2016 The Movie

Trish Randall said:
1. Nazi Germany was not socialist, it was totalitarian,
2. Americans were already afraid of socialism before Hitler became chancellor.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly relieved now that you have informed us that socialism and totalitarianism are two completely separate creatures.

Is one the Frankenstein monster of the other? Which way does it work? Are we afraid of lots of stuff?
 
mhaze said:
Actually, though, you are simply making things up. D'Souza did answer the question. He did not "have no answer".
Click to expand...
Let's see. What was his answer?


mhaze said:
What you are probably thinking about is where that section of the interview ends, with Maher saying "That was Bush's F***UP!" and the cued and canned audience laughter which follows.
Click to expand...
nope.
 
mhaze said:
I'm certainly relieved now that you have informed us that socialism and totalitarianism are two completely separate creatures.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't seem to be common knowledge on the right. Jonah Goldberg wrote a whole book because he couldn't tell the difference between them.

Is one the Frankenstein monster of the other?
Click to expand...

No.

Which way does it work?
Click to expand...

Ask Sweden.

Are we afraid of lots of stuff?
Click to expand...

You and D'Souza sure seem to be.
 
mhaze said:
Then I guess neither I nor anyone might GUESS at what the hell you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Please stop with the rethorical gambits. It's stupid.

I gave already the points that I am referring to.
Let's focus on the one.

I said D'Souza had no response to the "Do you know Obama" argument.
This is true. You claimed he had a response.
I would like to hear what you think his response was?

Or, let me ask more directly, Do you believe a Tu Quoque non sequitur argument to be a response?
 
joobz said:
Please stop with the rethorical gambits. It's stupid.

I gave already the points that I am referring to.
Let's focus on the one.

I said D'Souza had no response to the "Do you know Obama" argument.
This is true. You claimed he had a response.
I would like to hear what you think his response was?

Or, let me ask more directly, Do you believe a Tu Quoque non sequitur argument to be a response?
Click to expand...

Of course he had a response. What is your problem, you don't have a transcript of the speech? Or are you too lazy to review the clip? The claim is yours to prove.

You made it.

Now what? Are you backtracking, saying that he didn't have an adequate answer? This is ridiculous.

"no response" would be his being quiet, or possibly Maher cuing the jeering audience to drown out his response, then switching to a different topic. Ergo, no response by his own volition or by circumstances.
 
mhaze said:
"no response" would be his being quiet, or possibly Maher cuing the jeering audience to drown out his response, then switching to a different topic. Ergo, no response by his own volition or by circumstances.
Click to expand...
No response means no logical response. Just like saying, "I know you are, but what am I" isn't a response.
Perhaps you are impressed by blustery non sequiturs, but it was quite clear that d'souza had no logical response to his not knowing Obama.

But this isnt surprising. he tried to claim that Obamas policies are unprecedented. Nonsense.
 
joobz said:
No response means no logical response. Just like saying, "I know you are, but what am I" isn't a response.
Perhaps you are impressed by blustery non sequiturs, but it was quite clear that d'souza had no logical response to his not knowing Obama.

But this isnt surprising. he tried to claim that Obamas policies are unprecedented. Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh, I got it now. No response is no logical response. We'll have to explore that a bit.

  • Maher saying "That was Bush's F***UP!" and the cued and canned audience laughter which follows.
  • Maher argued that the health care law ....was a “blowjob” to the health insurance companies - cued and canned audience laughter follows.
  • Maher asked him (D'Souza) “how far up [his] ass” he had to go to think up that claim - cued and canned audience laughter follows.

Yes, this is all very, very logical. Thank you for explaining it all to me.

I can think of some logical responses to all of the above smart ass comments by Maher. How about you?

I mean, Joobz, how far you want to go with this? This is ridiculous. You don't have an actual debate to defend, you've got a poor quality comedy show. Or are you trying to hold D'Souza to one sort of standard, and Maher to another?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
You don't have an actual debate to defend, you've got a poor quality comedy show.
Click to expand...

Which makes it rather strange that D'Souza would decide to go on Maher's "poor quality comedy show" in the first place. And even stranger that D'Souza had no answer for Maher when Maher noted that D'Souza didn't know Obama after all, or when Maher itemized all the supposed "unprecedented actions" of Obama that were, in fact, no such thing.
 
mhaze said:
Oh, I got it now.:blush: No response is no logical response. We'll have to explore that a bit.

  • Maher saying "That was Bush's F***UP!" and the cued and canned audience laughter which follows.
  • Maher argued that the health care law ....was a “blowjob” to the health insurance companies - cued and canned audience laughter follows.
  • Maher asked him (D'Souza) “how far up [his] ass” he had to go to think up that claim - cued and canned audience laughter follows.

Yes, this is all very, very logical. Thank you for explaining it all to me.
Click to expand...
Odd you keep calling it a debate, when it was an interview. Further, it is odd that you continue to ignore the points I've made, but rather make an extremely weak tu quoque.

D"Souza used the tagline, you don't know Obama. You would think that he would have had a better answer to the, "well, do you know Obama?" question.

The best he could do was say, "Obama didn't know his dad...."
That's lame.
Really lame.
I mean. For a person supposedly well versed enough on Obama to create a movie on him and yet never having met him or explain how he supposedly knows him better than anyone else, thats just sad.
 
joobz said:
....
D"Souza used the tagline, you don't know Obama. You would think that he would have had a better answer to the, "well, do you know Obama?" question.

The best he could do was say, "Obama didn't know his dad...."
That's lame.
Really lame......
Click to expand...

You mean, in a verbal exchange consisting of a dozen comments or more back and forth, we should accept your summarization and judgement as to "the best he could do" and what's "lame"? That's not going to happen. You need to support your claim, which so far you have not done very well...

But thanks for admitting it wasn't a debate, but an interview, which which you want to judge the interviewee according to rules of logic and debate, but not the interviewer

<<cut to cued jeers and audience canned laughter before interviewee has chance to respond, then change subject>>

;)

D'Souza was simply too polite to tell the audience off correctly like Hitchens does at 6:41 and 9:20 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrzZLM0Tm4

Or, more likely, he'd be fired from his job as a college president if he used such language in public. Oh, and by the way.....I agree with Hitchen's opinion that Maher's jokes appeal primarily to stupid people.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
You mean, in a verbal exchange consisting of a dozen comments
Click to expand...
tell me. Did you think his answer was sufficient?
Are you impressed by non sequiturs?
is that why you use them so often?


ETA:
I find it really funny how you keep attacking Maher for being a jerk. I agree he is a jerk and not very funny.
But he was right in his analysis of D'Souza.
He was right to call him on the "You don't know Obama"
He was right to call him on the "Unprecedented actions".

Instead of actually addressing these points, you complain that Maher is a jerk who says mean things.
Well, that is true.
Now will you actually address the points above?


or will you continue to troll?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
D'Souza was simply too polite to tell the audience off correctly like Hitchens does at 6:41 and 9:20 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrzZLM0Tm4.
Click to expand...
You should watch the initial interview with Spike Lee and then look at 4:17, where Hitchens compliments Maher for his interviewing of Spike Lee.
notice that he didn't comment on the audience response, but on the interview itself.
I recommend you hold similar focus on the substance and not the window dressing.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
tell me. Did you think his answer was sufficient?
Are you impressed by non sequiturs?
is that why you use them so often?


ETA:
I find it really funny how you keep attacking Maher for being a jerk. I agree he is a jerk and not very funny.
But he was right in his analysis of D'Souza.
He was right to call him on the "You don't know Obama"
He was right to call him on the "Unprecedented actions".

Instead of actually addressing these points, you complain that Maher is a jerk who says mean things.
Well, that is true.....
Click to expand...
There you go again. You want to apply logical fallacies to D'Souza, but not Maher. Why exactly is this? Argument from ridicule is a prime logical fallacy. You've said it wasn't a debate, then you want to critique one side as being a debate, and the other side as being an interviewer.

Seems like a bit of confusion on your part to me.

Anyway, what exactly are you saying "He was right to call him on..."

You mean, he picked subjects to discuss that were part of D'Souza's content?

Duh....
 
mhaze said:
There you go again. You want to apply logical fallacies to D'Souza, but not Maher. Why exactly is this? Argument from ridicule is a prime logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Maher didn't just ridicule. He also made an argument. that is what I am talking about. try to focus.
mhaze said:
You've said it wasn't a debate, then you want to critique one side as being a debate, and the other side as being an interviewer.

Seems like a bit of confusion on your part to me.
Click to expand...
The only confusion on my part is why you are unable to address the actual criticism made. Why do you avoid discussion with distractions.
Please try to focus.

mhaze said:
Anyway, what exactly are you saying "He was right to call him on..."

You mean, he picked subjects to discuss that were part of D'Souza's content?
Click to expand...
Nope. that isn't what I mean at all.
Please try to focus on what I said and not try to play games.

mhaze said:
Duh....
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this seems to be an accurate summary of your posts.
 
Last edited:
You think, mhaze, that D'Souza really knows Obama. But here's another guy who REALLY knows Obama. Sadly, both of these insightful experts cannot be right. As our resident Obama CTist, please clear up the mystery: who is right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom