute that Karl Kautsky was a socialist, though he was a statist and excessively dedicated to what was a liberal reformist party and party politics concept at heart, and eventually became a scab against the revolutionary proletariat. That doesn't change the fact that one cannot simply replace the historical identity "socialist" with the definitional criteria "people I don't like".

Now, if you were to ask if I think that Leninism in power historically, and Leninism as a historical doctrine having developed for some ninety years is authentically liberatory and revolutionary socialism, I'd probably say no. Tactically most Leninists have given over to either "official left" politics of an essentially liberal or bourgeois nature, or to class-collaborationist rural guerilla movements which are secessionist, rural agrarian, and generally left-populist in character, regardless of vocabulary and doctrinal rhetoric. Together with this is packaged a belief that 'support' and 'solidarity' with these Third Worldisms is the core of practice as a sectarian in a privileged First World country. Doctrinally, Leninism in power and practice has transformed into a quasi-religious doctrine with lots of arcana and dogma beyond question and used to prop up the Pope-like cliques who manage the sects unquestionably. The historical niavete, lack of ability to question fundamentals, and apologism for historical state terror and Bolshevik degeneration is the least of troubles.

However, that hardly means I think that social democrats and left-liberal reform politics of the First World are some great alternative. And least still the essentially book-clubbish and blind actionism (when not indulging empty egotistic lifestylism) of those now calling themselves anarchists often. The question is in practice how much commitment among Leninists is there for genuine social revolution, and I don't think much. Lenin and Trotsky are like Kautsky; they cannot help but meet the historical burden of really existing socialists. But they both became scabs against the revolutionary workers' later in life, by virtue of both their ideological commitments but also a dynamic relationship with historical contingencies and the institutions in which they served. I hardly think any Russian socialist placed in the Council of People's Commissars would've conducted themselves much better between 1918 and 1924.


Discussing what at length? Lenin is not the subject, here. However, Lawrence O’Donnell wasn’t supposed to be the subject, here, either.

I'm presuming you want to discuss something substantively. So I'm giving you an opportunity to clearly frame a position and argument so we may proceed.

Want to argue about Lenin? Let's do that. But I'll need you to give me an operative definition of who is an authentic socialist and who isn't.


Who the fuck is ‘up in arms’ about him? All I said, all I said was I have no idea what his political convictions are, and based on that lack of knowledge I cannot justifiably determine whether or not he is a Socialist.

Then why are you arguing over it?

[NGNM85]

So only people who "improve workers' democracy" can be socialists?

No, I said only people who believe in workers’ democracy can be socialists. Lenin not only wasn’t interested in workers’ democracy, he was bitterly opposed to it his entire life.


I think you have a very unrealistic and moralistic evaluation of historical figures. "Being a socialist" isn't some quasi-moral judgment of your personal essence.

I am skeptical about his morals, but that isn’t the point. Again, my personal definition of socialism is democratic, I believe that is a fundamental characteristic of socialism, which is pretty much the standard Anarchist position. It was also the opinion of many, if not most Marxists in Lenin’s day. That’s my view of what socialism is.


Then why are you arguing over it?

My position hasn’t changed at all. Again, I have no idea what his political views are, which is an essential prerequisite to determining whether or not he is a socialist. I have been repeatedly harangued for not accepting this ‘truth’ which apparently is self-evident, by people who know as little about him as I do, if not less. If you have some information that would shed light on this, feel encouraged to produce it.

[Jose Gracchus]

No, I said only people who believe in workers’ democracy can be socialists. Lenin not only wasn’t interested in workers’ democracy, he was bitterly opposed to it his entire life.

The Cliffs Notes version of "What is to be Done?" along with most Leninist caricatures fail to capture what the real message was in Russian. Lenin wasn't articulating some hitherto unknown right-wing elitist view toward the class. One can argue such views and tendencies were implicit in the fact that petty bourgeois intellectuals often formed the backbone and leadership of European social democratic parties of this time, and the way they approached ideology and organizing the class. I recommend reading Lars T Lih's Rediscovering Lenin. He's done some really good research meaningfully ensconcing Lenin's early party activities and publishing in the context of European and Russian social democratic intra-movement struggles at the time.

In any case, historically speaking, by 1917 the Bolshevik party was a mass democratic organization, not a disciplined organization of professional revolutionaries. This is simply not a controversial claim in modern scholarship of the Revolution. ComradeOm has quite the essay and source collection dedicated to this topic.


I am skeptical about his morals, but that isn’t the point. Again, my personal definition of socialism is democratic, I believe that is a fundamental characteristic of socialism, which is pretty much the standard Anarchist position. It was also the opinion of many, if not most Marxists in Lenin’s day. That’s my view of what socialism is.

Yes, but being a socialist and turning scab is not the same thing as have never being a socialist. One is not required to adore of Bolshevik policy ever, but certainly not after the insistence on maintaining one-party government, the coups of 1918, the excesses of the Red Terror, and subsequent crushing of nascent and re-emergent workers' democracy in 1921. I'm not arguing for any of those things. However, I don't think we can proceed very well if we're in the business of dubbing anyone who goes on to do things we do not like or disagree with "not socialists". Kautsky, the SPD, the Erfurt Program, this all part of historical socialism. I may not agree with all of it, and certainly not where it led, but I don't strike it all from the historical record of socialism on those grounds.

Furthermore, its not as if the anarchist tradition is truly ideal in their dedication to democracy. Historically they tended to treat party government as illegitimate ipso facto, regardless of support and activity by working masses behind it. There's also an opportunistic recourse to individual terrorism when things aren't going their way at times, and I fail to see how that's democratic. I agree soviet democracy was crushed, and the Bolshevik party-state was instrumental in this process. But the other socialist parties and factions hardly helped in their grandstanding (they conditioned an all-left coalition government on Trotsky's and Lenin's non-participation, which is to say they were unwilling to negotiate at all) or recourse to terrorism.

The degeneration of the Russian Revolution was a complex story, not reducible to anarchist slogans like it was because of parties, states, and vanguardism. Lenin hates workers and Bolsheviks were anti-revolution and since What Is To Be Done? he took a view like this. Its a lot more complicated than that. First of all, the Bolsheviks by October were authentically an organization of the revolutionary masses. Second of all, the state will not wither overnight, and all historical experience verifies this (to be honest, I think the extent of anarchism is to be determined by how widespread proletarian internationalism and solidarity is; if the predatory actions of outside bourgeois states can be ameliorated or better yet, canceled out by domestic revolution, then the state will be dissolved to that extent possible accordingly). Thirdly, periods of revolutionary agitation and activity will exhibit the formation and participation of political organizations and probably political parties. Whatever ever one thinks of them this tendency must be dealt with seriously.


My position hasn’t changed at all. Again, I have no idea what his political views are, which is an essential prerequisite to determining whether or not he is a socialist. I have been repeatedly harangued for not accepting this ‘truth’ which apparently is self-evident, by people who know as little about him as I do, if not less. If you have some information that would shed light on this, feel encouraged to produce it.

I really don't know personally, and do not care. However, I am willing to accept as a casual axiom that those who genuinely oppose and agitate for the working class in class struggle will find themselves with tailored suits and giving talking points on MSNBC to a mass left-liberal audience. I also think that reflexive support for the market and weak social-democratic support for social programs suggests one is not a socialist. I think you at the very least must conceive of labor as an organic constituency of society, and how it can organize itself in opposition to capital or business, before you can claim socialism. I don't think Great Society-type shit scratches the surface, you at least need to have the commitment to unionism and labor that European social democrats do, at least on paper. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Metacomet]

Not really a big fan of Olbermann (though he is a good sports guy I think) So I am not heartbroken to see him go, as long as they keep Rachel Maddow I'll be happy.