I get a lot of grief on here whenever I put up a post that illustrates the complete insanity of the right. The responses I get are usually of the following
The left has just as many crazies!
Talk about the issues!!
Offer a solution instead of yelling!!!
You're being mean and letting your emotions cloud serious analysis!!!!
I still contend that serious discussions can't be had...truly had...until this situation is resolved. The numbers show that the left has nowhere near as many crazies, the right never talks about the issues, they have no real solutions, and operate exclusively on the emotions of anger and hate. I base these contentions on what they say and what they do not because "I just hate them."
Unlike most of my colleagues on the right, I am reflective. When you offer the above opinions, or something similar to me, I will listen. So when I saw this Daily Kos Research 2000 Poll, my first reaction was to not mention it at all on this blog. The Daily Kos is a left biased blog so was the poll truly accurate? And what purpose would it serve to list the results here?
So I ignored it for the last week but then a discussion over at The Smallest Minority regarding the BBC article I linked recently and the frustration that many on the left have in trying to explain reality to the right, I brought up the poll. I got the following response from Ed, a more regular poster here these days and most assuredly a conservative.
Actually, it appears to be a legitimate poll which was properly conducted. I didn't see any surprises in it.
So, the poll is properly conducted. Alright....
He then went on to say
So what?
In fact, we have tried to explain to Marxy over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and… (I gotta stop doing that) the facts and logic which lead us to the positions generally reflected in that poll.
Facts and logic. Alright, here are the "facts and logic' that I gleaned from the poll:
39 percent think that Barack Obama should be impeached
36 percent think that Barack Obama was not born in the US
63 percent think he is a Socialist
24 percent think he wants the terrorists to win
53 percent think that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president
31 percent think that Obama is a racist and hates white people
23 percent think that there state should secede
77 percent think that the Book of Genesis should be taught in public schools
31 percent think that contraceptives should be outlawed
As Ed pointed out to me in his latest response, some of these are minority opinions. How, exactly, do facts and logic lead us to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama? First, this really an opinion based argument. But if one really wanted to look at simple facts...which one of them quit their elected post?
As the discussion over there degenerates into yet another debate about hyper paranoia and socialism, I am wondering here how it's possible to have any sort of serious discussion with a very large group of people who look at reality this way. I'm not sure what President Obama is hoping to accomplish in his sit down with Republican leaders on February 25th to discuss health care.
When a quarter of the people of the opposing party think that he wants Al Qaeda to win as our armed forces begin an assault an a key Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan, how can there be an sort of reality based discussion?
28 comments:
"But if one really wanted to look at simple facts...which one of them quit their elected post?"
The question was, which one had more EXPERIENCE, not which one was forced out of office by constant attacks!
Thanks for once again making your unthinking bias plain for all to see.
Oh, and BTW, I pointed out that it looked like Marxy was using circular logic BEFORE he exposed that circular logic in that thread and here.
You consider circular logic reasonable? And then have the chutzpah* to claim we're the irrational ones? (Standard Response #9)
Tell me. How do you make it through the day without dying due to your inability to recognize or use logic?
(* I really like this part of the definition I linked: "The classic definition is that given by Leo Rosten: 'that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.'")
BTW,
"When a quarter of the people of the opposing party think that he wants Al Qaeda to win as our armed forces begin an assault an a key Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan, how can there be an sort of reality based discussion?"
Remember that confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and interview with Marc Thiessen which you have so assiduously avoided? The information you find there (especially the interview, and confirmed by the confession) explains why it is not unreasonable for some people to come to that conclusion.
Oh, but wait, in your mind, facts aren't actually facts when you refuse to admit their existence. ("There is absolutely no facts or logic to support any of this.") What could I possibly be thinking in expecting reality to be more real than your fantasies?!?
That's strange. I can't point to any examples that "are usually of the following" you allude to on your blog.
What I can point to is asking you outright to give an instance of corporate force and watching you disappear. I can point to Ed, Juris, and others asking you many a time, point blank, to back up your statements... and watching you disappear.
One of the last times you started your ignorant Palin bashing, someone asked for evidence of her supposed stupidity, and not one of you responded.
But, nevermind. Continue the partisan nonsense.
"So, the poll is properly conducted. Alright...."
And yet, you "somehow" left out the part where I pointed out that some of the questions were seriously problematic.
Oh, and I also noticed that you "somehow forgot" to include a link to my comments so that people couldn't tell that you ripped some of my statements out of context.
Honest debate tactics? No. These are examples of deliberate distortions right out of the Michael Moore playbook.
Speaking of which, are you going to admit that you don't care that Moore lies in his films as demonstrated here?
If you don't like the response, then don't start your writings by calling other people insane. I've typed several essay-long posts on here on subjects like the economic crisis of late 2008, the reality of the VA hospital system, the health care bill, the health care issue itself, and so on only to have several chickenshit commenters disappear from the discussion. If you spend more time talking about the rights reaction to the bill then the bill itself, you won't get serious discussion. If you want a serious discussions then don't use terms like ape shit, clueless morons, geek conservative subset, etc. (for the record, I know it is Marks blog and he can type whatever he wants, thanks).
"noticed that you "somehow forgot""
I included a link to the comment thread in the main post, Ed. The words "The Smallest Minority" were linked to go directly to the discussion.
Anon, disappear? I usually put up a post every day. The fact that I am even addressing this issue proves I'm responsive...at least in reality.
I didn't avoid the KSM interview and accompanying video at all. I have read and seen both. I guess I'm wondering why you won't take the word of someone like Michael Moore, who you claim is a known liar, but will listen to an Al Qaeda leader and take his word as being what's necessary for our national security concerns. I guess everything they say is true...especially if you are water boarding them...because we all know that's when the REAL truth comes out.
Ed Heckman, folks, like many on the right...so ideologically weak that he allows the man behind the 9-11 attacks to dictate our national security concerns.
"forced out of office by constant attacks!"
BWWAAAAAHAAAAAHAHHAAHH. Are you serious?
"I included a link to the comment thread in the main post, Ed. The words "The Smallest Minority" were linked to go directly to the discussion."
Ohh. I missed that. My apologies. I withdraw the part about you deliberately skipping the link, though the part about your selective quoting is still true.
"I guess I'm wondering why you won't take the word of someone like Michael Moore, who you claim is a known liar,"
D E M O N S T R A T E D liar.
"ut will listen to an Al Qaeda leader and take his word as being what's necessary for our national security concerns."
The ONLY thing I take his word for is what he was trying to do. Where have I said otherwise? (Adding to what I said then attacking that is know as a strawman fallacy. Oh yeah, I guess I forgot to add the word "fallacy" to the list of Markaphasia words.) Who else knows what KSM's actions were better than KSM?
Did you miss the part about the confession being voluntary? How about the part where his counsel made a mistake in the reading and KSM spoke up to correct him?
"BWWAAAAAHAAAAAHAHHAAHH. Are you serious?"
Aaaaand the Marxy memory hole shows its ugly head once again.
Palin's Reasons for Stepping Down:
"Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.
"Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game.
"It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now."
In other words, she wasn't governing because the exact same type of tactics used to prevent building new nuclear (and other) power plants was used against her: the grenadier tactic. It didn't matter whether the accusations were true or not, merely that they were made in sufficient quantities to make doing the actual job impossible.
"I guess everything they say is true...especially if you are water boarding them...because we all know that's when the REAL truth comes out."
Which just goes to prove that you did NOT* see the interview with Marc Theissen (it was not with KSM).
* I suppose it is possible that you did see that interview, but that you didn't comprehend it. That's been fairly common with you too.
Unlike yourself, ED, I actually watch things before I am critical of them. It's called having an informed opinion.
Now, Marc Thiessen has a book out, right? Who do you suppose his audience is, Ed? And don't you think that he COMPLETELY understands how they feel and is effectively marketing to them? Not to mention the fact that he's a fucking speechwriter. He's an authority on torture? On intelligence? Based on what? His experience as a speechwriter to Donald Rumsfeld? He is a biased journalist, ED....just like Michael Moore....but miraculously not a liar because he peddles the propaganda that you believe.
President Obama ran more spy drone missions in the first nine months of his presidency than Bush did in the last three years of his presidency. His vastly increased our presence in AfPak. On his watch we have thwarted one major terrorist attack (the hair salon guy). None of this matters to you. Obama's policies are inviting terrorist attacks because that's how you FEEL.
Yep. Waste. Of. Time.
Oh, and BTW:
Genetic Fallacy
No doubt..for Mark. Ed, you are seriously fucking brainwashed. I watched that whole video and wished that I had 16 minutes of my life back.
I kept waiting for Herr Thiessen to call Obama a Jew who is weakening our Reich and should be liquidated.
dick,
Is that all you can manage? A wordy version of "whatever"?
Do you have E V I D E N C E that interrogation works differently than what Marc Thiessen stated?
Do you have E V I D E N C E that any of his claims are factually incorrect, let alone all of them?
Ed, regarding your exchange with Mark above...someone just made you his son.
Of course that is all dick nixon can do - recall the Corporate Force thread. All he had was lame, leftist bullshit rhetoric - and then ducked out with his tail between his legs.
And M, you are seriously backsliding on your promises in the Manzi posts. WHY do you pay ANY attention to Palin? Because you GET OFF on her - just like the many, many times you have quoted Rush Limbaugh to me (when I've listened to part of his show maybe three times in my life). You enjoy digging into the most stupid people on the right - and treating that as if anyone with even the slightest inclination to the right must be slurping up the puppy chow. Do you understand the logical fallacy there, at all? [Hint: Joe McCarthy was a big time fan of doing that.]
Juris, the reason why I pay attention to her is that the people that support her clearly have an effect on what happens. It's like I said...it only takes one person to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater...in this case it's millions more than one who think this stuff and it's quite prohibitive.
In fact, continuing to propagate this misinformation has become an industry. It's part of our economy now so how can any of the issues that Manzi brings up be addressed when people think that our president is a socialist who wants the terrorists to win?
Dude, get a grip. Palin is not commanding a mob. I oppose the nationalization of health care and not because of one word from her lips. Yet you very easily imply that because you can't get your mind around the idea that there might be other reasons, more complex ones, than the simple narrative of 'that evil/dumb bitch and her band of mouth-breathing followers'. YOU give legs to that narrative, not me, because you obsess on her.
"Palin is not commanding a mob."
Oh....My.....God.
Hey, the one-line insult crowd is in this thread.
Funny, isn't your line one line as well? Well, I'll make sure mine is two and also put up this link.
http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin
1, 322, 664 fans.
Sure about that mob comment, juris?
Alright, I'd like everyone to pay attention (except Mark as he's already been through this)
Ed said:
"Do you have E V I D E N C E that interrogation works differently than what Marc Thiessen stated?
Do you have E V I D E N C E that any of his claims are factually incorrect, let alone all of them?"
Yes, I do.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html
Ali Soufan, as opposed to Marc Thiessen, actually interrogated Al Qaeda suspects.
From the article:
"Detainees, he says, provided vital intelligence under non-violent questioning, before they were put through "walling" and waterboarding."
"Soufan says Abu Zubaydah gave up the information between March and June 2002, when he was being interrogated by Soufan, another FBI agent and some CIA officers. But that was not the result of harsh techniques, including waterboarding, which were not introduced until August. "We were getting a lot of useful material from [Abu Zubaydah], and we would have continued to get material from him," Soufan told TIME. "The rough tactics were not necessary.""
"His greatest success was the interrogation of Abu Jandal, bin Laden's former bodyguard. After the 9/11 attacks, Soufan's interrogation of Abu Jandal yielded a rich trove of information on al-Qaeda, including the identities of some of the 9/11 attackers and the terror group's top leadership."
"Throughout that period, Soufan says he never felt the need for harsh interrogation methods. He argues that techniques like waterboarding don't work. "When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them," he says. "That means the information you're getting is useless.""
Here is another interrogator's evidence.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm
"In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality. Patience was essential. We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests." This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information."
Now, watch what happens everyone.
Oops..forgot..thanks for the links, Mark!
Yep, but I can talk about policy, not just insults. Go to the budget thread Elizabeth and tell me exactly how you think medicaid funding should happen. Explain to me the prior successes of Head Start. Nut up toots.
It only takes one person to yell Fire but it takes a lot more to vote in Republicans in deep blue places like Massachusetts and New Jersey where Obama was campaigning for the dem nominee. Not one of you has said one word in defense of the stimulus bill or the cap and trade bill and the health care bill as we know it is dead...maybe because those bills aren't that popular and you know it...and you continue to claim you are all victims of propaganda.
So elizabeth (& sara), are you seriously wetting your knickers over some facebook militia? Seriously? M, you are hereby refuted that the left is bereft of whackos. They are right here in your living room, so to speak.
Gotta love that all powerful VRWC.
So Palin is popular? This is somehow sinister?
Yes, I would imagine a million plus people could "have an effect" on what happens. Keep denigrating them, keep smearing them. Your plan is working just fine.
"Unlike yourself, ED, I actually watch things before I am critical of them. It's called having an informed opinion."
Like you listened to the O'Keefe tapes that Ed linked to here before forming an opinion, instead of dismissing them based on what they claimed, or where they came from?
Oh, wait...
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.
Post a Comment