What are libertarians?

[TemplarKormac]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

So you haven't read the context and are just making it up then? What a surprise.

Well that explains why you can't answer on being a "Woodist".

I would have come to the same conclusion either way. Now you're being dense. I don't even know what a "Woodist" is.

 

[Pogo]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

So you haven't read the context and are just making it up then? What a surprise.

Well that explains why you can't answer on being a "Woodist".

I would have come to the same conclusion either way. Now you're being dense. I don't even know what a "Woodist" is.

THANK you. That was a test, to see if you read the background, where that term was created and defined. Created and defined in the process of breaking down the strawman we're talking about. The one I addressed extensively and you have yet to address at all.

You flunked.

Once again --- Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

And that, good sir, is because you're fueling on emotion of the moment rather than on doing your homework.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anger does not help your argument either. Argument ad baculum. I can play the same game, if not more effectively. And who is it going on tangents now, Pogo? That post of yours is demonstrative proof that your argument was the fallacious one, not his. I smell rage throughout that post of yours.

Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

Give up yet?

Nope. You know I can argue well into the night and morning. I know for a fact you'll give up before I do.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

Whatever you say Danth.


Let's face it -- you got all butthurt to see one of your own busted and came in to pile on. Even now you have yet to address the topic at all.

Actually, I am quite calm, Pogo. It seems you are the one getting irritated, bud. Your ad hominem is showing.

Again --- burden of proof?
No? Nothing? Just the imaginarium is it?

Your grammar and usage of the word "Danth" indicated sarcasm, and the usage of that term as a pejorative, aka ad hominem. I can't help but note the genetic fallacy there as well, such as "one of your own." Really Pogo. The onus still lies on you. You failed to prove (and have still yet) that kaz referred to our founders as Marxists. I actually did just read back, kaz said liberals referred to them as Marxist, kaz himself did not make any such claim. Fox then came in and ripped you to shreds. I don't need to add much on my own simply because all the work was already done before I got here.

Your "time is linear" argument is a strawman. You misread kaz's statement and are refusing to admit it. I did not get the same thing from what he said as you did. Let's read his post again, shall we?

"Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?""

Answer me this. Where in that statement did he say our founders were Marxist?

You are however doing a nice Will Muschamp impression.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wassamatta? Cat got yer tongue?

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

So you haven't read the context and are just making it up then? What a surprise.

Well that explains why you can't answer on being a "Woodist".

I would have come to the same conclusion either way. Now you're being dense. I don't even know what a "Woodist" is.

THANK you. That was a test, to see if you read the background, where that term was created and defined. Created and defined in the process of breaking down the strawman we're talking about. The one I addressed extensively and you have yet to address at all.

You flunked.

Once again --- Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

And that, good sir, is because you're fueling on emotion of the moment rather than on doing your homework.

Perhaps you are ignoring what happened on page 17? Surely you jest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wassamatta, cat got your tongue?

 

[Pogo]

Anger does not help your argument either. Argument ad baculum. I can play the same game, if not more effectively. And who is it going on tangents now, Pogo? That post of yours is demonstrative proof that your argument was the fallacious one, not his. I smell rage throughout that post of yours.

Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

Give up yet?

Nope. You know I can argue well into the night and morning. I know for a fact you'll give up before I do.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

Whatever you say Danth.


Let's face it -- you got all butthurt to see one of your own busted and came in to pile on. Even now you have yet to address the topic at all.

Actually, I am quite calm, Pogo. It seems you are the one getting irritated, bud. Your ad hominem is showing.

Again --- burden of proof?
No? Nothing? Just the imaginarium is it?

Your grammar and usage of the word "Danth" indicated sarcasm, and the usage of that term as a pejorative, aka ad hominem. I can't help but note the genetic fallacy there as well, such as "one of your own." Really Pogo. The onus still lies on you. You failed to prove (and have still yet) that kaz referred to our founders as Marxists. I actually did just read back, kaz said liberals referred to them as Marxist, kaz himself did not make any such claim. Fox then came in and ripped you to shreds. I don't need to add much on my own simply because all the work was already done before I got here.

Your "time is linear" argument is a strawman. You misread kaz's statement and are refusing to admit it. I did not get the same thing from what he said as you did. Let's read his post again, shall we?

"Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?""

Answer me this. Where in that statement did he say our founders were Marxist?

You are however doing a nice Will Muschamp impression.

I have no clue in the world who that guy ^^ is.
As apparently you have no clue in the world who "Danth" is. I see you've been speaking of fallacies you don't understand.

So first up-- Heeeeeeere's Danth!

As you'll see, not only was this a simple calling out of your ploy (not an ad hom), but it's actually what you started this tirade with.

Second, ad hominem
This has not been present here tonight, since you and I have a good exchange avenue. A real example can be found back this morning where Kaz called me a "dolt". THAT is what ad hom is.

Thirdly I have never claimed that Kaz said "the Founders were Marxists". I pointed out, as you quoted above, that he/she/it put that claim in the mouth of "revisionist Democratic history". THAT is a strawman, as Kaz has never demonstrated that anyone has ever made that claim. And that's what I pointed out AS a strawman.

"Time is linear" is NOT a strawman -- I'm not putting it in someone else's mouth; that's my statement, of which I am the owner, which belongs to me. I'm stating the obvious of course, as a starting point to undermine the strawman of "Founders were Marxists" -- which is impossible given linear time.

Get it?

"Ripped you to shreds" -- see Danth again. Doesn't impress me.

You need to learn a liiiiiiitle bie more about fallacies than Argumentum ad Writeitinlatinium.

 

[Pogo]

Wassamatta? Cat got yer tongue?

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

So you haven't read the context and are just making it up then? What a surprise.

Well that explains why you can't answer on being a "Woodist".

I would have come to the same conclusion either way. Now you're being dense. I don't even know what a "Woodist" is.

THANK you. That was a test, to see if you read the background, where that term was created and defined. Created and defined in the process of breaking down the strawman we're talking about. The one I addressed extensively and you have yet to address at all.

You flunked.

Once again --- Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

And that, good sir, is because you're fueling on emotion of the moment rather than on doing your homework.

Perhaps you are ignoring what happened on page 17? Surely you jest.

"Page 17" is useless info. Pages are set for whatever your personal settings are. Mine is 20 per page, so page 17 for me may be page 9 for you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yep. Your monologuing me, not making your point. I rest my case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

 

[Pogo]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

 

[Pogo]

Yep. Your monologuing me, not making your point. I rest my case.

How come you posted again, if you "rest your case"?
What the hell is "monologuing"?

 

[Pogo]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations later before we would be able to label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

NO, I did not say Kaz said that Marx influenced the Founders; I alluded to the fact that Kaz alluded to it. In the mouth of a non-present entity, i.e. "the revisionist Democratic history" -- an entity who incidentally also didn't yet exist at that time.

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd.

So how does this "answer" exactly? First you referred to the person as an "he/she/it" pejoratively, then proceeded on the same path you are on now. Strawman this, strawmen that. I feel a Sixth Sense parody coming on:

"I see straw people!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations later before we would be able to label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

NO, I did not say Kaz said that Marx influenced the Founders; I alluded to the fact that Kaz alluded to it. In the mouth of a non-present entity, i.e. "the revisionist Democratic history" -- an entity who incidentally also didn't yet exist at that time.

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd.

So how does this "answer" exactly? First you referred to the person as an "he/she/it" pejoratively, then proceeded on the same path you are on now. Strawman this, strawmen that. I feel a Sixth Sense parody coming on:

"I see straw people!"

That's good. Very PC. SIngular should be "strawperson" or may I suggest, "person of straw".

Backstory: I refer to Kaz as he/she/it because that poster refuses to disclose his/her/its gender. When he/she/it was sporting a female avatar I assumed female and used a female pronoun. He/she/it took me to task for doing that so I asked for clarification. He/she/it refused to admit to male either. So being uninformed on what other genders exist I am left to type he/she/it or find another way to phrase the sentence that sidesteps pronouns altogether.

I might add, Foxfyre made the same assumption (still does) and the poster has not corrected her, so it's some kind of game he/she/it plays.

 

[Pogo]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

I'm not an actor.
I don't even play one on TV.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

I'm not an actor.
I don't even play one on TV.

There is a very famous one in Macbeth. Act 5, Scene 5. That is a monologue.

 

[Pogo]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

Who's fault is that? I'm only here because I have to be --- someone is wrong on the internet. I am but a humble public servant.

And we have created a nest snake in the process -- about which I don't really care in this case since it's meaningless off topic butthurtia, but in general with this new system which has no nesting limits, it's incumbent on We the Posters to shave off the unneeded bits. That is, when posters take the time to think about what they're saying. Because this level of nesting absolutely assures that you and I are the only ones reading.

Which means my role as a humble public servant isn't for the benefit of the public at all. It's for you.

That's gratitude for ya.

 

[Pogo]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

I'm not an actor.
I don't even play one on TV.

There is a very famous one in Macbeth. Act 5, Scene 5. That is a monologue.

Yah me know what a monologue is, mon.

You made it into a gerund.
You're gerunding.