Big Lies of Our Time in the United States

Nan,

Can you summarize the point you are trying to make other than that HRC stole the primary but if BS had won, all would be perfect.

Have you discovered that people are selfish  and self-serving?  I think the ancient Greeks had that figured out too.

Perhaps you can sketch out a framework for how we should engage with Russia and China going forward?

tjohn said:
Nan,
Can you summarize the point you are trying to make other than that HRC stole the primary but if BS had won, all would be perfect.
Have you discovered that people are selfish  and self-serving?  I think the ancient Greeks had that figured out too.
Perhaps you can sketch out a framework for how we should engage with Russia and China going forward?

tjohn-- you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.  What's up with that?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Do you think positing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man?

 I didn't say that sir. Learn to read better.
 

Well you certainly defended the statement (see above).

 He didn't say it, so stop trying to create your own alternate reality instead of accepting what was actually said.
And by the way, the answer to the bolded question, which you directed to me, is "I don't comment on your personal fantasies of what's been posted."

 No, it's not about you. Sorry.

dave23 said:
That's right! The Russians are completely under US control except when they aren't.

 You haven't been paying attention to corporate media -- the US is completely under Russian control.

nan said:

tjohn said:
Nan,
Can you summarize the point you are trying to make other than that HRC stole the primary but if BS had won, all would be perfect.
Have you discovered that people are selfish  and self-serving?  I think the ancient Greeks had that figured out too.
Perhaps you can sketch out a framework for how we should engage with Russia and China going forward?

tjohn-- you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.  What's up with that?

 Yep.  You seem to see a plan hatched by the rich white men in the smoke-filled room.  I just see people doing what people have been doing for thousands of years.

tjohn said:

nan said:

tjohn said:
Nan,
Can you summarize the point you are trying to make other than that HRC stole the primary but if BS had won, all would be perfect.
Have you discovered that people are selfish  and self-serving?  I think the ancient Greeks had that figured out too.
Perhaps you can sketch out a framework for how we should engage with Russia and China going forward?

tjohn-- you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.  What's up with that?

 Yep.  You seem to see a plan hatched by the rich white men in the smoke-filled room.  I just see people doing what people have been doing for thousands of years.

We both agree this is going on so how am I a conspiracy theorist? 

nan said:

dave23 said:
That's right! The Russians are completely under US control except when they aren't.

 They are not now, but important to know the history.  Not often mentioned in the MSM.

 Like I said...

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
That's right! The Russians are completely under US control except when they aren't.

 You haven't been paying attention to corporate media -- the US is completely under Russian control.

 Not sure I can handle that level of wit.

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 Must we just post things to annoy people?

jimmurphy said:

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 Must we just post things to annoy people?

 No, we can contribute to the conversation which is supposed to be discussing big lies told in the US.  I have been trying to do that, but the trolls would rather troll. Not sure what side you are on, but it would be nice if you talked about the topic instead of the non-topic.  Welcome to the thread.

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 I love the way that you love that.   

The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Do you think positing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man?

 I didn't say that sir. Learn to read better.
 

Well you certainly defended the statement (see above).

 He didn't say it, so stop trying to create your own alternate reality instead of accepting what was actually said.
And by the way, the answer to the bolded question, which you directed to me, is "I don't comment on your personal fantasies of what's been posted."

 No, it's not about you. Sorry.

 You took advantage of the fact that I didn't quote the whole post, to paint me in a false light.

That's offensive, and you know it.  See next post for the whole discussion, which shows that you were responding to me.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 Oh.
That's ridiculous. From the 50's through the fall of the USSR, pretty much no European country was known as a socialist country - almost all of socialism/communism was associated with the USSR and its clients in American discourse. Except for maybe Sweden.

 I think Mr. Drummerboy knew what a strawman argument is, so providing the definition was a little pedantic.

Bizarre. 

 Okay, I will happily replace "pedantic" with "bizarre", if that floats you boat.

 Do you think positing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man?

 As I mentioned in the prior post, you were offensive by pretending you didn't know this exchange took place.

It's a message board, Einstein.  Your childish attempts are easily found and demonstrated.

nan said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 You know, that's the problem with the Clintonocrats.  They force a moldy ham sandwich down your throat and then they're all over your case when you get food poisoning.

Klinker said:

nan said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 You know, that's the problem with the Clintonocrats.  They force a moldy ham sandwich down your throat and then they're all over your case when you get food poisoning.

Yes, we suffered so when Clinton was president. And that Hillary, with her, SCHIP. The nerve expanding health care for children. Unlike Brother Bernie who has done so much.

Its a wonder there are Clintonocrats.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

dave said:
The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

 The purveyors of the ham sandwich, after it had already been sent back to the kitchen in 2008, decided to threaten and attack anyone who suggested that they would prefer a salami sandwich or even avocado toast.  There was a reason it was the only sandwich on the menu and there was a reason that it almost got beat by a Reuben FROM VERMONT!

That said, I choked down the sandwich so I've got the right to ***** about the resulting vomiting and  diarrhea. If you all had an ounce of shame you would shut the heck up.

BG9 said:

Klinker said:

nan said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 You know, that's the problem with the Clintonocrats.  They force a moldy ham sandwich down your throat and then they're all over your case when you get food poisoning.

Yes, we suffered so when Clinton was president. And that Hillary, with her, SCHIP. The nerve expanding health care for children. Unlike Brother Bernie who has done so much.
Its a wonder there are Clintonocrats.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

 One word: UNELECTABLE.

Nuff said.

Klinker said:

dave said:
The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

 The purveyors of the ham sandwich, after it had already been sent back to the kitchen in 2008, decided to threaten and attack anyone who suggested that they would prefer a salami sandwich or even avocado toast.  There was a reason it was the only sandwich on the menu and there was a reason that it almost got beat by a Reuben FROM VERMONT!
That said, I choked down the sandwich so I've got the right to ***** about the resulting vomiting and  diarrhea. If you all had an ounce of shame you would shut the heck up.

 Most states don't have Reuben on the menu.  Should I ask his last name or would that be mixing metaphors?  

dave said:

Klinker said:

dave said:
The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

 The purveyors of the ham sandwich, after it had already been sent back to the kitchen in 2008, decided to threaten and attack anyone who suggested that they would prefer a salami sandwich or even avocado toast.  There was a reason it was the only sandwich on the menu and there was a reason that it almost got beat by a Reuben FROM VERMONT!
That said, I choked down the sandwich so I've got the right to ***** about the resulting vomiting and  diarrhea. If you all had an ounce of shame you would shut the heck up.

 Most states don't have Reuben on the menu.  Should I ask his last name or would that be mixing metaphors?  

 As Bernie said, he would have had it if it wasn't for those meddlesome POC voters.

In most election cycles, the losing candidates are pretty much forgotten within a few weeks ... to the extent that the vast majority of people don't even remember who ran and lost in the last election.  But that is certainly not the case this time, at least in part because we have been rehashing the 2016 election for nearly two years now.  That doesn't seem to have helped and, if anything, the opposite.

Can we please get over 2016 and look forward rather than backward?  Otherwise we are going to be stuck with 45 and his minions for another cycle or two or four or more.

Klinker said:

BG9 said:

Klinker said:

nan said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 You know, that's the problem with the Clintonocrats.  They force a moldy ham sandwich down your throat and then they're all over your case when you get food poisoning.

Yes, we suffered so when Clinton was president. And that Hillary, with her, SCHIP. The nerve expanding health care for children. Unlike Brother Bernie who has done so much.
Its a wonder there are Clintonocrats.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

 You may be right, or not. But it's now 2018, we have a certifiable lunatic in the White House, and we need to look forward and try to figure out how to fix the problem. Rehashing 2016 does ZERO toward that end. PLEASE STOP THIS SH,T, and begin dealing with future.

jamie said:
I'll try to figure out a better quote method in the future - I know it's annoying - hopefully people will stopping posting the entire article/book - instead of a link.

 IIRC, on the previous board software, you could highlight the text of interest and then click on the quote link and it would only quote the highlighted piece (along with the who said it, etc.)  If you could replicate that capability, while still allowing quoting of an entire post without need for highlighting, it would be awesome!

Klinker said:

BG9 said:

Klinker said:

nan said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
The guilt is gnawing at you.   Good.

 I love the way you go after Nan for (wrongly, IMO) voting for a third party candidate while taking no responsibility whatsoever for nominating an unelectable moldy ham sandwich (who I voted for in the General because she had a D next to her name).  Have you been diagnosed with narcissism or are you just suffering in the dark?

 Yes, I voted for the moldy ham sandwich.  

 You know, that's the problem with the Clintonocrats.  They force a moldy ham sandwich down your throat and then they're all over your case when you get food poisoning.

Yes, we suffered so when Clinton was president. And that Hillary, with her, SCHIP. The nerve expanding health care for children. Unlike Brother Bernie who has done so much.
Its a wonder there are Clintonocrats.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

And who was UNELECTABLE in the Democratic primaries? You know, the primary elections, the campaign which determined the Democratic nominee?

At least Clinton got the largest popular vote, unlike Bernie.

nan said:

dave23 said:
That's right! The Russians are completely under US control except when they aren't.

 They are not now, but important to know the history. 

How do you know they aren’t? If the U.S. picked Yeltsin, don’t forget who picked Putin.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 Oh.
That's ridiculous. From the 50's through the fall of the USSR, pretty much no European country was known as a socialist country - almost all of socialism/communism was associated with the USSR and its clients in American discourse. Except for maybe Sweden.

 I think Mr. Drummerboy knew what a strawman argument is, so providing the definition was a little pedantic.

Bizarre. 

 Okay, I will happily replace "pedantic" with "bizarre", if that floats you boat.

 Do you think positing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man?

 As I mentioned in the prior post, you were offensive by pretending you didn't know this exchange took place.
It's a message board, Einstein.  Your childish attempts are easily found and demonstrated.

 Back to bizarre.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 The reason why I was surprised about Capitalism is about democracy is because it seems that Street has made up the concept on his own. The phrase itself appears only  6(!) times in a google search. How can something he claims to be a widespread misbelief be so nonexistent in our discourse?
The role of luck is central to Lie #7, "Hard work and individual brilliance is the key to individual wealth, and the lack of such work and brains is the source of individual poverty."  For him to to ignore it doesn't fill me with confidence about his acumen. He clearly doesn't understand this lie.

 People think capitalism and democracy go hand in hand.  We are so brainwashed about that we don't even think it's possible to separate them.  It's not going to be commonly said or discussed, especially in the mainstream.   When people talk about how we have a "free country" the image in their head is a world ruled by capitalism.  
It's only since 2016, when Bernie Sanders ran as a "Democratic Socialist" that people could commonly even say the word "socialist" without automatically losing or getting humiliated.  Obama used to get called a "socialist" by the right-wing.  Now it's more common, but still not widespread and Democratic Socialism is just Democrats acting more like FDR than Reagan. It's not an overthrow to our system of government.

 I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.
But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.

This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?

 For the record, on this childish quibble started by nohero, drummerboy actually asked paulsurovell for the definition of a strawman.  drummerboy often asks for basic things to be explained, so it was understandable that Paul provided him with the definition.  So, there was no need to carry on about what should have been a simple exchange of information, not related to the TOPIC of big lies told in the US.  I remember when nohere used to actually stay on topic, explore ideas and back up his views with meaningful facts. That nohero seems to have been replaced with a petty, bitter creature, obsessed with voter shaming,  alleged Russian interference, and denial of even the most minor of DNC transgressions. Wish I had a cure for this outlook affecting so many, but maybe if we go back to discussing the lies so many believe we can find some answers.

dave said:

Klinker said:

dave said:
The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

 The purveyors of the ham sandwich, after it had already been sent back to the kitchen in 2008, decided to threaten and attack anyone who suggested that they would prefer a salami sandwich or even avocado toast.  There was a reason it was the only sandwich on the menu and there was a reason that it almost got beat by a Reuben FROM VERMONT!
That said, I choked down the sandwich so I've got the right to ***** about the resulting vomiting and  diarrhea. If you all had an ounce of shame you would shut the heck up.

 Most states don't have Reuben on the menu.  Should I ask his last name or would that be mixing metaphors?  

 Now I have to go change my shirt...and try to get this coffee stains out....

Switching over from thinking moldy ham sandwiches are good candidates for president, let's look at Big Lie #3

Capitalism is about the free market. 

Nope, it’s about the rich seizing control of the state and using it to make themselves richer and to thereby—since wealth is power and pull—deepen their grip on politics and policy. The profits system is so dependent on, and enmeshed with, governmental protection, subsidy and giveaways that one might even question the accuracy of calling it capitalism. (For elaboration, please see my recent Truthdig essay “Our ‘Rentier Capitalism’ Is One More Nail in Earth’s Coffin”). It is at the very least state capitalism, and always has been. A truly “free market,” that is fully laissez-faire capitalism, has never actually existed. At the same time, state-capitalist market forces in all forms, including their most government-free ones, have always brought widely different levels of freedom and un-freedom (including even literal slavery) for people depending on what class they belong to and how many resources they bring to influence and profit from market processes.

In late stage capitalism, the free market has allowed the richest to basically take all the money and leave the rest of us scrambling.  From the article cited above, Our 'Rentier Capitalism' Is One More Nail in Earth's Coffin:

After four-plus decades of neoliberalism, we now live under the rule of a rentier capitalism, in which the top 10th of the upper U.S. 1 percent owns as much wealth as the nation’s bottom 90 percent. CNBC reported last fall that 57 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings; 39 percent have no savings at all. Last January, the same network reported that more than a third (36 percent) of Americans would have to go into debt to pay for a major unexpected expense like a trip to the hospital or a car repair.

Four basic underpinnings of the more broadly shared prosperity in the post-World War II years have been undone inside the “advanced” nations, helping to create such shocking inequality and poverty in the U.S.

He goes on to discuss how things used to work and provide more benefit for workers and how now it just all goes to the top.  The current system does not work, and the free market is not as advertised. Yet so many still believe that they will be rewarded and that it is their fault if they don't.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 The reason why I was surprised about Capitalism is about democracy is because it seems that Street has made up the concept on his own. The phrase itself appears only  6(!) times in a google search. How can something he claims to be a widespread misbelief be so nonexistent in our discourse?
The role of luck is central to Lie #7, "Hard work and individual brilliance is the key to individual wealth, and the lack of such work and brains is the source of individual poverty."  For him to to ignore it doesn't fill me with confidence about his acumen. He clearly doesn't understand this lie.

 People think capitalism and democracy go hand in hand.  We are so brainwashed about that we don't even think it's possible to separate them.  It's not going to be commonly said or discussed, especially in the mainstream.   When people talk about how we have a "free country" the image in their head is a world ruled by capitalism.  
It's only since 2016, when Bernie Sanders ran as a "Democratic Socialist" that people could commonly even say the word "socialist" without automatically losing or getting humiliated.  Obama used to get called a "socialist" by the right-wing.  Now it's more common, but still not widespread and Democratic Socialism is just Democrats acting more like FDR than Reagan. It's not an overthrow to our system of government.

 I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.
But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.

This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?

 For the record, on this childish quibble started by nohero, drummerboy actually asked paulsurovell for the definition of a strawman.  drummerboy often asks for basic things to be explained, so it was understandable that Paul provided him with the definition.  So, there was no need to carry on about what should have been a simple exchange of information, not related to the TOPIC of big lies told in the US.  I remember when nohere used to actually stay on topic, explore ideas and back up his views with meaningful facts. That nohero seems to have been replaced with a petty, bitter creature, obsessed with voter shaming,  alleged Russian interference, and denial of even the most minor of DNC transgressions. Wish I had a cure for this outlook affecting so many, but maybe if we go back to discussing the lies so many believe we can find some answers.

 No. I asked what, of the things I mentioned in my post, could be considered a strawman. Not what the definition of a strawman was.

sheesh

p.s. the main place that strawmen are coming from is the article linked in the OP. The author makes up statements that purport to be myths that we believe, and than goes on to refute them, as if he's a great truth teller.