Profile for Nick Tropiano > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by Nick Tropiano
Top Reviewer Ranking: 621,949
Helpful Votes: 9

Guidelines: Learn more about the ins and outs of Amazon Communities.

Reviews Written by
Nick Tropiano (Havertown, PA United States)
(REAL NAME)   

Page: 1 | 2 | 3
pixel
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
by Ann Coulter
Edition: Paperback
Price: CDN$ 16.75
74 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

6 of 11 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Debunked..., July 17 2004
Exposed, discredited oh so many times, oh so many ways, by oh so many people. Wearing short skirts, and crossing your legs on TV while making outrageous statements only gets ya only so far, and only lasts so long, hon. Bring on the next radical right wing chick, please. Ann's a discredited bore at this point.

Road to Perdition (Widescreen) (Bilingual) [Import]
Road to Perdition (Widescreen) (Bilingual) [Import]
DVD ~ Tom Hanks
Price: CDN$ 7.99
45 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

2 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Overrated Bore..., July 16 2004
Sometimes the hype a director receives after a big film, especially his debut, carries their second film with critics. This was true of The Sixth Sense and M. Knight what's his name's forgetable, dull, self-important second film, "Unbreakable" and it applies here.
Man, gotta tell ya - throw in a "beloved" actor (Hanks), an aging hollywood icon (Newman), a "hot director" coming off a success (American Beauty), and millions of dollars worth of hype and a film will be given a degree of latitude not afforded to films that don't have these elements. The film will likely become an "acclaimed" critical success no matter how badly it sucks. And there seems almost an obligation to like or praise a stinker like this, and it's given a reverence it far from deserves. It's truly a case of "the halo effect". Critics and movie-goers seem to fall for it every time. And that's the case here. I applaude the minority of critics who said, "Ya know what? I don't care if it has Paul Neuman, (a laughable) Tom Hanks, the director's track record, or if it's artsy/moody/"noir", who the cinematographer is, or its zillion dollar ad campaign heaping on the self-congratulation. This film STINKS!"
Boring, vapid, uninvolving, over-long, pretentious, unmoving, and slow as cat sh**t art-gangster flick. This is the most overrated film in recent memory. Even Conrad "two stops too dark" Hall's work in this is overrated. (Sorry, you can't do "noir" in color. It always ends up looking too dreary, dark, and underexposed. The origins of "Noir" films were of low budget filmmakers who shot on location because they didn't have access to sets, or the required lighting equipment to shoot high key, high depth of field. The so called "noir" style was >almost< a happy accident, if not a brilliant work around to these constraints. Film Noir is a product of a particular era in filmmaking. Like "Art Deco" we might love the style but attempts to revive it always look unauthentic, as such revolutions in style are a product of, and exclusive to, there era. You can't "remake" a vintage wine no matter how hard you try. Same applies here.) Even it terrible score is uninspired, though I suppose some would call it "minimalist". And enough of Tom Hanks already! Why he's considered a "great actor" I'll never understand. Popular? yes. Great? That's another matter. He's the acting equivalent of Britney Spears or something... popular - sure. But "great"? His popularity (read box office draw) allows him to pick and choose the projects he wants to work on. That's it, and that's the case here.
This is the most dull uninspired gangster film ever made. Instead of renting this, rent Goodfellas again, or check out Mean Streets if you've never seen it. I wish this director had.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars ...Piggyback., July 13 2004
...on "Scary". Very true, great post. Isn't it ironic that this book's author actually aids terrorists and the effectiveness of terrorism in a very real sense by stoking the flames of fear and paranoia within our free society, though he espouses to do precisely the opposite? While an act of terrorism is deplorable in and of itself, its true effects and intent is measured in the degree to which it impedes liberty, and the increment to which it moves us closer to a police state. This is all too evident in the post-911 knee-jerk reactions such as the Patriot Act, Tom "the boy who cried wolf" Ridge and the ineffective bloated bureaucracy that is the "Homeland Security" department; the absurd "color-coded" terror alerts - designed as much to scare people into voting for the GOP as offer protection, all at the price of eroding our freedom. The Patriot Act can be viewed as the opening of the Pandora's Box in this regard, and al Quida couldn't ask for a better media representative to achieve their ends than this shrill intellectual lightweight, chickenhawk, fear monger, and blowhard, Sean Hannity.
By the way, if you want an illustration of what Hannity proposes in DUFE, look no further than Israel and Palestine. Each side brands the other as "evil" thereby justifying every act of violence. There is a complete unwillingness toward an "appeasement strategy" to resolve matters (...and by "appeasement" I refer to the real meaning of the term, which is to make reasonable concessions that both sides can live with to avoid violent conflict until a perminent solution can be implemented. I do not refer to its meaning within the context of the mindless political rhetoric that the term connotates, as used laughably and transparently by Hannity in this terrible tome.) The net-net? An endless cycle of "justified" tragic acts of terrorism and military violence against the opposing "evil" party from which each side hopes to be "delivered". And the worst case scenario for the US in the post 911 world is an endless cycle of terrorist strikes against the "evil" great satin - that is us, and our military strikes against these "evil-doers" in reply, along with requisite new laws and governmental powers alleging to protect us but in reality take away our liberty and privacy as citizens. To say, we therefore need to wipe the "evil ones" out before they strike again is >exactly< the simple-minded style of reasoning that serves tp perpetuate terrorism. For these reasons, Osama bin Laden, I'm sure, would offer his thanks to Hannity's tireless efforts on his behalf on radio, TV, and print.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars Here, One More for the Road, Hannitoids, June 26 2004
Draw you own conclusions:
1. IRRESPONSIBLE PERPETUATION OF IRAQ-AL QAEDA LINK
Sean Hannity, Chapter 1, page 1, Deliver Us From Evil:
The primary evil we face today is terrorism. But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that groups like al Qaeda are not working alone. Without the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the danger to civilization they currently do.
> 911 Commission Findings:
There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept 11, 2001 hijackings. ... Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990's, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons.
2. IRRESPONSIBLE RE-TELLING OF WWII APPEASEMENT HISTORY (...the 'very' old paint the opposition as wimpy appeasers smear tactic from chickenhawk, neo-con playbook):
And (Hannity) reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached forward from the days of Neville Chamberlain...to corrupt the unrepentant leftists of the modern Democratic Party
> Grolier Encyclopedia
most of his critics have misrepresented his position. (my note - that "position" being the one Hannity prescribes to...) The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism... Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness
3. NOW INFAMOUS HANNITY HALL OF FAME LIE ABOUT NYT ARTICLE:
DUFE, Page 22: [The US] was not strong enough to conquer these foes, so we might as well compromise before we suffer too much. It was only the latest evidence of how little faith the Times truly has in the resolve of the American military."
ACTUAL NYT Article:
> "... more than 5,000 men and women were killed in New York and Washington on Sept. 11. Most were civilians. Now the nation's soldiers are going into battle in a distant and treacherous land, facing a determined and resourceful enemy. As they go, they should know that the nation supports their cause and yearns for their success."
Hannitoids, do you actually LIKE listening to or reading lies like this or something? It actually ANGERS you when someone points it out? Strange lot are these Hannitoids.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars Cheney Lies, Hannity Swears to It..., June 16 2004
1. LIES
-> Dick Cheney, January 2003, NPR Interview:
There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. (emphasis mine)
2. SWEARING TO IT:
-> Sean Hannity, Chapter 1, page 1, Deliver Us From Evil:
The primary evil we face today is terrorism. But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that groups like al Qaeda are not working alone. Without the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the danger to civilization they currently do.
3. HERE IN REALITY:
->Secretary of State Cloin Powell, Jan 8 2004 News Conference:
I have not seen a smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection (between Hussein and al Qaeda).
-> 911 Commission Findings:
There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept 11, 2001 hijackings. ... Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990's, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons.
Cheney is worthy of contempt for his continued and unconscionable perpetuation of the mythical link between Hussein and al Qaeda, which is known never to have existed. My guess is that this is being done in a transparent and desperate attempt to keep this administration in power, since polling results indicate that those who believe there is such a link consider the Iraqi war is justified, and are far more likely to vote for Bush in November.Hannity is worthy of even more contempt for abusing his access to the media to perpetuate a known falsehood, spreading misinformation by the millions, to achieve the same ends.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars I Re-iterate, Can Hannitoids Handle the Truth?, June 6 2004
Hannity hangs his entire, and entirely lame, "git them before they git us" argument largely on the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberain. According to Hannity, Chamberlain did not have the "moral clarity" to confront Hitler, and instead "appeased" him, which resulted in WWII, and millions of deaths and atrocities. Had Chamberlain had the "moral clarity" to defeat Hitler, WWII would have been avoided, in the (neocon ,chickenhawk, dream-) world according to Hannity. To make his case, Hannity conveniently omits or distorts the facts regarding Chamberlain and his appeasement policy. Below, I've selected passages from various encyclopedias and the BBC to illutrate that these views are widely held - not some obscure view found in a scholarly dissertation, and to show just how blatant Hannity's sins of omission are:
Wikipedia:
However, this view (my note: view described is similar to Hannity's) has been criticised as being inconsistent with the historical facts. Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft. According to some historians, Chamberlain was under no illusions about the aims and goals of Nazi Germany, but was informed by his military advisers that Britain was in no condition to fight Germany over Czechslovakia. Seen from this vantage point, Chamberlain's actions in Munich were less a cowardly and ignorant cave-in, but rather a calculated and necessary tactic to buy time so that Britain could rearm against the Nazi menace. The rearmament program accelerated after Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia, and by the time Hitler's armies attacked Poland, Britain was well on its way to building its own war machine to confront Nazi Germany'
Grolier Encyclopedia
most of his critics have misrepresented his position. (my note - that "position" being the one Hannity prescribes to...) The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism... Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness
Encyclopedia (dot com...)
Although contemporaries and scholars during and after the war criticized Chamberlain for believing that Hitler could be appeased, recent research argues that Chamberlain was not so naive and that appeasement was a shrewd policy developed to buy time for an ill-prepared Britain to rearm.
BBC World History
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was seen as a failure by many at the time, and for many years to follow. Current thinking has shifted, however, believing Chamberlain to have shrewdly agreed to appeasement to give the British armed forces the time they desperately needed to prepare for full-blown war.
So I've presented facts and evidence that just about negates the entire point of Hannity's book. The view of Chamberlain's fearful appeasement of Hitler being a cause for WWII has been debunked for many years. Do you think Hannity came up with this all on his own? LOL! This argument has been part of the neocon chickenhawk playbook since the 60's. They don't even dare trot this one out anymore. Modern historians view Chamberalin as a shrewed tacticician who desperately needed time to complete the aggressive re-armamant initiative he had started. Britain's military readiness didn't happen by accident, and to have confronted Hitler PREMATURELY would have had disasterous consequences. I didn't cite something from the "liberal media" here Hannitoids, so resist that inclination to reach for the first line rationalization in your tautology when confronted with disquieting facts. I know it's hard. Also, I am not a "liberal" unless that definition includes everone who trashes your little radio hero, so you can skip that other cop out when reality rocks your neocon fantasy world. So, some questions for the Hannitoids:
1. If Hannity's case was so air tight, why would he (intentionally?)omit the current view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy in favor of an outdated perspective?
2. If Hannity's little straw man case against liberals is based on an innacurate view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy, don't you think this widely-held perspective should be addressed, or an attempt be made to negate it, since it significantly weakens his entire case?
3. Do you accept everything someone says as fact just because they're on radio and TV? Doesn't this call into question Hannity's intellectual honesty concerning the rest of his hackneyed history lesson?
4. Do you think that, since the research here took all of 10 minutes on Google, Hannity was aware of it and INTENTIONALLY ignored it? Whould he have ignored it since he might consider you morons who, bindly and stupidly, accept his every utterance as fact - and who would be none the wiser anyway?
I'll answer question 1 for you. Although liberals may lack the "moral clarity" to defeat evil per Sean Hannity; Hannity lacks the "moral clarity" to be truthful. Sean? I know you're out there (begging, pathetically, for 5 star reviews...) I'm calling you out, boy, for an intellectual spankin'.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars Can Hannititoids Handle The Truth?, June 4 2004
Hannity hangs his entire, and entirely lame, "git them before they git us" argument on the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberain. According to Hannity, Chamberlain did not have the "moral clarity" to confront Hitler, and instead "appeased" him, which resulted in WWII, and millions of deaths and atrocities. Had Chamberlain had the "moral clarity" to defeat Hitler, WWII would have been avoided, in the (neocon ,chickenhawk, dream-) world of Hannity. To make his case, Hannity conveniently omits or distorts the facts regarding Chamberlain and his appeasement policy. Below, I've selected passages from various encyclopedias and the BBC to illutrate that these views are widely held - not some obscure view found in a scholarly dissertation, and to show just how blatant Hannity's sins of omission are:
Wikipedia:
However, this view (my note: view described is similar to Hannity's) has been criticised as being inconsistent with the historical facts. Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft. According to some historians, Chamberlain was under no illusions about the aims and goals of Nazi Germany, but was informed by his military advisers that Britain was in no condition to fight Germany over Czechslovakia. Seen from this vantage point, Chamberlain's actions in Munich were less a cowardly and ignorant cave-in, but rather a calculated and necessary tactic to buy time so that Britain could rearm against the Nazi menace. The rearmament program accelerated after Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia, and by the time Hitler's armies attacked Poland, Britain was well on its way to building its own war machine to confront Nazi Germany'
Grolier Encyclopedia
most of his critics have misrepresented his position. (my note - that "position" being the one Hannity prescribes to...) The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism... Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness
Encyclopedia (dot com...)
Although contemporaries and scholars during and after the war criticized Chamberlain for believing that Hitler could be appeased, recent research argues that Chamberlain was not so naive and that appeasement was a shrewd policy developed to buy time for an ill-prepared Britain to rearm.
BBC World History
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was seen as a failure by many at the time, and for many years to follow. Current thinking has shifted, however, believing Chamberlain to have shrewdly agreed to appeasement to give the British armed forces the time they desperately needed to prepare for full-blown war.
So I've presented facts and evidence that just about negates the entire point of Hannity's book. The view of Chamberlain's fearful appeasement of Hitler being a cause for WWII has been debunked for many years. Do you think Hannity came up with this all on his own? LOL! This argument has been part of the neocon chickenhawk playbook since the 60's. They don't even dare trot this one out anymore. Modern historians view Chamberalin as a shrewed tacticician who desperately needed time to complete the aggressive re-armamant initiative he had started. Notice that Churchill inherited (pun intended) a nice battle ready military - including trained soldiers, as Chamberlain had instituted, despite opposition, a peace time draft. Britain's military readiness didn't happen by accident, and to have confronted Hitler PREMATURELY would have had disasterous consequences. I didn't cite something from the "liberal media" here folks, nor some obsure scholarly dissertation, nor some partisan rant. I don't think Viacom owns the BBC, who would know a little about British history. Chamberlain was their Prime Minsiter, after all. So, some questions for the Hannitoids:
1. If Hannity's case was so air tight, why would he omit the modern, widely-held perspective of Chamberlain's appeasement policy in favor of the outdated and inaccurate perspective?
2. If Hannity straw man case against liberals is based on an innacurate view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy, doesn't that render his entire case against liberal appeasement meaningless?Don't you think this widely-held perspective should be addressed, or an attempt be made to negate it since it effectively nullifies Hannity's entire aniti-appeasement case?
3. Do you accept everything someone says as fact just because they're on radio and TV?
4. Do you think that, since the research here took all of 10 minutes on Google, that Hannity was aware of it and INTENTIONALLY ignored it? Whould he have ignored it since it nullifies his entire argument, and he thinks his fans are morons and wouldn't be the wiser anyway?
I'll answer question 1 for you. Although liberals may lack the "moral clarity" to defeat evil; Hannity lacks the "moral clarity" to be truthful. Sean? I know you're out there (begging, pathetically, for 5 star reviews...) I'm calling you out, boy, for an intellectual spankin'.

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Sean Hannity
Edition: Hardcover
71 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars Demolishing A Very Poor Author..., May 28 2004
This book earned a one star rating for the following reasons:
1. Flawed Appeasement Argument.
Hannity relies on a laughably outdated and inaccurate history concerning Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement policy" torward Hiter prior to WWII. He uses this as an analogy to set up his straw man arguments against his opposition. Although Chamberlain was criticized for appeasing Hitler immediately after the war by his detractors, we now know Chamberlain had no choice. Britain was not militarily ready to confront Hitler during Chamberlain's tenure as Prime Minister, as Britain was still engaged in the post-WWI rebuilding process. Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler as a stall tactic, while he worked feverishly to re-arm Britain to prepare for the inevitable confrontation. The modern, correct, and widely held account of Chamberlain's WWII appeasement policy borders on common knowledge. It is not a fringe view.

-> This fact largely negates the entire premise of his book, and renders it laughable. If you're up on WWII history, this argument alone makes Hannity look like a fool. Chamberlain's appeasement policy was simply the wrong analogy to cite in making his case. Frankly, he's insulting your intelligence, and his argument is predicated on the presumed ignorance of history of his audience.<-
2. Outright Lies
Nothing serves to discredit an author more than outright lies. Hannity does it twice. He twists the NYT piece he cites on page 22 by clearly taking quotes out of context to illustrate how the NYT held an anti-american view regarding our military action against the Taliban in Afganistan after 911. Simply, this NYT op ed says precisely the opposite of what Hannity leads you to believe. The second, well documented, outright lie concerns his blatantly out of context citation of a speech by Senator Dick Durban. This one's so bad it's worthy of Ann Coulter.
3. Cherry Picking
Of course, when one sets out to make the case that the GOP is always correct, and the Dems are always wrong - or vise versa, you're on shakey ground to begin with. Your only option in making such a case is to cherry pick those events which support your case, and completely ignore any fact that is contrary to your argument (This is the tactic employed by those UFO books...). Hannity ignores the Iran-Contra Scandal, Reagan's support of the Mujadeem, which morphed into the Taliban, Bush I's failure to get Hussein after Gulph I, Truman's decision to pull out of Korea, Nixon's decision to end Vietnam, Bush II's appeasement of the Saudi's to name just a few examples of republican appeasement, and failure to have the necessary "moral clarity" to confront and defeat evil, and see it through. One could just as easily cherry pick the examples I've cited and turn Hannity's argument around and point it at Republican leadership.
4. Straw Man
Hannity basically makes liberal "Straw Men" for a living. This is a poor form of argumentation whereby you intentionally frame the opposition's position in a very weak way (hence, "straw man") to be easily demolished. It's the bread-n-butter of virtually all right-wing AM radio zealots. DUFE is one big "Straw Man" case against democrats in book form. It amazes me anyone buys it - but the sales figures prove they do.
5. Trite
"Evil exists and it means to harm us." LOL! Really, Sean? Thanks for pointing this out. So, we're the Power Puff Girls and they're Mojo Jo Jo? Your argument sounds like it came from the Mayor of Townsville. Ya think it's really that simple? That's all it boils down to? What an estute observation. Gimme a break.
There is a case to be made in favor of neoconservativism and preemptive strikes against terrorists in the wake of 911. In fact, I'm in favor of this approach. But Hannity is either more concerned about book sales or simply doesn't have the wherewithal to pull it off. DUFE for reasons 1 through 5 is just bad. Laughable in fact to anyone who looks at it objectively. It IS entertaining, however, in a campy, unintentionally funny kinda way - like one of those movies on MST 3000. One look at the cover - Hannity's mug plastered in front of the statue of liberty, and you know what you're in for from the get-go.

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
by Ann Coulter
Edition: Paperback
Price: CDN$ 16.75
74 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars If She Only Had a Brain..., May 21 2004
It is incredible that - over, and over, and over, the likes of Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham on radio, books and TV make a very nice living through their blatant use of the "straw man". It's their bread and butter and accounts - easily, for 75% of the content they create, regardless of media. If you've never heard of this term, here's a nice definition I've found (emphasis, mine)...
"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say, "This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture of it is wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that is exactly the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and knock 'em down. ->It is argument
by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the opposition's views." <-(Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p101)
The next time you see a sentence that reads along the lines of, "Liberals think that...", written by one of these conservative infotainers, rest assured they are building their liberal straw man, soon to be easily pummeled
Use of a Straw man in an argument is dismissable on its face, as are these conservative screeds in their entirety.

The Savage Nation
The Savage Nation
by Michael Savage
Edition: Hardcover
66 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

1.0 out of 5 stars Straw Man, May 21 2004
This review is from: The Savage Nation (Hardcover)
It is incredible that - over, and over, and over, the likes of Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham on radio, books and TV make a very nice living through their blatant use of the "straw man". It's their bread and butter and accounts - easily, for 75% of the content they create, regardless of media. If you've never heard of this term, here's a nice definition I've found (emphasis, mine)...
"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say, "This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture of it is wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that is exactly the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and knock 'em down. ->It is argument
by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the opposition's views." <-(Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p101)
The next time you see a sentence that reads along the lines of, "Liberals think that...", written by one of these conservative infotainers, rest assured they are building their liberal straw man, soon to be easily pummeled
Use of a Straw man in an argument is dismissable on its face, as are these conservative screeds in their entirety.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3