Glad to see they did not lose the whole site forever!

Hang in there.

What gives?

Certainly, to a right-wing authoritarian, any deviation from received orthodoxy is treason, so liberalism is seen as objectively equivalent to either communism or fascism.

The Democrats of today don’t look or talk like the radicals of the 60s because we’ve moved on. It does not mean that we disavow the past, it’s just that the world is a very different place now. I’ve never heard of the 68-08 thing and frankly see very little parallel between sen. Clinton and Obama and the flower children of the past. But if that’s how some Dems are conceptualizing it, that’s fine. As I said before, I don’t think being associated with the 60s movement is some sort of insult.

I think Mona’s main point is that Goldstein’s post is only going to appeal to the section of the population who believes that the hippies of the 60s were eeeevil fascists and that thread of eeevil fascism continues to taint the left. It’s not going to make sense to the rest of the population because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are so obviously not hippies.

Goldstein’s post is like taking the time to draw a mustache on your opponent’s portrait while your political ship is taking on water.

Now, to repeat, where was it: “that I advocated ‘run[ning] with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux.’” Please be specific and provide links.

Thanks.

But I never claimed that you didn’t provide support for my claims.

See, you’ve already got a problem right there. Lemme go through that sentence for you:

1) You can easily show how poor my argumentation is
2) it is a mere thing to show how poor my argumentation is
3) you can prove it by providing copious (or even some) support for the claim in 1)
4) and I should contrast that with the alledged fact that you did not support the claim in 1).

using the term ‘merely’ is more begging the question, I’m not conceding it is a mere thing.

If it is a ‘mere thing’ and ‘easily done’ why does it take ‘copious’ support?

Who would ever attempt to contrast copious with “even some”? They are already the opposite….

Of course you didn’t support my claim.

Based on my arguments above, I don’t know if you are bright or not, but I don’t think you have a grasp on the whole assertion, premises, conclusion thing.

It seems clear you cannot discriminate between an assertion and support for a position.

I’m banning my own self, this is the short-bus of political blogs….

From the Wiki:

“In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1][2][3][4][5] Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

In contemporary usage, “begging the question” often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.”

You stated your premise and conclusion in reverse, but I’ll straighten it out for you:

Premise: “The trolls’ are desperate because their movement is dying and discredited.”

Conclusion: “Their idiocy is in direct proportion to their desperation.”

It’s contemporary “begging the question”. Hence: fail.

Is that better?

Now, see what I did: I made an argument: “your thread-fu is bad”. I brought in evidence from a mutually recognizable source, wikipedia, then stated my premises and conclusion drawing on support.

Now you try.

Then you can easily show how poor my argumentation is merely by providing copious (or even some) support for your claims, and contrasting my allegedly not having done so. So please, go for it, and to repeat: ‘Which ‘radicals’— online and off — are pushing this [‘68 - ‘08 thing ]? Please be specific and provide links.”

I never claimed YOU asserted anything, and in fact told Chris I was unsure of where you are coming from. By contrast, you did claim that about me that I advocated “run[ning] with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux.” Prove it.

A theory emerges: idiocy of trolling is directly proportional to desperation of trolls’ dying, discredited movement.

I’ve seen that kind of thread-fu used on rightie blogs as well. It’s no more effective there and it rings hollow.

fail.

Noted: troll does not dispute veracity of theory - in addition to his own attempted “thread-fu” falling flat.

Thanks.

Your standard of proof and argument support is clearly much, much higher for others than it is for yourself.

But it is your blog, so you can do that.

I’ve seen that kind of thread-fu used on rightie blogs as well. It’s no more effective there and it rings hollow.

fail.

Which “radicals” — online and off — are pushing this? Please be specific and provide links.

Thanks.

Find me a link where I asserted that all the leftie things you named are a ‘redux’ of all the other leftie things you named. I swear I never wrote that. But you have already typed me and I responded in kind.

Whereas, Jeff did write just what I said he did.

Yes he did, he certainly did write that. That is without question, as I conceded from the start: “Jeff wrote that”.

However, unlike any position on this site, he doesn’t confuse an assertion with support.

I think you missed my point. You said:
his is all tremendously amusing. Guys! The 60s are dead.

Since it’s the radicals on the Democrat side who are pushing whole ‘68 - ‘08 thing then maybe you’re griping about the wrong people.

“Rove, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!”

Oh, I see you have….

Dear me! As I age my memory has gotten less reliable, but I’d still swear I never wrote that (and would note you provide no link to my saying anything like it).

Whereas, Jeff did write just what I said he did. And as I suggested, y’all should try to sell that ‘68-’74 theme of “dirty hippie, New Left radicals” in election 2008. Hot damn, but it is brilliant!!!

I had never heard of “Recreate 68″ until your link. If Rove were behind it, I would have.

Typists!

Why don’t you just run with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux. Do that.

Oh, I see you have….

Amazing how he “advances that notion”. I suppose the “recreate 68” web site is part of some Rovian plot?

Dunno, actually. But since I actually made a counter-argument in my post (i.e., that the term “progressive” in contemporary usage is not coterminous with the 60s radicals), I begged no question. (shrug) Gray must not have read me for comprehension.

Gray, y’all just run with that, do.

Is “Gray” one of these types? I’m still trying to decipher the grand rhetorical importance of his rather strange trifle.

Jeff has drafted the perfect, so-sensible GOP election game plan. Cuz most voters are living in 1968-1974.

Yes. Yes he did. That is a true statement. He did ‘advance that notion’. You are correct. He certainly did. I read that post. I saw him do it.

Goldstein did, in fact, advance the notion that there is a significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who (self?) identify as “progressives”.

You got that right: He did do that.

Is there a point to making that declarative statement, or is that what passes for ‘an argument’ around here–in the classical sense of ‘argument’.

Maybe if you could post that observation in a snotty voice, like you would say it, then it wouldn’t be an argument, it would be The Mother Of All Argument Begging.

And you’re right - this kind of 60s-baiting (and other baiting) is really all the GOP has to run on anymore. They just keep reaching into that dry, sad well of hatred, and coming up with less and less water to carry.

This election is going to be an unmitigated disaster for them. That’s why they’re already starting to run around like furious, headless chickens.

“Road to Serfdom” anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?….

Read about GG here, Pablo. Not that you are really interested.

Goldstein also advances the notion that there is some significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who today — you know, 2008, not 1968 — identify as “progressives.”

Significant connection? A relationship, perhaps? Like, oh let’s say a lengthy relationship between Ayers and Dohrn and Barack Obama.

Oh, look! There is one.

How are Gleen(s) these days, Mona?