Skidding or Crashing?

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I will note that you are drawing an overall conclusion based on your faulty assumption

Aren't all opinions (i.e. these discussions) faulty, because they're all assumptions?

Since i have to spell it out in black and white for you (extremely slow) why, i'm talking about this "1 trillion dollar debt", all the BS with the car companies, all your opinions on socialism, ect ect. It's just, for arguments sake, we decide to take these with a grain of salt but at the very least chose to acknowledge them.

For some reason, i feel like i'm talking to a wall. I know the next response will be: "Gee Wiggl3zor, that maker no cents"

 

[shagdrum]

Shag – you still haven’t answered me – where did the money come from that rekindled the economy? Where did the private sector get the money to create new jobs, and build new factories?

I already answered you. taxes and bonds.

It was the government’s spending on the war effort. And then it was the government paying interest on war bonds and collecting taxes on the people who were employed by the war effort. And the government printing money...

Printing money only decreases wealth and increases inflation.

Answer me this; how did the government create any wealth?

You could have had zero restrictions and it wouldn’t have made any difference, if you didn’t have any money. The government created that wealth. If the government didn’t – who did?

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. All you have done is assert that the wealth was created by government. You need to spell out how. History has shown that only the private sector can create wealth.

All you are doing is dodging here, once again.

We haven’t been in a wartime economy for the last 7+ years? Really? Haven’t we been at war for over 7 years?

No, we have not been in a wartime economy. There has been no rationing, no draft, no redirecting of production. You are smart enough to know this. You are simply trying to frustrate any honest debate, as usual.

From your article…

The frenetic activity of war production—never mind that it was just a lot of guns and ammunition—dispelled the hopelessness. People began to think: if we can produce all these planes, ships, and bombs, we can also turn out prodigious quantities of cars and refrigerators.
​

So, the money that created the atmosphere of hope, came in the form of government contracts to build those guns and planes and bombs. And the people who bought those refrigerators bought them with the money they had saved because they had jobs in those factories that built the guns and planes and bombs. The money that stemmed from government contracts.

That is what you got from that quote?! Either you are delusional, or are intentionally spinning.

The jobs are what created that "atmosphere of hope" after a decade of huge unemployment.

Of course, the ability to draw on the accumulations of financial assets built up by “forced saving” during the war was important, especially in conjunction with the Federal Reserve's continued support of bond prices. But the liquidation of those assets alone could not have turned the trick—if such tricks were possible, a government could produce prosperity simply by cranking the money presses.​

So, how did the people build up those ‘forced savings accounts’ during the war? Wasn’t it the money that the government spent on the war effort? If not shag, where did the money come from?

Again, all you are doing is trying to shift the burden of proof as a means to deflect. Are you even capable of honest?

I have already said, a number of times, that the wealth the government spend came from taxes and bonds; from private citizens. Where else does the government get any real wealth from to fund their spending? It isn't due to printing money.

And once again – when they ‘forced saved’ into government war bonds, who paid out the interest on those funds – wasn’t it the government?

And how did they pay out that interest? By printing money. And what does that do? Increase inflation.

The declines occurred even though current corporate profits were rising steadily and substantially. In 1943, as the tide of war turned in favor of the Allies, the stock market rallied and small additional advances took place in 1944. Still, in 1944, with the war economy operating at its peak, the stock market’s real value had yet to recover to its 1939 level.​

Ah, shag – you don’t invest in the stock market if you think you might lose the war. There was a definite feeling in the US that we could lose this war. Would you invest in the stock market right now if you thought the Chinese were going to be at our shores next year? During a world war the stock market will go down – it has nothing to do with corporate profits at that point, it has to do with perception that the country might not be here next year.

And the quote I cited (that you are repeating) is making that exact point. There is nothing I have said that is inconsistent with that. You are simply looking to obfuscate, again.

How were the private citizens able to pay taxes and buy war bonds? Could it be because they had jobs that the government created by going to war?

This is nothing but a circular argument. The government has no wealth to spend, except from the citizens. If you are actually trying to claim that the government gave them the wealth to the pay taxes and by bonds, you have checked out of reality.

You still haven’t showed me shag where the money came from that paid those taxes and bought war bonds, or went into those savings accounts that were all ready to be spent on refrigerators after the war. Who or what created that wealth if it wasn't the government?

Again, the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you to show how the government can actually create wealth. But, you are not encumbered by such things as reality to make your argument (as you claim that the government gave wealth to citizens that they then used to pay taxes and buy bonds), so I don't expect anything remotely rational from you.

How about, for once, instead of simply dodging, deflecting, mischaracterizing and obfuscating, you actually state your position. Then it can be debated and proven or disproven. All you seem to be doing is trying to (dishonestly) poke holes in other arguments to allow for positions that are (presumably) more friendly to your view. Can you take a strong stance on something or can you only obfuscate?

 

[shagdrum]

Aren't all opinions (i.e. these discussions) faulty, because they're all assumptions?

Opinions are either accurate or not. They are (usually) based in arguments that are either accurate and reasonable (in which case the opinion is accurate) or way off base.

The arguments can be based on false premises/assumptions and/or draw illogical conclusions. In that case, the opinion is not worth much.

Your view that "all opinions are faulty" is a false premise.

 

[foxpaws]

That's really a stupid thing to say. It shows shortsightedness, ignorance, and tunnelvision. I will speak specifically to it later, as I don't have time right now. Suffice it to say that you're wrong as usual.

I will note that you are drawing an overall conclusion based on your faulty assumption that started posts are representative of all posts. That's a logical flaw known as generalization. FAIL.

Started posts are items you felt of enough importance to bring to the attention of the members of the forum, aren't they? When you start post after post after post aren't you hoping to draw in members of the forum to view the article or video and have that post sway them, alter their opinion, or reinforce an already formed opinion?

So Foss, do you really want me to do a little sampling of the last 25 posts - 9 of which were started by you? I believe you took part in 10 of the remaining 25 posts, often with a quip, cheering on the poster and the article, or adding another wonderful insult.

Just in case you have problems comprehending ‘groupthink’

Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals. You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it:

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader. ​

Groups engaged in groupthink tend to make faulty decisions when compared to the decisions that could have been reached using a fair, open, and rational decision-making process. Groupthinking groups tend to:

1. fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives,
2. fail to adequately assess the risks associated with the group's decision,
3. fail to cycle through discarded alternatives to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discarded the alternative,
4. not seek expert advice,
5. select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions, and
6. does not make contingency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail.​

 

[shagdrum]

S

Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals. You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it:

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader. ​

Groups engaged in groupthink tend to make faulty decisions when compared to the decisions that could have been reached using a fair, open, and rational decision-making process. Groupthinking groups tend to:

1. fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives,
2. fail to adequately assess the risks associated with the group's decision,
3. fail to cycle through discarded alternatives to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discarded the alternative,
4. not seek expert advice,
5. select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions, and
6. does not make contingency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail.​

Funny you should mention group think. It is what liberals have been effectively promoting in various ways for decades. That is the whole point of political correctness as well as the appeals to authority made by the left in various areas of debate (global warming, ID/Darwinism, etc). It is why most of the MSM is liberal, as well as the entertainment industry and academia. You have exhibited those traits a number of times yourself, too.

Tammy Bruce wrote a book called Thought Control that specifically spells out the group think on the left. Modern feminism is especially bad when it comes to group think.

If you are going to accuse someone of group think, you have to consider some things. First, the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal, as is pop culture, the entertainment industry and academia. Those factors work against any type of conservative group think. However, they work real well in promoting liberal group think.

"the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking."
-Thomas Sowell

 

[fossten]

Aren't all opinions (i.e. these discussions) faulty, because they're all assumptions?

Since i have to spell it out in black and white for you (extremely slow) why, i'm talking about this "1 trillion dollar debt", all the BS with the car companies, all your opinions on socialism, ect ect. It's just, for arguments sake, we decide to take these with a grain of salt but at the very least chose to acknowledge them.

For some reason, i feel like i'm talking to a wall. I know the next response will be: "Gee Wiggl3zor, that maker no cents"

No, they aren't. Many opinions are based on facts and can be supported quite logically. Mostly those that aren't yours, by the way. But then again, you don't usually state an opinion, but rather opt to take potshots at others like me.

Oh, and don't project your faulty spelling skills onto me.

 

[foxpaws]

I already answered you. taxes and bonds.

No shag - you haven't answered where the money came from that purchased the war bonds and paid the taxes during the war. That money is traceable back to the government, because they gave out contracts to build the war machine.

Printing money only decreases wealth and increases inflation.

But, the government did it during both world wars... They printed money to sustain the war efforts. In WWII they made a very concerted effort not to print a lot of money because of the fear of inflation after the war. They, nonetheless did print money.

Answer me this; how did the government create any wealth?

They gave government contracts and money to private industry to build the war machine.

So, shag, answer me this - how was the wealth created during wartime if it wasn't the government? Who was buying the majority of goods that the factories were producing?

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. All you have done is assert that the wealth was created by government. You need to spell out how. History has shown that only the private sector can create wealth.

All you are doing is dodging here, once again.

I have shown you over and over again - the government contracts created jobs and wealth. If they didn't Shag, you need to show me where the money came from that created the 'wealth' during wartime that paid the taxes and bought the war bonds.

So, the money that created the atmosphere of hope, came in the form of government contracts to build those guns and planes and bombs. And the people who bought those refrigerators bought them with the money they had saved because they had jobs in those factories that built the guns and planes and bombs. The money that stemmed from government contracts.

That is what you got from that quote?! Either you are delusional, or are intentionally spinning.

The jobs are what created that "atmosphere of hope" after a decade of huge unemployment.

Yes I know that Shag - I stated that... And what created the 'jobs' shag - the government contracts. And was was the result of those jobs? Money.

Again, all you are doing is trying to shift the burden of proof as a means to deflect. Are you even capable of honest?

I have already said, a number of times, that the wealth the government spend came from taxes and bonds; from private citizens. Where else does the government get any real wealth from to fund their spending? It isn't due to printing money.

So, shag - once again - where did the money come from that was paying the salaries of those private citizens? How did they get money to pay taxes and buy war bonds? I know it came from the government - you haven't shown me anything different. I showed where it came from the government, you haven't shown me anything different. It was government funds (printed at first, until the well was primed, and then it was taxes and bonds).

Tell me where the money came from.

And how did they pay out that interest? By printing money. And what does that do? Increase inflation.

Yep - that is what happened in the 50s - it caught up with the government - but, shag - here you admit that the government was paying out the interest on the war bonds. The government was creating that wealth - if not the government who? Who else was printing money? Well, the mob a little bit, but not enough to make a difference.

This is nothing but a circular argument. The government has no wealth to spend, except from the citizens. If you are actually trying to claim that the government gave them the wealth to the pay taxes and by bonds, you have checked out of reality.

The government printed money - and then put people to work creating the war machine. Then those people who were building the war machine paid taxes and bought bonds.

What else happened during the war that I am missing shag? Where else did the money come from that paid these people's salaries who were building planes and ships and guns?

Again, the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you to show how the government can actually create wealth. But, you are not encumbered by such things as reality to make your argument (as you claim that the government gave wealth to citizens that they then used to pay taxes and buy bonds), so I don't expect anything remotely rational from you.

How about, for once, instead of simply dodging, deflecting, mischaracterizing and obfuscating, you actually state your position. Then it can be debated and proven or disproven. All you seem to be doing is trying to (dishonestly) poke holes in other arguments to allow for positions that are (presumably) more friendly to your view. Can you take a strong stance on something or can you only obfuscate?

Over and over shag I have stated where the money came from - the government. They printed it, they awarded contracts to build planes, ships, tanks, guns, boots, k-rations, etc. Then once that money started to flow through the economy, taxes were paid, bonds were bought, other industries were able to start hiring because the people employed with government contracts were buying things and their money (which if you traced it went back to the government) was boosting the economy.

Shag - in your scenario - where does the money come from that enabled the people to start paying taxes and buying war bonds?

Shag – you still haven’t answered me – where did the money come from that rekindled the economy?

 

[foxpaws]

Funny you should mention group think. It is what liberals have been effectively promoting in various ways for decades. That is the whole point of political correctness as well as the appeals to authority made by the left in various areas of debate (global warming, ID/Darwinism, etc). It is why most of the MSM is liberal, as well as the entertainment industry and academia. You have exhibited those traits a number of times yourself, too.

Tammy Bruce wrote a book called Thought Control that specifically spells out the group think on the left. Modern feminism is especially bad when it comes to group think.

If you are going to accuse someone of group think, you have to consider some things. First, the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal, as is pop culture, the entertainment industry and academia. Those factors work against any type of conservative group think. However, they work real well in promoting liberal group think.

"the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking."
-Thomas Sowell

Shag - don't you think that the preponderances of postings here reinforce groupthink on the right? I am not talking MSM when I was referring to Foss' tendency to groupthink. I am looking within this community. Within this forum we have a clique that appears to follow groupthink patterns fairly closely.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - don't you think that the preponderances of postings here reinforce groupthink on the right? I am not talking MSM when I was referring to Foss' tendency to groupthink. I am looking within this community. Within this forum we have a clique that appears to follow groupthink patterns fairly closely.

This forum is not within a vaccum. Fossten does not live within a vaccum. The posts on here are citing the real world and american society. Living in that world, there are a number of institutions (with not counterbalancing institutions) that work against any type of conservative group think, because they work toward a liberal group think.

 

[foxpaws]

No, this forum isn't in a vacuum -just look at all those articles that get posted, it is rather obvious there is an outside world...

But, if you look at the forum as a microcosm, what do you have - right groupthink - or what appears to be right groupthink.

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
I certainly recall many posts ending up with morals being put into question, there is an atmosphere of 'my morals are better than yours'
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
Yep - just look at how many times this group cheers each other on - pats themselves on the back, or comes to the aid of one of their own
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
Well, I think this one is self evident - posting examples would just get silly...
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and
I know of a couple of times where Foss has declared his 'disappointment' in some of your statements Shag... looked like censorship to me
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader.
Well, that is a stretch, it would be hard to even pin down a leader on the right, here on this forum, let alone isolate them to that extent.

Now, I believe the left on this site is also guilty of groupthink at times. However, since we aren't constantly reinforcing and forcing our opinions on others by post after post after post of opinion articles that reinforce our stances, it isn't as blatant, nor does it occur as often.

 

[ford nut]

No, this forum isn't in a vacuum -just look at all those articles that get posted, it is rather obvious there is an outside world...

But, if you look at the forum as a microcosm, what do you have - right groupthink - or what appears to be right groupthink.

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
I certainly recall many posts ending up with morals being put into question, there is an atmosphere of 'my morals are better than yours'
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
Yep - just look at how many times this group cheers each other on - pats themselves on the back, or comes to the aid of one of their own
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
Well, I think this one is self evident - posting examples would just get silly...
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and
I know of a couple of times where Foss has declared his 'disappointment' in some of your statements Shag... looked like censorship to me
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader.
Well, that is a stretch, it would be hard to even pin down a leader on the right, here on this forum, let alone isolate them to that extent.

Now, I believe the left on this site is also guilty of groupthink at times. However, since we aren't constantly reinforcing and forcing our opinions on others by post after post after post of opinion articles that reinforce our stances, it isn't as blatant, nor does it occur as often.

got to love it

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

No, they aren't. Many opinions are based on facts and can be supported quite logically. Mostly those that aren't yours, by the way. But then again, you don't usually state an opinion, but rather opt to take potshots at others like me.

Oh, and don't project your faulty spelling skills onto me.

All that is discussed here is opinions. I think you've been here discussing or on the intertubes reading the same things many times, in different ways, and you've accept what you read as fact. Just a quick search of your recent threads, i see no "facts" just reporters posting predictions. I'd like if you showed me some fact.

I know you had to see the hypocrisy when you posted that?

POTUS gets lost reading TOTUS

"In the face of challenges that we face"

youtube.com/watch?v=jt5dY3vVoZ0

Coach K disses Obama's basketball picks

Obama reaches a new level of narcissism
fossten

Those are just some recent threads with these "potshots". I wont waste time with posts.

 

[shagdrum]

No shag - you haven't answered where the money came from that purchased the war bonds and paid the taxes during the war. That money is traceable back to the government, because they gave out contracts to build the war machine.

You talk about following the money, but you only follow it until your opinion is confirmed and stop. That is rather dishonest. Where did the wealth that the government used to fund the war effort come from? Taxes and bonds.

But, the government did it during both world wars... They printed money to sustain the war efforts. In WWII they made a very concerted effort not to print a lot of money because of the fear of inflation after the war. They, nonetheless did print money.

I never said that they didn't. But that only decreases wealth.

They gave government contracts and money to private industry to build the war machine.

So, shag, answer me this - how was the wealth created during wartime if it wasn't the government? Who was buying the majority of goods that the factories were producing?

Your first line answers the question in your second line.

The wealth was created by the private sector with the government as the client.

Your second question implies that it was the buying of the goods (consumption) that created wealth. The truth is that wealth (and income) creates consumption. This article, shows why this idea is false:

To say that income growth depends on consumption would be absurdly circular even in Keynesian terms, because Keynes argues that consumption depends on income.​

So, while your view is reflective of Keynesian economics, it is the more modern, more ignorant version of Keynesian economics that has developed in the past few decades; a version that in fact, ignores many of Keynes thoughts.

You are basing your view on the false premise that consumption drives economic growth, when, in fact, it is the opposite. You are putting the cart before the horse. Here is another article explaining your assumption is exceedingly ignorant of reality and even the theory it is based in.

I have shown you over and over again - the government contracts created jobs and wealth.

You have done no such thing. All you have done is asserted. You have not shown anything.

To claim that government contracts created wealth is to ignore where government get's it's wealth. It is irrational.

Can you point to anytime in history where wealth has been created outside of the private sector?

The government gave these contracts to the private sector. The private sector was then the mechanism that created the wealth (as it always has been). If the government had not given out contracts to fuel the war effort, the private sector would still have been able to create wealth. The big difference that allowed for the creation of massive amounts of wealth that later funded the post war boom, was the wartime economy; specifically coming on the heels of a decade of depression.

That wartime economy forced people to budget (through rationing) and got people to save a lot of money. The success of the wartime economy in fueling the war effort changed people's perceptions about the economy and paved the way for a post war boom.

Your argument hinges on ignoring the fact that all government wealth ultimately comes from it's citizens. The citizens wealth is created in the private sector.

You keep wanting to talk about money, but money is not wealth. By itself, money is worthless. Only when wealth is attached to money does it have any value. The only mechanisms that the government has that can effect wealth can only decrease wealth through inflation (unless they want to stop printing and start removing money from the economy). If the government wants to create wealth, they have to "outsource" that job to the private sector. That is the only way that the government can create wealth; through the private sector. That is what they did in WWII.

All you are doing here is, once again, talking in circles, ignoring certain facts and attempting to obfuscate to rationalize your point of view. You clearly won't consider the idea that your belief is false and are accepting or rejecting of other facts, arguments, points of view, etc. based on weather or not they confirm your point of view. The usual name for that way of proceeding is prejudice.

 

[shagdrum]

But, if you look at the forum as a microcosm...

...then you have committed systematic error. To look at this forum as a microcosm is to look at is as having enough similarities to the whole (which in this case would be society) to draw a conclusion about the whole from the sample in the "microcosm".

I have already pointed out a number of factors and institutions that would make that analogy inaccurate.

You are attempting to spin and distort as a means to smear fossten.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

...then you have committed systematic error. To look at this forum as a microcosm is to look at is as having enough similarities to the whole (which in this case would be society) to draw a conclusion about the whole from the sample in the "microcosm".

I have already pointed out a number of factors and institutions that would make that analogy inaccurate.

You are attempting to spin and distort as a means to smear fossten.

Shag, you're funny. You always seem to have a rule that disputes a view.

 

[fossten]

No, this forum isn't in a vacuum -just look at all those articles that get posted, it is rather obvious there is an outside world...

But, if you look at the forum as a microcosm, what do you have - right groupthink - or what appears to be right groupthink.

1. overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance,
I certainly recall many posts ending up with morals being put into question, there is an atmosphere of 'my morals are better than yours'
2. collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
Yep - just look at how many times this group cheers each other on - pats themselves on the back, or comes to the aid of one of their own
3. demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
Well, I think this one is self evident - posting examples would just get silly...
4. has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained, and
I know of a couple of times where Foss has declared his 'disappointment' in some of your statements Shag... looked like censorship to me
5. contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader.
Well, that is a stretch, it would be hard to even pin down a leader on the right, here on this forum, let alone isolate them to that extent.

Now, I believe the left on this site is also guilty of groupthink at times. However, since we aren't constantly reinforcing and forcing our opinions on others by post after post after post of opinion articles that reinforce our stances, it isn't as blatant, nor does it occur as often.

You're a liar. Period. I don't have to prove a negative. You, like Mike Tyson, just discovered a new word and are trying it out in a forum. Go screw yourself.

 

[fossten]

Shag, you're funny. You always seem to have a rule that disputes a view.

And you always seem to have something un-useful to say.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

And you always seem to have something un-useful to say.

Read my other post.

BTW i looked it up and the word you were looking for is useless, disadvantageous, or ineffective.

 

[ford nut]

You're a liar. Period. I don't have to prove a negative. You, like Mike Tyson, just discovered a new word and are trying it out in a forum. Go screw yourself.

Your such a nice guy.
Can dish it out...but can never take it.

 

[foxpaws]

You're a liar. Period. I don't have to prove a negative. You, like Mike Tyson, just discovered a new word and are trying it out in a forum. Go screw yourself.

Ah foss, could this be true.. that you are...
"a bear of very little brains,
and long words bother me"
--Winnie the Pooh

it is good to see that small words like 'screw' don't seem to bother you at all though...

 

[fossten]

Ah foss, could this be true.. that you are...
"a bear of very little brains,
and long words bother me"
--Winnie the Pooh

it is good to see that small words like 'screw' don't seem to bother you at all though...

Not at all. But you fail to make your case for groupthink. You're just testing it as a theory, but it won't hold water. In fact, the lemmings that follow Obama's every word and swallow every lame talking point spewed by the TOTUS are as close to groupthink as any drones can be. And you're their leader. Congratulations.

 

[shagdrum]

Your such a nice guy.
Can dish it out...but can never take it.

You seem to be ignoring any distinction between honesty and dishonesty...as usual.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, you're funny. You always seem to have a rule that disputes a view.

Can you offer any substance? Or do you only offer snarky and contemptuous little comments that only bait and drag down the debate? You are showing yourself to be nothing more then a troll.

 

[shagdrum]

Ah foss, could this be true.. that you are...
"a bear of very little brains,
and long words bother me"
--Winnie the Pooh

it is good to see that small words like 'screw' don't seem to bother you at all though...

overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance...
You feel perfectly justified in being dishonest, deceptive and out and out lying to disprove a point of view you don't agree with. You and your cheerleaders will declare "victory" at the drop of a hat, when there has been no "victory" in the debate.

collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes...
Fallacies are most often used to rationalize prejudice (An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts). You, and your cheerleaders all have a habit of that, as well as attempts to smear and out and out lying. In fact, there have been a number of times where you have started a lie to rationalize something, and your cheerleaders have taken it upon themselves to perpetuate that dishonest rationalization.

demonizes or stereotypes out groups and their leaders...
As much as you try to say this is somehow "self-evident", from the right on this forum, it is not. There is a difference between demonization, stereotyping, etc. and telling the truth. However, from the left, demonization, stereotyping, smears, etc. is a means of debate. You are trying to demonize fossten here. I have been called an @$$hole and a dip$h!t by some of you cheerleaders as well as consistently been mischaracterized and lied about by your cheerleaders and you.

contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader...
This thread pretty well shows the lengths to which your cheerleaders will go to defend you and your distortions and lies.

Really, in this context, the only cause of group think could be isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis. However, all of the people who would be involved in this "conservative group think" are constantly bringing info in from outside sources. So this is not the only source of their information and analysis. They are clearly not confined to the info in this forum. And most of those outside sources are left leaning. So it is highly unlikely that info that would conflict with the "group opinion" is being avoided.

Even though the left doesn't have a monopoly on the media, it is still next to impossible to avoid leftist thought in today's society. Leftists still dominate the media, the entertainment industry, academia, pop culture, etc and that point of view is still pervasive. Conservatism, on the other had, is not anywhere near as pervasive. It is rather easy to become indoctrinated in liberalism and engage in group think. Many on this forum do engage in leftist group think to varying degrees, IMO.

This goes to one of the cheif differences between liberals and conservatives. Most conservatives are former liberals who got a good dose of reality. They understand liberalism (because they were once liberal) and reject it. Thomas Sowell is a prime example. He said this when listing books that had a profound impact on him:

The writings of Karl Marx-- especially The Communist Manifesto-- had the longest lasting effect on me as a young man and led me to become and remain a Marxist throughout my twenties. I wouldn't recommend The Communist Manifesto today...except as an example of a masterpiece of propaganda.

There was no book that changed my mind about being on the political left. Life experience did that-- especially the experience of seeing government at work from the inside. ​

Sowell's experience is typical of most conservatives. Life experiences have caused then to reasonably reject liberalism. However, the same cannot be said for most liberals. Most liberals cannot even articulate an accurate conservative position on something, let alone knowingly, honestly and reasonably reject it. They only know what those institutions I listed earlier tell them about conservatism and conservatives. So what they get is an oversimplified straw man mischaracterization that any reasonable person would reject and/or a demonization of conservatives (look at the tea parties, smears against Limbaugh, etc). These institutions foster a political prejudice against conservatism and re-enforce it through group think. That is why most younger people (and less informed older people) tend to be liberal. It isn't until they start to question those institutions (due, usually, to their message not jiving with reality) and start seeking out true conservative thought, that they get an accurate picture of the alternative point of view and reject liberalism.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Can you offer any substance? Or do you only offer snarky and contemptuous little comments that only bait and drag down the debate? You are showing yourself to be nothing more then a troll.

Troll? Im swimming in a see of trolls kid.

Anyway, this was the easiest one for me to find.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=507233#post507233

I dont know if you and foss, got something going on together or...? But he seems to bite off of you a lot. Anyway, he summed up all the rest in this post.

How art thou logically flawed? Let me count the ways...

Tu quoque

Exception proves the rule

Red herring

Straw man

You always find a way to discredit an opinion, as if we all have a degree in arguing. You cant expect everyone to be good at it. You and foss keep seeming to forget that everything being stated is an opinion.

Now, i get the feeling you'll come here and spit some of your conservative BS about how you only state "facts" and all "we're" posting is touchy feeling. Also, I do realize that these may be good debunkers for arguments, and keep things straight, but not here. Not on THIS internet forum, for the reasons i said above. Nobody here is a pro at this. They're stating their opinion in the only way they know. Who cares if it's stupid or not?

Not at all. But you fail to make your case for groupthink. You're just testing it as a theory, but it won't hold water. In fact, the lemmings that follow Obama's every word and swallow every lame talking point spewed by the TOTUS are as close to groupthink as any drones can be. And you're their leader. Congratulations.

The case was made in the original post. If you disagree with that, then say it. Dont act like a little kid with a temper tantrum calling names.