I came across this video yesterday and I don't think there is a purer example of the Cult in action.
With this video and Glenn Beck now saying that social justice is evil even within private organizations like the Catholic Church, any thoughts of me ceasing the "Cult" diatribe have vanished. Instead, I am more motivated to use my words and the information I gather to illustrate the seemingly bottomless depth of their anger, their ignorance, and their hate.
In other words, bring it on. Make my fucking day.
9 comments:
Okay, you want to play that game? Let's compare videos of each side behaving badly.
SEIU Thugs Beat Up Black Conservative
Yes, these guys did wrong by mocking this guy. Was it even as bad as what the leftists did?
Go ahead. Post these videos. I guarantee you, you'll run out before I do.
BTW, where's the rest of this exchange?
More importantly, does this accurately represent tea partiers AS A WHOLE? The answer is NO. You cannot prove a "rule" by citing an exception. Of course, if you were capable of learning you would have already learned this principle over at TSM YEARS ago!
And speaking of demonstrating your inability to learn, here's that question you keep ignoring (#1) because you apparently Do Not Want To Learn From The Evidence:
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Bonus questions: Will you admit that the House version of the bill includes a public option, and that you were wrong when you told her otherwise? WHY isn't the public option currently in the Senate version of the bill?
If you are so convinced that you are right, Ed, why are you so upset? Your writings on here are borderline if not out and out obsessive when it comes to Mark.
The other thing to consider is that Mark is wrong about plenty of things and readily has admitted it on here. I don't appreciate the language he uses nor do I like some of his writings which tend to skew towards degradation of women. But he is correct in his view on health care and the current bill. It's not any of the things that you say and it's clear to me that you are wrong. Your protestations serve only to strengthen Mark's position.
Ed--Mark is wrong about the health care bill but right about what has become of my beloved party. I'm mortified at what I see and hear every day coming from my side of the aisle. It's not just a select few, it's the majority and they run the party. The people in this video, berating this sick man, are what we have embraced. Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave at the sight of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Bachmann. I saw Bachmann speak awhile back and that woman is one nutty bitch. I'm retired now so I have time to listen to the radio and watch TV. The one thing I see is that our party is going to see minimal gains in both the House and the Senate this fall because how far right we have gone. If this bill passes tomorrow, it will only be the beginning. It will be all our fault.
This is how cynical a cult member I have become. We need to find out who the Parkinson's Man is, do a back ground check on him, make sure he's paid his taxes, run him thru muckety.com, etc.
Let's call it "the Joe the Plumber treatment".
Run his camera man thru the same vigorous scrutiny.
The other thing to consider is that Mark is wrong about plenty of things and readily has admitted it on here.
You are half right there tg - he is often wrong, but he rarely admits it. I need only point to Corporate Abuse or Health Care a Go Go where despite painful error, M is loath to admit it.
iowa kid (an ironic name for a retiree), I don't know what Republican Party you pine for. Richard Nixon Republicanism? Joe McCarthy? Goldwater/Reagan - which never lived up to the billing (for better or worse)? Bush I, or Bush II?
As I recall you've claimed that the actual Iowa Republicans in Washington are entirely marginalized - which must come as a shock to them. I'm left to guess that you're just a lame ol' troll.
Marxy,
Here's a logical fallacy I haven't pointed you to before:
Proof by example:
"Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.
This fallacy has the following argument form:
: I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P.
: Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P.
The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:
: I've seen a person shoot someone dead.
: Therefore, all people are murderers.
This argument is obviously flawed, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:
: I've seen John's brother steal something. John's family must be thieves."
Or as you claim:
: I've seen some people at a Tea Party gathering do something wrong. All Tea Partiers must be evil.
It's the same broken logic.
truth girl,
"If you are so convinced that you are right, Ed, why are you so upset?"
Because truth matters, especially when denial of that truth/reality leads to destructive actions like the health care takeover.
"The other thing to consider is that Mark is wrong about plenty of things and readily has admitted it on here."
I have seen his claims that he has admitted that he's wrong somewhere on his blog. I've never seen such admissions, and whenever I've asked for links, he has never provided any. I'm not real keen on spending the time to wade through his blog looking for them either.
In almost three years of arguing with him, I have personally seen him admit that he is wrong once. That was where he claimed that the Bible does not condemn pre-marital sex. It does, and it's obvious. But it took something like 2 weeks of careful argument with Mark, including showing him the original greek words and dictionary definitions of those, and answering every single one of his objections (sometimes multiple times) before he finally admitted the obvious.
(For the record, I'm aware of a second admission, but I haven't seen in personally. Others I respect have confirmed it, so I have reason to think that he actually did.)
Other than that, he has never admitted being wrong in any of his postings that I've read. Ever. Not even when presented with the most solid evidence possible via the internet. In fact, notice that he still hasn't admitted being wrong about Obama wanting single payer despite video with numerous instances of Obama saying exactly that and my pressure. That is not the sign of someone who is willing to adjust what he believes as new information is found. It's the sign of someone who believes what he wants to believe in spite of the evidence.
That's not someone worthy of trust.
"But he is correct in his view on health care and the current bill. It's not any of the things that you say and it's clear to me that you are wrong."
Really? Have you checked the various links that various conservatives have put here? Have you checked as many analyses as you can reasonably spend time on about the health care takeover (both pro and con)? Did you read my link on doctors talking about quitting over the reduction in payments?
Do you think Obama (and other Democrat leaders) does or does not have a goal of a single payer system? Can you find a single example of a single-payer system that does even as well as our current system in most respects? So far, no one has done so without cherry picking certain numbers and ignoring what they don't like.
Heck, do you think that this thing is even legal? Here's a hint. You can find the answer here.
"Your protestations serve only to strengthen Mark's position."
Really? So the more I point out evidence, the more I point out Mark's use of logical fallacies, the better his arguments look to you? How exactly does that work?
Post a Comment