It's been a while since I did one of these and some discussions in comments have inspired me to return to one of my favorite topics. But first, some clarification.
I have been told that the conservative views that I take issue with are not, in fact, accurately portrayed. Nor are they necessarily the views of my commenters who migrated over from Kevin Baker's site. No, oh no, these are "voices in my head" with whom I am arguing.
It's my view that the former point is complete horse hockey as I am simply relaying the message. I know it must be embarrassing to have to be associated with people that aren't well mentally but I have to live with Dennis Kucinich and Buck Johnson so you're just going to have to lump it. However, I should be a little extra considerate, I know, because there are far more on the right who are simply nuts. So, I will, at least try:)
Regarding the latter point, I also call bullshit because, although it may not be exactly the view of some of my commenters, it sure does sound an awful lot like it. And some of you aren't doing anything to formerly denounce such silliness so you really can't blame me for ascribing it to you. In fact, part of me think that you really do think this way and are (surprise surprise) engaging in a combination of faux outrage and the innocent babe in the woods routine.
Now, I think there is a way we can tell if I am right or not. Take a look at this video.
This is Florida Congressmen Allen West, a Republican and Tea Party favorite. He is also the favorite of Kevin Baker, proprietor of The Smallest Minority gun blog. He believes that there are 79 to 81 members of the Communist Party in the Democratic Party. He states it very clearly in this video which, incidentally, was released by his campaign. So, it's straight from him and not a liberally biased source.
Do you agree with him? If so, why. If not, why not.
Let's see if this is truly a "voice in my head."
12 comments:
Have you ever heard me say anything like that? No, you haven't - yet you routinely expect me to disown or defend things I've never said. Have you ever heard me extoll Allen West? Has Allen West ever posted on this blog? You are not engaging with the people and arguments right in front of you - instead of wandering the web to find things (straw-men) to challenge.
Let me give you a counter example. I paid attention to what you have said about teachers unions. If I were to emulate you, I would constantly throw at you the positions of teachers unions and expect you to defend them or be embarrassed because of your support of teachers unions. Wait, you would say - I don't support teachers unions. Well, THAT doesn't matter, because you are not on the same side as I am, so you MUST. I could throw things in from all over the leftwing of the web that are not relevant - in which case you could rightly accuse me of arguing with a voice in my head as opposed to the real you.
And finally NO you do not accurately "play back" the arguments that are made TO YOU. You fail to grasp the point (either because you are incapable of doing so, or you do are capable and just intellectually dishonest) and play it back in distorted form. One of the reasons I ask so many questions is to try to understand better what you are saying when it isn't clear to me. I know you think that it is all some attempt to win the argument, but that is your issue - not mine.
Hey Mark,
When last I was blessed to be in the presence of HMHC I wondered aloud how you viewed "conservative" participation on your blog. This seems like an opportune time to get the answer straight from the horse's mouth. Participation from conservative folks is much lower these days as compared to the glory years. I think we would all agree with that. Stalwarts such as Juris admirably continue the debate, but by and large you've lost the participation of the majority of your conservative posters. Any thoughts on why that is?
I have some thoughts, though based on the content of this most recent posting I suspect you will not agree with them. But I will share those thoughts with you and you can do with them what you will.
When last I posted in any substantive manner the discussion basically went like this:
1) Mark espouses a belief
2) PL disagrees with said belief and espouses a different belief
3) Mark chastises PL for falling prey to the standard conservative message.
4) PL disagrees that he is toeing the line and suggests that if Mark opens his mind to a different perspective he would see the validity in the different viewpoint.
5) Mark disagrees and instead contends that reflection/research to the degree that he performs can only lead to one conclusion.
6) The yippy dogs chime in and claim that PL is mistaken. Mark is a paragon of open-mindedness, and my failure to see that clearly illustrates my own closed-mindedness.
7) PL thanks the yippy dogs for their invaluable input to the discussion, thanks Mark for pointing out the errors of my ways, and signs off.
Now, whether or not you want to characterize that as a "voices in your head" situation is a matter of semantics, as far as I'm concerned. But it does make me wonder....is there a set number of people that need to come to you and say something to the effect You are not listening to/discussing my point" before you begin to wonder to yourself "Hey, maybe there's something to that?" More than a handful of people have suggested that to you on this blog, so if such a number exists it's obviously more than 5. But what if 20 people said that? 50? 100? Or is there no such number, because in reality (unbeknownst to us) we are all suffering from the same delusion? Or, we all subscribe to the same magazines and watch the same TV news/talk programs and can therefore only parrot the same message? (Even though we deny such commonality, it must be true because that's the only way we would arrive at a common, such obviously mistaken belief system.)
Any thoughts on why that is?
Well, there are several things I have to offer here. First, while it may be true that participation from you, last, and a couple of others is down, the folks that migrated from Kevin's blog have more than made up for it. Check out some of the comment threads of late with more than 20 comments. We see Haplo9, 6Kings, Larry, and Guard Duck.
Second, commenting may be down but site traffic is up. Back in the glory days, I had a whopping 30-50 visits a day. Now I have between 300-500. I'd take that trade any day considering that once I get Google Adsense straightened out, I've got around 100 dollars coming to me from ads. This income is likely to increase once I put more ads on the site. So, it's a trade-off I don't mind:)
I'd also add here that people comment less on blogs these days as they are wrapped up on Twitter and Facebook. I am an author on a music blog with over 1000 hits a day and no one ever comments. The traffic is there but people are lazy.
As to your seven points, I both agree and disagree. I disagree in the sense that I think it starts more like this...
1. Mark presents a fact
and then it goes downhill from there because some of those facts fly in the face of a monumentally instransigent ideology. In short, some facts are "liberal"...especially the ones we don't like.
Now, that doesn't mean I think that about YOU who I have always found to be reasonable.
is there a set number of people that need to come to you and say something to the effect You are not listening to/discussing my point" before you begin to wonder to yourself "Hey, maybe there's something to that?"
I think it depends on the issue. My problem here, PL, is that I am absolutely done with the Cult of Both Sides. The GOP has moved so far to the right and I would be completely dishonest in my assessment of many of these issues if I didn't take that into account.
It would be one thing if we were debating Keynesian economics vs. laissez faire economics. There are certainly merits to both and I recognize them. Or a discussion as to whether a realist approach or a liberal approach (or something else entirely, for that matter) is the right way to go with policy on Iran. Again, good points on all sides.
But when you take an honest look at taxes, for example, or the debt/deficit, it's very difficult to have a reasonable discussion with the right these days. I've been very reasonable in saying that we should adopt a plan that combines spending cuts with tax increases. In fact, I've said there should be more of the former. Yet that still isn't enough and to pretend that that is somehow my fault is simply dishonest...to myself and to everyone else. The same is true for health care, climate change, some international issues and education. I mean, this is what I am dealing with here...
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/bill-whittle-on-education-again.html
I'm not going to pretend and "try to see his point of view." He's completely wrong and, well, nuts. Worse, this isn't simply the view of an outlier. Millions think this. Millions, PL. Granted, they are thankfully a shrinking minority but, really, we are wasting so much time with this.
I've always had enormous respect for your views on here and I would urge you to comment more, if you so desire. You've always made reasonable comments in general and I have no problem seeing your side of things. Obviously, since you made this comment, I'll endeavor to show you more consideration.
You are not engaging with the people and arguments right in front of you - instead of wandering the web to find things (straw-men) to challenge.
Allen West is an elected GOP congressmen. Kevin has stated that he supports him. The people that comment here have done the same. I'll grant you that you have never come out and accused the Democrats of being communists but this is certainly not a straw man argument. A very large part of the GOP thinks the same way so this is completely fair game. I'm glad to hear that you don't share his warped sense of reality. If a large minority of the Democrats thought like Dennis Kucinich or Buck Johnson (thank the Lord they don't), I'd be pretty fucking pissed off.
If I were to emulate you, I would constantly throw at you the positions of teachers unions and expect you to defend them or be embarrassed because of your support of teachers unions.
And you would be entirely justified in doing so. To be honest, I'm tremendously embarrassed by them of late with this whole tenure issue here in MN and have unfortunately been vilified by many of my peers as a result. I should be held to task to defend some of the lazy idiots with whom I work because they are making the problems in education worse as well as encouraging more ridiculous criticism.
Now, if you were to argue that they were part of a communist plot, well....:)
One of the reasons I ask so many questions is to try to understand better what you are saying when it isn't clear to me.
That may be true sometimes but I wish you would be honest about the others because I know it's just baiting. This is particularly true on points with facts that conflict with your ideology.
It would be one thing if we were debating Keynesian economics vs. laissez faire economics.
If you mean Keynes vs monetarist, that would make sense. Keynes vs. laissez-faire doesn't. No one [that is no real person here] is arguing for laissez-faire. Although you should note that l-f was the response to a question of what the govt should do to aid businesses vis-a-vis competitors.
As to you believing in tribal identity (i.e. teachers unions), I don't. Since you have made clear that you disagree significantly with teachers unions, I see no reason to vilify you by association with them. Doing that is childish.
Allen West is an elected GOP congressmen. Kevin has stated that he supports him.
So fucking what. Do either of them post here? Why do you wander around looking for things I (and others) have not said so you can go "look - do you agree with that"? It is a very stupid and childish game.
I've been very reasonable in saying that we should adopt a plan that combines spending cuts with tax increases.
Again, so fucking what? You think because you say something here that is going to change Newt Gingrich or Paul Ryan's mind? Are you mad? Tax increases only on the rich do not make the poor better off. That is a fact that won't get past your ideological filters.
Tax increases only on the rich do not make the poor better off. That is a fact that won't get past your ideological filters.
I think you might be missing the point on this one and are having another perception issue. This is merely the first step in reforming the tax system and making it more fair. It's not really fair right now and I'm sure you would agree.
Here's an article that might offer some more perspective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rebuffing-obamas-buffett-rule/2012/04/11/gIQA7m4HBT_story.html
This is merely the first step in reforming the tax system and making it more fair. It's not really fair right now and I'm sure you would agree.
You may think that yourself, but it isn't what Obama is selling.
The politics of the Buffett Rule — it has no chance of passing when the Senate takes it up next week — are so overt that Obama’s remarks Wednesday were virtually indistinguishable from a section of his campaign speech in Florida on Tuesday.
Funny, but I was going to give you that link. You see - this isn't about honest large-scale tax reform. I'm open to a discussion of that - but you have to throw out Obama's slimeball politicking if you want to do that. And you have to be open about what the fair share to be collected from the highest incomes actually is... not the standard "whatever it currently is, it isn't enough".
but you have to throw out Obama's slimeball politicking
Alright, that's just ridiculous. And very cynical.
And you have to be open about what the fair share to be collected from the highest incomes actually is... not the standard "whatever it currently is, it isn't enough".
I've stated a thousand times what I think that should be.
Alright, that's just ridiculous. And very cynical.
Cynical I suppose. What is ridiculous is that anyone takes Obama's bait that he really believes in this.
I've stated a thousand times what I think that should be.
Yes, yes, you want the Clinton era top rate. At what income level? Do you not care in the slightest if the rich end up paying a smaller percentage of total income tax collected as long as they pay a higher marginal rate? Really? How would that be a fair share?
On a side note, just watched the first installment of Atlas Shrugged. While it was somewhat entertaining, I kept catching Taggert and the lobbyists/politicians always complaining and passing laws around "fairness". The parallels, while exaggerated, were pretty stunning.
that anyone takes Obama's bait
Or he actually is an honest guy doing what he thinks is best for the country. I'd include many other presidents (Rs and Ds) in that category as well.
At what income level? Do you not care in the slightest if the rich end up paying a smaller percentage of total income tax collected as long as they pay a higher marginal rate? Really? How would that be a fair share?
As I've said MANY times, the tax cuts should simply be terminated for the upper income folks. In other words, the Clinton Era statutory rates along with no way to hide in cap gains. And I'm sorry but I don't buy that Laffer curve business about less revenue with higher rates. I mean, we're talking about a few percentage points here.
I also want to stress that this is only one component of solving the overall issue. I do not think that letting the tax cuts expire for wealthier Americans is magic medicine that's going to solve everything.
Or he actually is an honest guy doing what he thinks is best for the country.
Jesus fucking christ on flypaper. If that dick is stuffed any further down your throat you'll be able to reach up to your ass and tickle the knob.
In other words, the Clinton Era statutory rates along with no way to hide in cap gains.
And I can still have a million dollar income and not have to pay federal income tax.
I do not think that letting the tax cuts expire for wealthier Americans is magic medicine that's going to solve everything.
Well no shit, do you want a cookie? You are the one that has a raging hard on about income inequality - and your guy has only talked about this tax change in those terms. Now you don't want to talk about that?
Post a Comment