Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Obama's idealogy?

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:59:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

I've always wondered that. Move him to the left about 15 units.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:59:52 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

I've always wondered that. Move him to the left about 15 units.

Yeah, agree. I would put him more in the center left than anything. Maybe around where I am.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:01:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Center left. Way more to the center than Republicans like to portray him as. On waging war, fighting terrorism, civil liberties, war on drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, regulating Wall Street etc his opinions are far from what one would characterize as liberal... In most of those respects he is just as "conservative" and to the right as George W Bush actually
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

He would either be a populist-unionist-tyrannist, or a populist-unionist-oligarchist
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Political Compass is pure BS
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 1:01:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
Center left. Way more to the center than Republicans like to portray him as. On waging war, fighting terrorism, civil liberties, war on drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, regulating Wall Street etc his opinions are far from what one would characterize as liberal... In most of those respects he is just as "conservative" and to the right as George W Bush actually

LOL don't make me laugh
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:28:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 1:16:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:01:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
Center left. Way more to the center than Republicans like to portray him as. On waging war, fighting terrorism, civil liberties, war on drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, regulating Wall Street etc his opinions are far from what one would characterize as liberal... In most of those respects he is just as "conservative" and to the right as George W Bush actually

LOL don't make me laugh

I am absolutely certain that everything I said there was true, with the exception of regulating Wall Street, which I looked into further and I take that back. But on matters of warfare, drone bombings, aggressive interventionist foreign policy in general, the police state, the Patriot Act, civil liberties, the War on Drugs, the TSA, habeus corpus... Obama has not been "liberal" at all. In fact his positions on these matters have been identical to that of the conservatives.

And might I add that on the things that Obama does have liberal stances on - TARP, broad constitutional interpretation, massive increases in government spending, massive national debt, and government involvement and health care, his positions has been very similar to those of George W Bush's (generally it can be said that on these matters Obama is GWB on steroids. Think of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D Roosevelt - liberal, spend happy, big government Republican allows for an even more liberal, spend happy, big government Democrat. Of course the failures of the Republican are then blamed on the free market.)

My point I guess is that the two party system is a lie. George Bush and Barack Obama do not represent different ideologies of governing as the general public is systematically deceived into believing. And on most issues of foreign policy/civil liberties Barack Obama holds a position that is not truly liberal at all and far more associated with today's conservative movement.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 1:15:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

He would either be a populist-unionist-tyrannist, or a populist-unionist-oligarchist
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...




Political Compass is pure BS

lol and now he's making up words.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Corporatist. Federal Reservist. Militarist. Prohibitionist.

I'd say pretty damn far upper right.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:39:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Moderate.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.

I don't really know any political compasses but when discussing modern ideology in America, is not war mongering and less personal freedom more aligned with the right, whereas non-interventionism and pro-civil liberties is more aligned with the left?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:59:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:56:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.

I don't really know any political compasses but when discussing modern ideology in America, is not war mongering and less personal freedom more aligned with the right, whereas non-interventionism and pro-civil liberties is more aligned with the left?

Anything other than economics is portrayed on the vertical, not horizontal axis. Therefore, war-mongering and the destruction of civil liberties would be more in line with an authoritarian regime, which is higher on the scale.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:02:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:38:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Corporatist. Federal Reservist. Militarist. Prohibitionist.

I'd say pretty damn far upper right.

+100

In most respects BHO is just GWB on 'roids... Instead of left vs right I prefer to think of them as government intrusion in economic/monetary affairs VS government intrusion in your personal health/moral decisions.

Either way, the philosophies are not really consistent - you either support private property or you don't, and where the left and right draw the lines seem totally arbitrary. I think the same arguments the right uses against economic interventionism can apply to personal health/moral decisions, and the same arguments the left uses for freedom in personal health/moral decisions can apply to economic freedom. Why randomly support private property/self-ownership defenses (which is where both those arguments tend to ultimately trace back to) in some areas but not the other? Why chop freedom up into little bits? And where and why is the line drawn?

It seems to be libertarianism just takes the best of the left/right and is consistent in its defense of private property/self-ownership.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:59:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:56:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.

I don't really know any political compasses but when discussing modern ideology in America, is not war mongering and less personal freedom more aligned with the right, whereas non-interventionism and pro-civil liberties is more aligned with the left?

Anything other than economics is portrayed on the vertical, not horizontal axis. Therefore, war-mongering and the destruction of civil liberties would be more in line with an authoritarian regime, which is higher on the scale.

Ah, I see, interesting. Still, if you'd ask 1000 random educated people if in modern American ideology, war mongering and less personal freedom was most associated with the left or the right, I'm surely the answer would almost unanimously be the right. (Though as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the difference is slim and often virtually non-existent...)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 3:04:15 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:59:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:56:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.

I don't really know any political compasses but when discussing modern ideology in America, is not war mongering and less personal freedom more aligned with the right, whereas non-interventionism and pro-civil liberties is more aligned with the left?

Anything other than economics is portrayed on the vertical, not horizontal axis. Therefore, war-mongering and the destruction of civil liberties would be more in line with an authoritarian regime, which is higher on the scale.

Ah, I see, interesting. Still, if you'd ask 1000 random educated people if in modern American ideology, war mongering and less personal freedom was most associated with the left or the right, I'm surely the answer would almost unanimously be the right. (Though as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the difference is slim and often virtually non-existent...)

Ad populum. Random people are stupid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 3:05:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/29/2012 3:04:15 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:59:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:56:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Government expansion, economic intervention, war-mongering, Nanny State, less freedom= Upper left.

I don't really know any political compasses but when discussing modern ideology in America, is not war mongering and less personal freedom more aligned with the right, whereas non-interventionism and pro-civil liberties is more aligned with the left?

Anything other than economics is portrayed on the vertical, not horizontal axis. Therefore, war-mongering and the destruction of civil liberties would be more in line with an authoritarian regime, which is higher on the scale.

Ah, I see, interesting. Still, if you'd ask 1000 random educated people if in modern American ideology, war mongering and less personal freedom was most associated with the left or the right, I'm surely the answer would almost unanimously be the right. (Though as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the difference is slim and often virtually non-existent...)

Ad populum. Random people are stupid.

Okay, forget the random, leave the educated. I made sure to say they were educated. Modern American conservatism favors a stronger national defense, pre-emptive war, etc. Modern American liberals are infinitely more likely to favor peace and non-interventionism. (Of course I am referring solely to how the ideologies have evolved over time; these things aren't set in stone, names and movements change with time...)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:39:17 PM, Contra wrote:
Moderate.

This. I don't think you can reconcile UHC, welfare, augmented taxation of the wealthy, and the Buffet Rule with anything beyond 0 on the compass,...and you can't reconcile the Patriot Act with anything below 0.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:36:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:34:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:15:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

He would either be a populist-unionist-tyrannist, or a populist-unionist-oligarchist
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...




Political Compass is pure BS

lol and now he's making up words.

I'm not making up sh!t.

A Tyrannist is one who follows the principles of Tyrannism; Tyrannism is a Doctrine that advocates Tyranny.
A Unionist is one who follows the principles of Unionism; Unionism is a Doctrine that advocates a unitary state, such as uniting 2 states into a single entity, or opposing the split of a state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 3:52:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 3:36:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:34:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:15:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

He would either be a populist-unionist-tyrannist, or a populist-unionist-oligarchist
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...




Political Compass is pure BS

lol and now he's making up words.

I'm not making up sh!t.

A Tyrannist is one who follows the principles of Tyrannism; Tyrannism is a Doctrine that advocates Tyranny.
A Unionist is one who follows the principles of Unionism; Unionism is a Doctrine that advocates a unitary state, such as uniting 2 states into a single entity, or opposing the split of a state.

according to the dictionary, tyrannism means the derivation of pleasure from the suffering of others. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you're calling Obama a sadist....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SayWhat
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 4:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason he is so far to the right on the economic scale is because this is a global political spectrum. From the eyes of Europeans, Obama is quite conservative.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 5:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 3:52:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 3:36:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:34:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:15:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:56:11 AM, Microsuck wrote:
What is his political idealogy?
http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This has him in the far upper right and I always put him in the lower left.

He would either be a populist-unionist-tyrannist, or a populist-unionist-oligarchist
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...




Political Compass is pure BS

lol and now he's making up words.

I'm not making up sh!t.

A Tyrannist is one who follows the principles of Tyrannism; Tyrannism is a Doctrine that advocates Tyranny.
A Unionist is one who follows the principles of Unionism; Unionism is a Doctrine that advocates a unitary state, such as uniting 2 states into a single entity, or opposing the split of a state.

according to the dictionary, tyrannism means the derivation of pleasure from the suffering of others. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you're calling Obama a sadist....

That's the medical definition, not the political definition. The Medical use of the suffix "-ism" is "syndrome" or "condition". The political use of the suffix "-ism" is "doctrine" or "principles of".

Tyrant can either mean "An oppressive, cruel and harsh person" as used in your definition, or "A single absolute ruler who holds unrestricted sovereignty over the state", which is how I use the term.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 5:24:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 5:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:

That's the medical definition, not the political definition. The Medical use of the suffix "-ism" is "syndrome" or "condition". The political use of the suffix "-ism" is "doctrine" or "principles of".

Tyrant can either mean "An oppressive, cruel and harsh person" as used in your definition, or "A single absolute ruler who holds unrestricted sovereignty over the state", which is how I use the term.

link please?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 5:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 5:24:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:

That's the medical definition, not the political definition. The Medical use of the suffix "-ism" is "syndrome" or "condition". The political use of the suffix "-ism" is "doctrine" or "principles of".

Tyrant can either mean "An oppressive, cruel and harsh person" as used in your definition, or "A single absolute ruler who holds unrestricted sovereignty over the state", which is how I use the term.

link please?

Noun
tyrant (plural tyrants)

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restriction.
2. A harsh and cruel ruler.
3. An oppressive, cruel and harsh person.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Suffix
-ism
1. forming nouns on action or process or result based on the accompanying verb in -ize
2. forming the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder
3. the action, conduct or condition of a class of persons, "behaving like a ---"
4. class-names or descriptive terms for doctrines or principles in general
5. a peculiarity or characteristic of language
6. an ideology expressing belief in the superiority of a certain class within the concept expressed by the root word
7. (medicine) A condition or syndrome caused by or associated with a specific type of organism
http://en.wiktionary.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 4:41:12 PM, SayWhat wrote:
The reason he is so far to the right on the economic scale is because this is a global political spectrum. From the eyes of Europeans, Obama is quite conservative.

If one goes by Hans Slomp projection of the European political spectrum, Obama would be far left.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course Hans Slomp's projection is also inaccurate because both axises are sociocultural, but at-least he got the definitions of left and right correct.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 5:34:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:24:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:

That's the medical definition, not the political definition. The Medical use of the suffix "-ism" is "syndrome" or "condition". The political use of the suffix "-ism" is "doctrine" or "principles of".

Tyrant can either mean "An oppressive, cruel and harsh person" as used in your definition, or "A single absolute ruler who holds unrestricted sovereignty over the state", which is how I use the term.

link please?


Noun
tyrant (plural tyrants)

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restriction.
2. A harsh and cruel ruler.
3. An oppressive, cruel and harsh person.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Suffix
-ism
1. forming nouns on action or process or result based on the accompanying verb in -ize
2. forming the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder
3. the action, conduct or condition of a class of persons, "behaving like a ---"
4. class-names or descriptive terms for doctrines or principles in general
5. a peculiarity or characteristic of language
6. an ideology expressing belief in the superiority of a certain class within the concept expressed by the root word
7. (medicine) A condition or syndrome caused by or associated with a specific type of organism
http://en.wiktionary.org...

You know,...I'd respect you more if you actually admitted that you used the word wrong. lol its funny seeing you try and weasel a technicality. You gave me a link to the word "tyrant" and the suffix "ism"....but could not find a link for "tyrannism/tyrannist"...because those don't exist the way you're using them.

Not a big deal I guess, just fun to point out. :p
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:06:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 5:42:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:34:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:24:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2012 5:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:

That's the medical definition, not the political definition. The Medical use of the suffix "-ism" is "syndrome" or "condition". The political use of the suffix "-ism" is "doctrine" or "principles of".

Tyrant can either mean "An oppressive, cruel and harsh person" as used in your definition, or "A single absolute ruler who holds unrestricted sovereignty over the state", which is how I use the term.

link please?


Noun
tyrant (plural tyrants)

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restriction.
2. A harsh and cruel ruler.
3. An oppressive, cruel and harsh person.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Suffix
-ism
1. forming nouns on action or process or result based on the accompanying verb in -ize
2. forming the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder
3. the action, conduct or condition of a class of persons, "behaving like a ---"
4. class-names or descriptive terms for doctrines or principles in general
5. a peculiarity or characteristic of language
6. an ideology expressing belief in the superiority of a certain class within the concept expressed by the root word
7. (medicine) A condition or syndrome caused by or associated with a specific type of organism
http://en.wiktionary.org...

You know,...I'd respect you more if you actually admitted that you used the word wrong. lol its funny seeing you try and weasel a technicality. You gave me a link to the word "tyrant" and the suffix "ism"....but could not find a link for "tyrannism/tyrannist"...because those don't exist the way you're using them.

Not a big deal I guess, just fun to point out. :p

Here is a article labeled "Tyrannists Control Society by Phony Rights that Destroy Real Rights "
http://www.fathersrightslegalaid.com...

Here is an article labeled "Barack Obama: Leftist Tyrannist"
http://www.cogitamusblog.com...

I have found plenty of articles which use the word "Tyrannist" politically rather than medically.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:33:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
^

Ad populum
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 7:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 7:33:06 PM, Contra wrote:
^

Ad populum

No, because he was proving that the word actually did have the meaning he claimed it did, which can be proven by the general acceptance of its usage by speakers of the language in which the word(s) are found. I guess it is an argument ad populum but in this case it's not a fallacy...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 8:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tyranny is a word, which exists in the dictionary. -ist and -ism are suffixes which exist in the dictionary.
Any existing word can have an existing suffix added, just as any two words can create a compound word through hyphens.

You won't find Left-Wing-Libertarianism in the dictionary either, nor would you find Right-wing-libertarianism in the dictionary. You would find Left-Wing, Right-wing, and libertarianism each separately in the dictionary.

Compound words have the same purpose as a suffix or preffix.

map, maps, mapping, and mapper all are forms of the same lexemes, but due to suffixes they have a slightly altered meaning. A mapper, combines the word map, with the suffix -er (meaning "person whose occupation is (the noun)") to create a new word meaning "a person whose occupation is to map something"
likewise one could combine the word map and star to create the compound word star-map, which means a map of the stars.

I couldn't find a star map in the oxford dictionary either, yet wiki has an article on star-maps
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle