As I watched the upteenth GOP debate on Thursday night (for as long as I could stand it, anyway), I once again heard the most insane bullshit about President Obama. "He's the most dangerous president we have ever had," said Newt Gingrich. "Another term of Barack Obama will destroy the free enterprise system in this country," said Mitt Romney. "Our freedom is being taken away by the government," said Ron Paul. None of these things are remotely true and are fine examples of the "voices in my head."
Now, I've been assured by the fine folks that came up with this phrase that these sorts of statements and these candidates are not representative of their ideology. We'll set aside the fact that they have largely said the same things at one time or another and will likely vote for one of the four remaining men in the GOP field, essentially giving their support to such insanity. Today, I'm interested in something else in the interest of personal reflection.
I'd like each of the people who comment here and continually make the accusation that I argue with voices in my head and mis-characterize certain posters to use this thread for the following: lay out, in very simple terms, how exactly I warp your views in comparison to the endless and unhinged views that we hear every day from conservative candidates, pundits and media. Let's use this simple, fill in the blanks form
Mark says that I am________________________
But in reality, I think that _____________________
I differ from (insert GOP candidate or pundits name here) 's statement in that I think________________________
So, that's how Mark is wrong.
As we move forward in the election year, I want to make sure that I am accurately portraying each and every one of your views. If you don't think that the president is destroying free enterprise or is the most dangerous president in history, this is the thread to explain the nuanced differences between yourself and these views. Be prepared to back up your statements with facts. For example, if you do think that the president is destroying free enterprise, then you will have to demonstrate how the 2.3 million private sector jobs he added and the 600,000 public sector jobs that were lost figure into this assertion.
Or, as was recently stated in comments by one of those "voices in my head," how exactly we are headed towards the road to hell and when we will arrive at the fiery gates.
I'll check back frequently to respond and offer mea culpa as needed
12 comments:
I differ from (insert GOP candidate or pundits name here) 's statement in that I think
I have to tell you how I differ from Gingrich or Santorum. You can't just read what I write and figure that our on your own? This is childish beyond belief. Seriously, your reading comprehension and ability to reason are so deficient that you can't read two different things from two different people and understand if the two points are divergent or not? You need to be told. Why would you believe what we say instead of what you want to think we said?
Those are the voices in your head M - like the one that calls itself juris imprudent but says things that stupid fucking neo- or so- cons says. You don't hear the real-life juris imprudent saying that shit, but inside your head your do. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't even understand voices in your head.
I second Mark's motion for clarification. I hear you say a lot of negative things about the president that neocons and cons say all the time, Juris. How are you different? Let's hear how your criticisms of the president are different from right wingnuts.
I hear you say a lot of negative things about the president
That is all the substance of your comment, right there. Oh noes, I won't worship your Hero with you - I must be the evil enemy. What a bunch of childish bullshit.
I've also used sources from the left when I've criticized the President, and you don't like that any better. You might recall that I praised Sen. Wyden for his criticism of the Administration on classifying the law (which means you can be charged with a crime without being able to know that law even existed). Yeah, that makes me just like Newt or Rush, doesn't it? Seriously Juliet - are you ever going to add something intelligent here?
Look, juris, I couldn't have made it any more basic than this. You accused me of mis-characterizing you. Fine. Fill in the blanks and show me how. Pick any example. How about I start if for you?
Mark says that I think President Obama is destroying free enterprise.
But in reality, I think that _____________________
I differ from (insert GOP candidate or pundits name here) 's statement in that I think________________________
So, that's how Mark is wrong.
I suspect that you secretly agree with most conservative folks and don't want to admit it. You'd rather play the "I'm above it all so I'm superior" game.
Mark says that I think President Obama is destroying free enterprise.
Mark puts words in my mouth that I didn't say. How much fucking plainer can it be said? I never said such a thing and we must argue about what I didn't say? Is there anything more childish and dishonest?
You don't comprehend what I do say, so why would this exercise be any different. I frustrate you because I won't fit into the pigeon-hole you have constructed for me in your mind. And that is my problem - how?
I suspect that you secretly agree with most conservative folks and don't want to admit it.
Mark is so smart he can read other people's minds and uncover their secret thoughts. I mean, you never ever actually catch me criticizing Republicans, do you? I only criticize Democrats (as you can note above in my reference to Sen. Wyden).
Strawmen and false choices. Childish dishonesty. That is really all you are capable of, isn't it. I keep expecting something better - why?
Mark, I didn't write "road to Hell" since I'm not a Christian and don't believe in it. Believe it or not, the uncapitalized "road to hell" has long been a general secular term meaning "to an undesirable state of affairs". For being a "teacher", you're certainly ignorant of metaphor. But then, you've proven time and again that there's a lot of words that you don't know the meaning of, such as "verbatim" and "induce".
...and be sure to support it with facts? Aren't we still waiting for the facts to support your assertion that the Bush administration was planting child porn on opponents computers? (Man, I never get tired of bringing that up!)
More irony... Didn't we listen to 8 long years of accusations of liberty after libery being stolen away by the Bush administration? If memory serves, the only fact provided was entry into a war you disagreed with.
Juris, you're not going to waste your vote on some libertarian, fill-in-the-blank candidate on some murky principle or thought you're above it all, are you?
your assertion that the Bush administration was planting child porn on opponents computers?
dave, Right after I put that up, someone emailed me and said that if I didn't stop talking about that, they would kill both of my children. Likely, this was a crank and that's why I have no problem bringing it up now after all this time. But this is why I didn't talk about it then and why I'm not going to make any more comments about it for the near future.
you're not going to waste your vote
Why are you so concerned? You waste yours every time you vote for a Republican. Seriously, dave, I want you to sit back and think about Republican accomplishments for a moment. Why do you vote Republican? Give me a couple of tangible reasons that have results behind them. Don't bother if you are going to spout off about the welfare state or other right wing catechisms. I want some tangible and hard results that you can point to and say, "This is why."
I don't see any results...honestly. For the most part, there are none. The last good Republican was Dwight David Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan's good mixed up so much with his bad that you can't say he was decent...although it's hard for me to say this given that he was so personally affable.
I think when you stack up Democratic accomplishments next to conservative ones, it's actually pretty embarrassing. It shows that, really, the right doesn't have much to show for itself...other than 8 year old temper tantrums, adolescent power fantasies, a never ending thirst for proving people wrong and winning the argument despite facts, cult like behavior, and now, strangely, fictional narratives that dabble in voodoo...the whole fake Obama doll and all.
M really does have quite the imagination.
Far be it from me to interrupt Mark's maintenance of his two column table (column 1: eventDescription, column 2: isDemocraticAchievement), but a few points seem to be in order. They should be obvious points, but this teaching the teacher who does not wish to be taught is difficult:
1. Mark, this may seem odd to you, but people of different political philosophies from you might not necessarily agree that certain actions constitute positive "wins" for your preferred tribe. For example - you likely find the stimulus and Obamacare to be pluses in the D column. Me, not so much. This isn't to say that they are pluses in the R column, or that I would disagree with you on every single claim you make.
2. Some of your examples seem a bit, dare I say, simplistic. Yes, Truman was a Democrat, and he presided over the end of WW2. Does that necessarily mean that a Republican would have failed were one in his position? In other words - what did having a D after his name have to do with winning the war? Couldn't Truman have just been, you know, trying to win the war, rather than win one for the party/ideology?
3. I don't know about you, but I tend to vote based on what I want to happen in the future, and which party seems more likely to implement that, rather than what happened in the past. You know that disclaimer in finance: past performance is no indication of future gain. It seems odd to treat the 'D' as some kind of brand that should be supported because it has a reputation that you like, as opposed to having a reason to support something coming down the pipe from them (though that is undoubtedly true for you.) The point is this - even if I was as enamored as you are with past Democratic achievements, (which of course I'm not) that seems like a poor reason, by itself, to pull the D lever.
Despite all I said above, my vote will strictly be for a divided and gridlocked government. My preference is to have the R's own congress, and the D's own the WH. Which may indeed mean voting for Obama. Gasp!
The stimulus was a plus. In fact, many think that it didn't go far enough. I know you don't like it because it's a government win that doesn't fit with you ideology but what do you think would've happened without it? Nothing? The other thing to consider is that a third of it was tax cuts. So does that mean that you supported a third of it?
The jury is still out on the ACA. But even if it is a success, would you ever admit it? Likely not as you are with GM. Most of the time what I hear from the right about health care is this: do nothing. That's not a solution and I don't think it would be yours so what would you have done to address the various health care issues?
Regarding Truman, it was more about the way he governed and his general principles that led him to success. He would have reeled in horror at the likes of Haliburtion and Blackwater. The other thing to consider is that WWII was won largely because of trust of massive government.
I do agree with you regarding voting for the future. The right has made it very clear what they want to do with the future and it's not good. Laissez faire economics in a pure form doesn't work. It takes a balance and that's what I see coming more from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Why are you for a divided government? I think I know the answer but I'd rather have you spell it out first before I comment. You may indeed get your wish. At this point, I see the GOP only losing about 10-15 seats in the House (net) but I see the Dems losing a net of 3-4 in the Senate. 3 puts them tied at 50-50.
The jury is still out on the ACA. But even if it is a success
What would you define as it being a success - what criteria? You see, I believe that you would take an anecdote or two, maybe three, and claim "success" on that basis. That would be weak, but that is what I expect from you.
Post a Comment