Bernie Gets It On Free Speech
My tweet:
@clayroutledge Bernie Sanders is about as economically sensible as a dinner roll, but the guy has principles.
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) April 24, 2017
From the HuffPo's Daniel Marans:
OMAHA ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized the security threats to a speaking event by conservative pundit Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley that prompted the school to postpone the talk."I don't like this. I don't like it," Sanders told The Huffington Post after speaking at a rally for Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello on Thursday night. "Obviously Ann Coulter's outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation."
There's more:
Many other liberals argue that disruptions that effectively veto certain points of view are wrongheaded and counterproductive no matter how repugnant the speaker's views.Sanders made clear he is firmly in the latter camp.
"To me, it's a sign of intellectual weakness," he said. "If you can't ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?"
"What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions," he concluded. "Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don't think that that works in any way."
No™... Bernie Sanders is not to be trusted in any context. A man who dreams of telling you how many kinds of deodorant you should be allowed to choose from —or, presumably, to manufacture— is far too arrogant & ham-fisted to be admired for a glib, offhand defense of free speech. If he won't let you make your money or spend it as you see fit, how free is your speech?
(I stole the ™ from this guy. Because he's anonymous, I don't see how he can stop me from claiming it as my own, um, trademark.)
Crid at April 25, 2017 11:30 PM
Besides, frivolously-perfumed toiletries gave men my age our excusable opportunity for headbanging when driving alone in our cars down Sunset.
Crid at April 25, 2017 11:33 PM
Isn't it a bit intellectually dishonest to describe Bernie's actual quote here:
"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."
As him dreaming "of telling you how many kinds of deodorant you should be allowed to choose from —or, presumably, to manufacture"?
His actual statement is one suggesting that as a society we might want to reevaluate our priorities... and you've turned him into a dictator hell bent on crushing you under his authoritarian thumb.
Criticize Bernie all you like on the substance of his positions, but all you have done here is set up a strawman.
Amy is correct that Bernie is a principled individual. Disagree with his principles all you want, but be fair about it and represent his statements honestly.
Artemis at April 26, 2017 2:48 AM
"Criticize Bernie all you like on the substance of his positions, but all you have done here is set up a strawman."
Can I criticize him for setting up a false dilemma, then?
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at April 26, 2017 4:30 AM
Old RPM Daddy Says:
"Can I criticize him for setting up a false dilemma, then?"
Sure... I also don't see how one is necessarily related to the other.
I think taking him literally here isn't the right way to look at it.
Clearly what he is trying to say is that he wants us to be more focused on things like child hunger as opposed to materialistic things... which is perfectly acceptable political rhetoric.
That being said, you are absolutely right that deodorant and sneakers do not have a clear link to child hunger.
Artemis at April 26, 2017 4:37 AM
No™... Bernie Sanders is not to be trusted in any context.
I don't trust him. I just think he shows himself to be more principled than politicians usually are. Don't see that in the slightest as an agreement with his principles.
I have a dear friend who was here on sabbatical for a while, and I took him to one of the monthly writer events I used to go to. Andrew Breitbart went when he was alive, and it was a combination of authors, journalists, screenwriters, TV writers, sometimes the chief of police (Bratton and his wife, Rikki), a few cops, and people on the right and left. Cathy Seipp got me invited initially -- you had to be recommended for invitation.
Anyway, John Phillips, a radio host who's a friend of mine, is also a friend of Ann Coulter. He brought her to the event. It was just after the whole TSA worker suing me thing came out, and somebody told her who I was. She talked to me for a while and said she admired what I did or something like that.
Well, my friend was so horrified -- and PS he's a professor (and not surprisingly, politically quite left) -- that he never came back to the event with me again for the entire time he was here.
And these events were THE event of the month.
The fact that Bernie is willing to stand up for Ann Coulter's free speech IS meaningful and IS a big deal, and I respect him for it, though I'd vote for my mailbox before I voted for the guy.
Amy Alkon at April 26, 2017 6:17 AM
So, the man with three houses wants us to focus our economic and political energies on child hunger instead of materialistic things. Wonder how many meals the proceeds from selling just one of those houses would buy. How about the $600,000 lake house?
He really is an old-school communist, like the old Soviet party officials relaxing in their dachas while the proletariat starved. Or Che Guevara commandeering the largest plantation on the island as his house "for the revolution." Or the millionaire preacher telling the congregation to give 'til it hurts or God will call him home.
I guess some animals are indeed more equal than others. "Principled individual" indeed.
Conan the Grammarian at April 26, 2017 6:28 AM
I don't generally have a lot of respect for Sanders either, but he hit bingo on this one:
"To me, it's a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can't ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?"
He's exactly right. When you shut down a speaker, it's an admission to the world that you don't have a counter-argument. It's an admission that you concede the speaker's point. It's an admission of raw, unrestrained fear. Does the Berkeley community concede that Ann Coulter is right about the issues that she speaks about? Sure looks like it. Remember: When they try to shut you down, you've won the argument.
Cousin Dave at April 26, 2017 7:01 AM
Uggh, Is it so hard to so something like "I don't agree with Bernie Sanders 99% of the time but this time he is right." The people that listen to him are really the people that need to be reached out to on free speech. Good job Bernie, I don't agree with you 99% of this time we are in agreement.
Shtetl G at April 26, 2017 7:02 AM
Agreed.
And I'll give Sanders credit. When it was political suicide to be liberal, much less socialist, Sanders stood up and proudly declared himself a socialist. Whether that's something to actually be proud of is a topic for another debate.
Half the Democratic Party calls itself moderate or centrist while hewing to a decidedly left-wing agenda. Sanders is a least honest about his political philosophy. However, it's the philosophy of Lenin, Mao, Che, Evita, Robespierre, et al: Revolution for the other guy. Privilege for me.
Conan the Grammarian at April 26, 2017 7:13 AM
"Amy is correct that Bernie is a principled individual."
Oh, bull. This is the guy that followed the Party line after his people were denied representation in the DNC, declaring first that Hillary was corrupt and then the candidate qualified best to be President.
How quickly you forget.
Radwaste at April 26, 2017 7:25 AM
His actual statement is one suggesting that as a society we might want to reevaluate our priorities.
Which means that you'll need to use force to make me comply with your priorities. A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny, even if you deem it in my best interest.
Remember, the worst thing to do to a socialist is to make him live under socialism run by people who are not his friends.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 26, 2017 7:33 AM
"This is the guy that followed the Party line after his people were denied representation in the DNC, declaring first that Hillary was corrupt and then the candidate qualified best to be President."
Yeah he was bought and paid for. His people? Not so much. He just re-focused them on Trump voters instead of the party that shafted them (cough, DNC, cough). Of course they have gone willingly and accept the boot on their throat as a good thing.
(Although they may be working from the ground up to win local government offices but their behavior is going to screw that up.)
Bob in Texas at April 26, 2017 10:21 AM
> Isn't it a bit intellectually
> dishonest to
You are not a person who need be concerned with exotic, 'intellectual' versions of sin. Mere "honesty" defeats you, we are certain.
Crid at April 26, 2017 10:37 AM
Ever notice how nobody ever flatly denies that that was Bernie's R8?
It's weird. All the usual Ghostbuster websites just say 'No! It *isn't* his! We're just certain of that, so therefore it's been proven!!'
'!! We rilly mean it!'
Crid at April 26, 2017 11:46 AM
> Isn't it a bit intellectually
> dishonest
The rest of it was so ludicrous, I didn't even notice the "a bit" in that sentence. This isn't just bullshit... It's nuanced bullshit. Shades of meaning! Precious distinctions! Generous readings of indeterminate text!
Christ, I hate children.
Crid at April 26, 2017 11:57 AM
"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers"
How is this guy still married? You know how many men have died on that hill, trying to limit a woman to 18 pairs of shoes? Might as well suggest we ration toilet paper to 2 rolls a week. Seriously, how did he make it up that hill?
smurfy at April 26, 2017 12:27 PM
Additionally, how many houses does THE BERN need? I'm given to understand that he has three.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 26, 2017 2:21 PM
How is he married? Well, he's got three houses.
Sanders is referring to 18 brands or types of sneakers available at the store. He is expressing Karl Marx's view of efficiency, a real obsession of Marx's. Marx saw multiple brands of the same product being made and sold as inefficient and wasteful as a great deal of economic effort has to go into advertising, convincing people of the difference between two essentially fungible products. And unsold products have to be destroyed.
Take cars. There's no real difference between a Ford and a Chevy, but the enthusiasts of each brand will insist to the death that there is.
Marx never understood that the competition between multiple manufacturers of what is essentially the same product produces incremental improvements as each brand strives to differentiate itself from the competition.
It also produces safer products. Airbags were not mandated by the government until they were deployed in higher-end cars as a selling point. Socialists think a government mandate produced airbags and made cars safer.
Socialism reflects Marx's obsession with government-directed efficiency.
The East Germans had one car choice, the Trabant. The Trabi was not improved, incrementally or otherwise, in 33 years. It generated 18hp from a two-stroke engine that belched smoke like a Iraqi oil fire - even when Western automobiles were using four-stroke engines and multiple valves to gain horsepower and fuel efficiency while reducing emissions. The Trabi lacked Western safety features like anti-lock brakes, airbags, brake lights, and turn signals. Retooling the factory for a new engine or adding safety features would have been too expensive and inefficient - so, they weren't added.
Trabant manufacturing, however, was "efficient." Every Trabant manufactured was sold. The waiting list to take possession was 15 years long. The DDR was the only market in which buying a used car was more expensive than buying a new one (because you got to drive the used one home that day).
Canada's healthcare system does the same thing with MRIs. Canadian healthcare officials view the market-driven US healthcare as inefficient in its deployment of MRI machines - with several sitting idle at any one time and sometimes for long periods. Canadian MRIs are going full blast with very little downtime. Like the Trabant, that efficiency is driven by a shortage, with not enough machines to meet the demand. And, like the Trabant, the waiting list is long.
Conan the Grammarian at April 26, 2017 2:51 PM
"Take cars. There's no real difference between a Ford and a Chevy, but the enthusiasts of each brand will insist to the death that there is."
Strangely, so does the NHRA record book.
Even though we drive Igloo™ coolers, with decals on them so we can tell them apart.
Radwaste at April 26, 2017 8:25 PM
Conan,
You are reading way too much into what is obviously political rhetoric.
All of your talk about the number of houses someone owns is a non sequitur.
It simply does not follow that someone cannot be concerned about starving children if they happen to own more than one home.
What is clear here is that your personal feelings about Bernie are overwhelming your ability to apply rational thought to anything he might say.
Politicians are not particularly good at logic either as Old RPM Daddy pointed out earlier in pointing out that Bernie's statement sets up a false dilemma.
That criticism was fair... your criticism on the other hand is born out of disdain for a person and not out of logic or reason.
Artemis at April 29, 2017 12:30 PM
I'm not reading way too much into anything. A man who owns three houses is trying to gain political power by decrying materialism and implying that he is above the crass motives that plague the Great Unwashed while piling up a portfolio of material things - a man who has demonstrated not only by his political positions, but his votes in the past, he has no qualms about using the threat of government force to take from others their hard-earned monies to be spent on his pet causes while his own money is to be left to him to be spent on personal luxuries.
And, yes, one can own three houses and still donate a significant portion of one's income to charitable causes. Bernie does not. The house was purchased with a recent windfall which was not donated to charity or used to fund charitable causes, but to buy a lakefront house for Bernie Sanders.
Bernie's 2014 tax return showed an income of roughly $200,000 and charitable donations of about $8,000. That's roughly 4% of his income given to charity.
Bernie paid a tax rate of roughly 19%, yet he's in the forefront of the Party that has staked out the tax position that the "rich" (according to Bernie's Democratic Party comrades, people with incomes greater than $100,000) should pay higher tax rates.
I have no disdain for Bernie. In fact, I've expressed respect for his honesty in admitting he's a socialist in an era when that admission could have cost him votes. Most of the Democratic Party politicians will tell you they're centrists or moderates to keep themselves politically viable, all while hewing to decidedly leftist policies and philosophies. Bernie will tell you outright that he's a leftist.
And I have already stated I agree with him on confronting Ann Coulter with words, not pitchforks and torches.
What I disagree with are Bernie's leftist policies. That I disagree with leftism and socialism in general is no secret. It has never worked wherever and whenever it has been tried. I've studied a lot of history and economics over the years of my life and I've yet to find a socialist system that worked or didn't devolve into tyranny. Socialist systems require, by their nature, that some animals be more equal than others, and Bernie is trying to set himself up to be one of the more-equal animals.
Conan the Grammarian at April 29, 2017 6:52 PM
You say that like it's acceptable.
These people are being put in charge of our defense, our national budget (which is almost $20 trillion in arrears), and given outsized power and respect for people who are "not particularly good at logic."
Conan the Grammarian at April 29, 2017 9:34 PM
Conan,
There you go again reading things into a statement that aren't there. Your imagination is way too active when you are reading comments by others so that you can manufacture fake outrage.
When I say that politicians are not particularly good at logic it is simply recognition of reality... it isn't a statement about what is acceptable and what isn't.
In philosophy what you are doing is called trying to get an ought from an is.
The thing is that logically you cannot do that.
So let me amend my statement... people in general are not particularly good at logic, including politicians. I wish it wasn't that way and I am not happy about it, but that is the world we live in unfortunately.
Artemis at April 29, 2017 10:20 PM
Conan,
Exactly what conditions does one have to meet to legitimately care about starving children?
Do you meet those conditions?
"a man who has demonstrated not only by his political positions, but his votes in the past, he has no qualms about using the threat of government force to take from others their hard-earned monies to be spent on his pet causes"
Pet causes like what?... starving children perhaps?
When a politician advocates for a cause and then votes in favor of such cause when the opportunity presents itself I find it strange you would use that as evidence of hypocrisy.
Voting in accordance with ones rhetoric actually is evidence of consistency.
Can you provide evidence of Bernie voting in an opposite manner to his political rhetoric?
"Bernie's 2014 tax return showed an income of roughly $200,000 and charitable donations of about $8,000. That's roughly 4% of his income given to charity."
How much charity does one have to give in order to have legitimate concerns about starving children?
Artemis at April 29, 2017 10:28 PM
Good God, Artie. Is your head up your ass for the warmth?
Conan the Grammarian at April 29, 2017 10:45 PM
Conan,
Thank you for the well thought out commentary... I knew I could count upon such careful crafted analysis from you.
To you when I say politicians aren't known for their logic you immediately jump to the conclusion that I find that acceptable based upon nothing but your own imagination.
The only one without their head in the proper place here is you.
You are only capable of holding debates against your own made up positions.
You never actually debate what someone else is saying.
It is easy to "win" a debate when you simply make up the oppositions points to suit your fancy instead of addressing reality.
Artemis at April 29, 2017 11:08 PM
On the point of Bernie's charitable giving I actually looked up the figured and it turns out that he gives more than the average person in his income bracket (and more than those in the bracket above his as well).
Yet that still isn't good enough for you.
What threshold of giving is required for someone to legitimately care about starving children?
You need to put a number to this so you can be held to it in the future.
Artemis at April 29, 2017 11:11 PM
"Well thought out commentary" and "Careful crafted analysis" are wasted on you.
I never said Bernie's votes are inconsistent with his political rhetoric. They're not; that's the problem. As I wrote before (try reading it this time), he's a Leftist. It's not his rhetoric that's the problem, it's his entire political philosophy.
I like Bernie. I don't like his political philosophy, mostly because it has never worked, wherever and whenever it has been tried. Bernie deludes himself into thinking that he'll be the one to finally do socialism right. He's honest about being a socialist, but dishonest with himself about what socialism actually means and the tyranny that socialist systems create.
As long as he's nothing more than an ineffective senator, no harm done, but electing him president would be destructive.
If you're going to claim to be a socialist and slam the bourgeoisie for materialism, don't be buying a lakefront vacation house (your third house) while you're doing it; or giving only 4% of your income to charity.
Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2017 11:35 AM
Conan Says:
""Well thought out commentary" and "Careful crafted analysis" are wasted on you."
You've never put it to the test so how would you know?
As a matter of fact, you might find that if you bring facts to the table and actually address the substance of other peoples arguments you might get somewhere.
Just telling folks they have their head up their ass isn't going to result in any progress or further understanding.
"I never said Bernie's votes are inconsistent with his political rhetoric."
No... you just implied that because he owns 3 homes that somehow precludes him from making political statements about wanting to assist starving children.
Those two things are not connected. It is entirely possible to do both.
"If you're going to claim to be a socialist and slam the bourgeoisie for materialism, don't be buying a lakefront vacation house (your third house) while you're doing it; or giving only 4% of your income to charity."
Except that Bernie has never claimed to be just a "socialist" he has claimed to be a "democratic socialist", which isn't the same thing.
This is why I hate labels, because people use them as a short cut to put people in a box.
I would much rather discuss very specific policy items as opposed to vague labels that are wishy washy and open to subjective interpretation.
As I already pointed out, the data shows that Bernie already gives more to charity than the average person in his income bracket or the one above his own.
How much charity would he have to give in your opinion?
I will also point out that regardless of your answer, your entire criticism of Bernie amounts to little more than the Tu quoque fallacy.
In other words, your criticism isn't logically valid as a means to dismiss his argument.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 1:25 PM
Conan Says:
"I never said Bernie's votes are inconsistent with his political rhetoric. They're not; that's the problem. As I wrote before (try reading it this time), he's a Leftist. It's not his rhetoric that's the problem, it's his entire political philosophy."
Also, I have read what you wrote. Specifically you argued in opposition to my contention that Bernie was a principled individual. You object to that position here:
""Principled individual" indeed."
Except after that and now you readily admit that he votes in a manner that is entirely consistent with his states principles.
So which is it Conan?... is he principled or not?
Being principled as a politician means that one votes for policies that are consistent with ones stated philosophical stance.
That doesn't mean that you have to like or agree with those stated principles.
As always the problem is that you are all over the place. You try to argue that it is both night time and day time and then pitch a fit when someone holds you to one position or another.
You need to pick a lane and defend it or admit you were wrong. You don't get to argue both ways and then say the other person isn't reading what you are saying.
You aren't being self consistent.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 1:33 PM
As I said earlier, not. He votes in a manner consistent with his rhetoric. That doesn't make him principled. It makes him consistent.
He's a hypocrite. He slams the American public for being materialistic and advocates programs and policies by which the government takes the financial windfalls of other people and spends that money on social welfare programs, buying votes - all while using his own financial windfall to purchase for himself a third house, a lakefront house.
So, according to Bernie, the government should take other people's money, but not his, and spend that taken money on programs of his choosing while he gets to lecture the public on morality from the porch of his lakefront house (just like the Soviet party bosses had waterfront dachas). As I said (again, read my posts), Bernie is being honest about being a socialist, but not being honest about what socialism actually means. He's deluding himself and others.
That's the crux of socialism, Artie. In it, some animals are more equal than others, by necessity. Bernie wants to be one of those more-equal animals. Socialism is, by nature, an unprincipled political system, where the enlightened enslave the benighted. It has resulted in failure and tyranny whenever and wherever it has been tried. Just ask the people who slaved, starved, or died while the Party favorites lived it up.
Now who's reading things into other people's comments? You're a real piece of work, Artie.
Let me introduce you to the difference between implied and inferred. I implied nothing.
If Bernie wants to assist starving children, let him assist starving children with his own money. He's not principled when he assists them with money taken from others at gunpoint.
Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2017 2:17 PM
Conan Says:
"As I said earlier, not. He votes in a manner consistent with his rhetoric. That doesn't make him principled. It makes him consistent."
Acting consistently with a stated philosophy or code is the definition of being principled.
I am not sure exactly what hairs you are trying to split here, but you aren't making sense.
The man publicly states that he backs a set of well defined principles... and he votes consistently in accordance with those stated principles.
That makes him a principled person.
I get that... Amy gets that... and somehow that is all lost on you.
Being principled isn't a good or a bad quality Conan, being good or bad will depend entirely upon the principles you are backing.
Agree with Bernie's principles or not... but he is actually a principled person.
"He's a hypocrite."
There you go with the Tu quoque fallacy again.
This claim has no place in a logical discussion about the merits of policy.
I am not here to discuss whether or not you like Bernie.
I am here to discuss policies that are tangible.
"He slams the American public for being materialistic and advocates programs and policies by which the government takes the financial windfalls of other people..."
Good grief man... he is talking about starving children and you are trying to turn him into some kind of a monster.
Get a grip.
"So, according to Bernie, the government should take other people's money, but not his and spend that taken money on programs of his choosing"
Why wouldn't they take his money?
Is he suggesting he should be immune to taxes?
I see no evidence that he is shielding himself from anything here.
Also, what do you think elected officials are elected to do if not vote to determine how public monies are spent?
He didn't just show up in congress one day and take over via a violent coup, the guy was elected to public office and is advocating for programs the people who put him there support.
As you noted, the man is consistent, so the people who voted for him knew what he would be advocating for.
That is how our government works.
"If Bernie wants to assist starving children, let him assist starving children with his own money. He's not principled when he assists them with money taken from others at gunpoint."
It isn't gun point you nitwit.
He was voted into office.
He didn't put a gun to peoples heads to get there.
If you want to be an anarchist then feel free to live somewhere else.
In this country we vote people in who get to vote how our public money is spent. If you disagree with them so be it, then you vote in opposition to that position.
But claiming they got their through violent means when it is patently obvious they worked through the system is ridiculous.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 2:50 PM
Conan Says:
"If Bernie wants to assist starving children, let him assist starving children with his own money. He's not principled when he assists them with money taken from others at gunpoint."
Actually, can we just cut to the chase here.
You apparently have no interest in assisting starving children so you resent the idea that someone might put public monies toward that cause.
That is all well and good Conan, but that isn't how the social contract works.
We all agree to provide monies to the public coffers that is spent in accordance with the votes of our appointed representatives.
Sometimes we will like how that money is spent and sometimes we will not.
It doesn't make sense to whine and moan about how you feel like you are being mugged at gun point.
There are lots of folks who do not own cars who pay for taxes that support our infrastructure.
There are lots of folks who do not have children who pay for taxes that support our education system.
There are lots of folks who are not so keen on military spending who suck it up and pay for taxes that keep our military going.
Maybe you just will have to deal with some of your tax dollars feeding a starving child.
I guarantee you will survive the "horror" of that experience.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 3:06 PM
No, you're talking about starving children. He was talking about materialism.
Try not paying your taxes. Just send a letter to the IRS explaining that you don't want your taxes spent on a $35 million fighter jet or a bank bailout. So, you've decided to withhold them this year. Shortly after that, some men with guns will show up at your house.
Although, I doubt you pay any taxes now, so that point is probably lost on you, as are most points.
Voting on spending public monies is indeed part of their job.
Lecturing the rest of us on materialism and morality is not. It ain't charity if it's someone else's money.
You learned a new word today, didn't you? Word of the Day calendar? Freshman debating class?
BTW, you're using it wrong. Tu quoque is an appeal to hypocrisy. The tu quoque fallacy assumes the claim being made is false because the person making it is not living up to it (i.e., "Using animals for food and clothing is wrong." "But you're wearing leather and eating a hamburger, so it can't be wrong.").
I'm not saying Bernie's wrong about materialism or modern society. I'm saying Bernie is the wrong person to be lecturing people on the evils of materialism. Big difference.
Good night, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2017 3:21 PM
Conan Says:
"No, you're talking about starving children. He was talking about materialism."
No Conan... he was talking about starving children and you keep harping on about how he wants to make himself a special animal and steal all of your things.
Here is the relevant portion of his statement that keeps going over your head:
"when children are hungry in this country."
Everything else he is saying is political fluff.
"Try not paying your taxes. Just send a letter to the IRS explaining that you don't want your taxes spent on a $35 million fighter jet or a bank bailout. So, you've decided to withhold them this year. Shortly after that, some men with guns will show up at your house."
So what is your beef here then Conan?
Is your beef with Bernie about his specific policies?
Or is your beef with taxes in general?
You can't pick Bernie out as a special case if you are just irritated with taxes in general.
Your Beef is with the country as a whole apparently... because like it or not our country is funded by public taxes.
"Voting on spending public monies is indeed part of their job."
Right... so then what is your issue?
The guy is doing his job and you have lost your shit talking about how he is coming after your wallet.
"BTW, you're using it wrong. Tu quoque is an appeal to hypocrisy. The tu quoque fallacy assumes the claim being made is false because the person making it is not living up to it (i.e., "Using animals for food and clothing is wrong." "But you're wearing leather and eating a hamburger, so it can't be wrong.")."
Actually no.
Your entire point is that we can dismiss Bernies argument about a policy of spending public monies on starving children because according to you he doesn't spend enough of his own money giving to charities that feed children.
That is why everything you are saying is fallacious.
One has nothing to do with the other.
That you think he is a hypocrite has no baring on whether or not the policy he is advocating for has merit.
That is why your arguments are fallacious.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 4:04 PM
Conan Says:
"I'm saying Bernie is the wrong person to be lecturing people on the evils of materialism. Big difference."
Great, and I have asked you repeatedly to specifically define the qualities necessary to lecture you on the evils of materialism.
I have asked how much charity one has to give and you have remained completely silent on the subject.
You refuse to define what it takes for someone to be in the position to lecture you on this topic while constantly saying who is unqualified.
Your behavior here reminds me of a quote by Russell Brand:
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
What exactly does it take for someone to be concerned about starving children?
Because apparently donating more than average to charity isn't enough if you happen to own more than one home.
Artemis at April 30, 2017 4:10 PM
Leave a comment