« Irreversible | Main | Fun with google translator »

January 29, 2005

Comments

Buckshot

Michael,

Have you ever heard the fable about the girl who picks up the rattlesnake? The punchline, after the snake convinces her to pick him up (then he bites her) is....

"Hey, you knew I was a rattlesnake when you picked me up".

Same with Hannity. He's what he is. He's nasty, he's dishonest, he panders to the mean spirited. He lies, he uses the mute button to suppress his callers, then asks them questions and chastises him for not answering. He is dishonest in every possible way a man can be dishonest.

So you already know that. Why feign indignation? He in no way represents the run-of-the-mill "conservative", any more than Bona or Michael Jackson or Barbara streisand represents the libs.

As far as your indignation about him misrepresenting what someone said, that happens to me on your blog every day, and you are one of the prime offenders.

I state very clearly my opinion, then you or one of your regulars misrepresent what I say, call me names, and then change the subject.

Let's not be too hypocritical, Michael.

Incertus

For starters, if Hannity were to be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't that intimate some sort of intellect at play to begin with? Hannity doesn't make intelligent arguments, even at his best. He's bluster and waving the bloody shirt.

And by the way, Buckshot, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stop saying things that make me snort tea out of my nose like " He in no way represents the run-of-the-mill "conservative[s]." Sorry, but when you have the stage that Hannity has, and when you are looked at approvingly by the people calling themselves conservatives in our government, then you represent the mainstream. And by the way, saying Michael Jackson is a liberal is lower than a cheap shot.

drm

The thing that makes me laugh about the kennedy speech is why does anyone take him seriously? Kennedy has been wrong on the major foreign policy issues for over 3 decades. He has the blood of millions on his hands for leading the charge on a full blown American retreat in Vietnam. That idea certainly worked out well. We pull out and millions of cambodians and south vietnames are slaughtered.

Were was Kennedy during Reagan's confrontation with the Soviets? On the wrong side again.

I am overjoyed every time the killer himself gets out and opens his trap. Their is nothing better for Republicans than to have Kennedy be the main spokesman for the Democrat party.

AG

Well, seeing as how this site is a bastion for liberal looneys, and oh, how I could go on and on about how obviously biased "Michaels" essay is, it would do no good. Free speech. This is a site just for liberals, and it would be ludcrious to call Michael on his obviously liberal slant.
Just some things for Michael to chew on. If Hannity was devoid of intelligence, explain to me why he is so popular to begin with? You know as well as I that on that show, the best liberal speakers in the country go on for the chance to stop Hannity in his tracks, and time after time Hannity stops them cold. These are men with degrees, Doctorates, and the likes of a intellectually minscule Hannity beats them in every argument there. Wonder why Colmes can't come up with counter arguments, reason being the whole liberal mindset precludes rational logic. I mean, if he was so intellectually dishonest, Colmes would call him on it, and Colmes, for anyone that watches the show regularly, can't. The whole stance of the liberal world is eschew. Blame America for its "failure in Iraq" never mention the fact that even the most zealous Reps said a 50% turnout would be pushing it, there were over 60% turnout. Sunnis did in fact vote, and their numbers were expected, considering the insurgents, being Sunnis themselves would've killed them. Oh how, America is to blame for the ills of the world, yet I unmistakely saw Iraqis dancing, and CRYING, for their chance to build Iraq. I don't recall in this internationally observed elections of even Al Jazeera reporting on US Troops escorting Iraqis to vote on gun point, yet, that is exactly what a liberal would think. If you listened to the rants of liberals of the likes as New York Times, Ted Kennedy, Al Jazeera and The Guardian, you would've been convinced we were losing the Iraq war, and Afghanistan for that matter, and yet, we won. And time and time again, it always comes down to what the French think. Anyone that has taken IR in college knows that with the fall of the USSR there is an obvious power vacuum the EU is trying to fill, and that in filling that vacuum you'd think the EU would stop being pro American, and counter America. That is the nature of power shifts. Of COURSE the Europeans don't like us. Not since before WWII when they slit their own wrists have they had the economic power and presitge of the likes during their colonial era. All the more embarassing to them that they think themselves as the cultural center of the world, yet which country are people fleeing in great numbers too? Its not hollowed Austria, or Germany. America the bad, millions come to these shores for freedom the culturally sophiscated Euros can't deliver. Liberals mistake the accents for sophiscation. Anyways. The obvious glaring truth is that the Iraqis voted in overwhelming numbers, and that America is not the villian liberals make it out ot be. Afghanistan proved it, Iraq proved it. Our Aid to the Tsumani victims show it. And I could go on a tirade about how it is the Islamic countries that blame America for being "stingy" yet, to date, with all the money the Saudis have to donate, they've only donated pocket change, you know it and I. Lol, that is a different debate altogether. Later Michael.

here's what's left

wow, we get some real crazies these days, don't we? i wonder how AG figured out that that this site has a liberal slant. maybe it's the word "left" in the title.

and they say conservatives aren't smart.

Incertus

Considering the increased troll activity on many left-leaning sites in the last couple of days (I even got a troll, and I don't ever get comments), I have to wonder if some enterprising freeper type organized some sort of pushback times for yesterday's Iraq "elections."

heather

i wonder how AG figured out that that this site has a liberal slant. maybe it's the word "left" in the title.

not only that, but the word "left" in the title is actually slanting to the left.

AG

"Well, seeing as how this site is a bastion for liberal looneys, and oh, how I could go on and on about how obviously biased "Michaels" essay is, it would do no good. Free speech. This is a site just for liberals, and it would be ludcrious to call Michael on his obviously liberal slant."

Uh, heather, Incertus, and others, read the above. I knew this site was for liberals, lol you try to demean my intelligence, why not counter what the bulk of what I had to say? Uh I'm sure you'll counter this by saying I'm not smart, and then say you didn't even bother to read what I had to say, cause you read one line and drew your opinions. Figures. Typical liberal mindset. I can see you typing in "oh he figured out this is a liberal site" You loons, I KNEW it was liberal from the moment I came in here. Its just hilarious to me to see the advanced intelluctualism with such remarks as: not only that, but the word "left" in the title is actually slanting to the left. Good one Heather--Please, when I made quite clear I knew what this site was all about from the begining, lol you act like I had an epiphany. And the liberal blog site trolling is going up (read that somewhere here, as if this is the revolution to come)...thats just great. I'm sure that some piece of wisdom could be found in a blog site, seeing as how liberal bloggers and even Michael Moore still couldn't stop the likes of cowboy Bush from being reelected. What are the cultural elite going to do now? Comment on my grammatical errors? Peace out ya'all (emphasis on a Texan accent, lol I bet there is going to be some comment on this, probably "oh he is a dumb dumb) :)

buckshot

Incertus,

You say you don't EVER get comments on your blog, eh? That's rich. This blog has your beat by about three readers, ha.

It's very amusing to me to see how college aged kids "think". The best part is that I was where you are once, but none of you have been where I am. Yet you know how the world works and how to CHANGE IT (using other people's money).

Yes, there are some real thinkers here. One wants to take all/most of the wealth away from those few who create jobs and give it to the masses of consumers. (where it will be consumed like a sandwich on an anthill).

Another wants to DO SOMETHING to increase the life span of blacks. Actually, she wants our president to do something. (using money taken from OTHER PEOPLE, of course)

Obviously she believes that soon she will be done with her studies and will be earning big bucks and will THEN be able to pay lots of income taxes, pay off the huge credit card balance she carries, and start doing wonderful things WITH HER OWN MONEY.

HAHAHAHHAAHAHAAA. Just wait till she is out "on her own" and surviving ONLY on the money she earns. Yes, I'd love to listen to her comments as she reads the deductions on her check.

"what's dis?"
"what's dis?"
"what's dat?"
"dey ain't nuttin' left".

"MOTHERFUCKERS!"

Oh yes that would be rich. Will she figure out that by screaming for more spending, and more taxes, that..... wait.....could it be.....

SHE WILL BE PAYING THEM!!!!!!

Ouch. Growing up is a bitch. You kids are being manipulated so bad it is....actually quite funny.

Most of you will just work for peanuts, barely paying any income taxes (won't earn enough) and will just wait till your parents die. Finally, you will have a house!

Unless you are dumb enough to start pushing for increased estate taxes! Then maybe you will get the house, but will have to pay the government $500/month for life just to pay your share of estate taxes.

And you know what will be funny? You'll be fortyish, and will just be starting to figure it out, and you will hear young kids fresh out of high school TELLING YOU HOW THINGS SHOULD BE.

These kids will have never heard of GW Bush. They will never heard of Iraq or The Bill of Rights or The Constitution. They will not know what FICA is or what income taxes are or what a deficit is...

But they will have OPINIONS!!!! They will be ANGRY!!!! They will figure out what party you support, and then they will argue FOR THE OTHER PARTY. Just because that's how kids are at that age. Knowledge is not a prerequisite to having a firm opinion!

And who's money will these kids propose to use for all of the "improvements" they desire to implement? SOMEONE ELSE'S. (they won't have any)

And so... time marches on. Funny stuff. Keep thinking, you kids. Come up with some more "ideas" for me to laugh about. See if you can top David Byrons "reasoning" that a man who works for $20,000 doesn't make $100,000 so he deserves to have $80,000 more given to him.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

He deserves to have $80,000 GIVEN TO HIM! That would be four times his GROSS INCOME!!!! Imagine the INCOME TAX this man would then have to pay!!!!!!!!!!

And the FICA!!!!!!!!!

My goodness, he would have to cough up $4000 in FICA and $20,000 to the feds to cover his income taxes, plus perhaps $5000 or $8000 more in state income taxes, depending on where he lives.


What would David Byron say about this??? I can tell you. He'd say "Oh well, he'll still have about $50 grand.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thank you all so much.

AG

Hey buckshot, take it easy bro.

AG

I feel your pain buckshot. Read my posts. Lol just wait a day, you'll be commented on.

"not only that, but the word "left" in the title is actually slanting to the left."-Heather.

With the likes of comments like Heather's being the most intelligent it will get, just makes you worry about the future of the planet with the likes of that.

here's what's left

AG and buckshot,

i'm starting to think that incertus is right in saying "I have to wonder if some enterprising freeper type organized some sort of pushback times for yesterday's Iraq "elections."

it think it's great to have conservative commentators, but you guys aren't commentators so much as you're ideologues. you come and make ridiculous claims that don't have anything to do with what i write.

AG, for example, comes and starts with something tangentially related "If Hannity was devoid of intelligence, explain to me why he is so popular to begin with?" (Well, Jenna Jameson is famous too, but I don't think it's for her brains.) And then he launches into a bizzare rant about liberals blaming America, Ted Kennedy, France, all the wingnut highlights. Seriously, how is one supposed to respond to that?

I can say, well, you don't offer any evidence for what you're saying. But that never seems to have any effect. You'll just come right back with more of the same.

And Buckshot, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself. You come on my site and you talk about how everyone wants to take your money no matter what I say. Your comment on this post didn't even mention Sean Hannity. You didn't even argue with anything I said, you just made a bunch of accusations. This from a guy who says he's here to inject some "logic" into the discussion.

Do any conservatives who comment on this site actually read the posts?

Read it. comment on it. I made an interesting claim about Sean Hannity, which I'll recap for you, since it obviously went by you the first time. It involved a word that he left out of summarizing what Ted Kennedy said. Sean said, "Ted Kennedy says now our military's part of the problem, not part of the solution." Which is not what he said. he said "military presence," not military. They're different things. One would be criticizing the troops themselves, the other is criticizing the fact that they're there in the first place. And my claim is that Sean Hannity is doing that to intentionally distort what Kennedy says.

Do you have a response to that? Can you defend Hannity? If you disagree with me, fine. Tell me why. Have an argument. A real argument. You don't have to be civilized. You can call me whatever you want. But you have to have reasoning, a chain a logic. A point. Some sort of thinking to back up your claim.

And by the way, AG, in Georgia we spell it "y'all."

Buckshot

Michael,

I will (as always) speak directly to you, and answer your exact questions. (I realize this is a strange concept to many.)

First, you say I don't even mention Hannity. You must not have read my first post.....let me reprint the pertinent part....

"Michael,

Have you ever heard the fable about the girl who picks up the rattlesnake? The punchline, after the snake convinces her to pick him up (then he bites her) is....

"Hey, you knew I was a rattlesnake when you picked me up".

Same with Hannity. He's what he is. He's nasty, he's dishonest, he panders to the mean spirited. He lies, he uses the mute button to suppress his callers, then asks them questions and chastises him for not answering. He is dishonest in every possible way a man can be dishonest.

So you already know that. Why feign indignation? He in no way represents the run-of-the-mill "conservative", any more than ....."

...............

Okay, Michael, that was my exact quote from my first post on this thread. Did you see where I mentioned Hannity that time?

.............

Now, continuing down your post, I will continue to address your exact comments (again, unlike anyone else on this blog)...

Here is your quote....."Buckshot, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself. You come on my site and you talk about how everyone wants to take your money no matter what I say."

No, Michael, I have never said that or anything like that. In fact, if you can show me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I will send you a $1000 money order. Now put up or shut up on that.

Next....

"Your comment on this post didn't even mention Sean Hannity. You didn't even argue with anything I said, you just made a bunch of accusations. This from a guy who says he's here to inject some "logic" into the discussion."

Already covered that one. False as hell.

Now, your question...."Do any conservatives who comment on this site actually read the posts?"

Let me say this. I personally read the posts, and I comment ON THE MATERIAL IN THE POST. Whether I am "conservative" is a matter of opinion. And whether any "other" conservatives do or don't, I cannot say. I am only responsible for WHAT I DO.

"Read it. comment on it. I made an interesting claim about Sean Hannity, which I'll recap for you, since it obviously went by you the first time."

Again, Michael, I did read it. I did comment on it.

Yes, Hannity distorts the truth. Yes, he interrupts his callers and mutes their attempted response. I personally cannot listen to him - I would much prefer dead silence or even bad music.

Michael the rest of your post is a reiteration of your claim that I didn't read or comment on your topic. Ironically, you chastise me for not reading/responding to the topic, when in fact it was YOU who did not read my response. It was the very first one. On topic.

AG,

My only opinion of your diatribe is this....

1) You said too much for these kids to digest.
2) You need to separate your paragraphs. C'mon.
3) Think....then write.


Incertus

Just one thing, Buckshot. You can continue to call me kid if you wish, but you ought to know that I'm in my mid-thirties, have two degrees and hold a fellowship at Stanford (thus the email address), and have a teenage daughter, a daughter, I might add, that I will not hesitate to remove from this country if Bush decides that he needs another war or needs a draft to ensure he can keep fighting this one.

Continue to dismiss me as a kid if you must, but please realize that I've been around a bit, and have seen the bottom of the economic spectrum far more than the top of it, so when I'm snarky about Bush's "economic plans" or the way he's misused the military, it's because I've seen it firsthand, and that I and some of my friends have been forever changed as a result of his callousness.

Cheryl
then you or one of your regulars misrepresent what I say

Buckwit,

Could you present us with before/after quotes to show how anyone on this blog has deliberately misquoted you? This is a blog site; I cannot speak for anyone else, but when quoting you I use the 'cut' and 'paste' buttons, not my imagination. It was quite clear to me that Hannity deliberately misquoted Kennedy.

AG,

the whole liberal mindset precludes rational logic

Generalizing, are we?

You know, whenever I hear right wingers scream about how their taxes are killing them, I have to laugh. It is almost as if these people want something for nothing, or as if they want to play poker without anteing up their dues. It is an incredibly selfish and MALE way of thinking.

Here in the United States we pay twice as much for health care as the rest of the civilized world does. Where is all that extra money going? Well, part of it is going into the pockets of corporate executives at insurance companies who are defending their right to run redundant for-profit paper shuffling bureaucracies and siphoning off 20% of our money from the top while denying needed care. The rest is going into the pockets of pharmaceutical company executives who are defending their right to rig the market by suppressing competition, specifically they are preventing our own government from negotiating reasonable prices by buying off our legislature.

The thing people like Buckwit just do not get is that back after World War 2, while people still remembered what it meant to starve to death in the cold after getting crushed by the 'free market' economy (a fiction, always - there is no such thing), we collectively decided that we were not going to let that happen any longer.

Simply cutting taxes on the wealthy does not produce prosperity for all. It only ensconces prosperity permanently in a few selected families. This is a sure recipe for destroying the free market. Governmental power in the United States is accountable to we the people. When governmental power is curtailed even as corporate power grows, our collective power is diminished and the unaccountable private power of the wealthy runs unchecked. Does anyone on this blog sincerely believe that such an outcome is desirable?

If you want to scream about something else, try figuring out why the Pentagon cannot account for half of the money it spends. Could it be... no... we are getting ripped off?

Just grabbing your dick and hollering about taxes is not going to fix anything. Try thinking for a change. What are you, a freeloading slacker???

AG

Cheryl, now, this is actually a decent response from you, lol.

"Just GRABBING your dick and hollering about taxes is not going to fix anything. Try thinking for a change. What are you, a freeloading slacker???"

Generalizing, are we?

Cheryl, you started out fine in countering me and buckwheat. Applauds to you. Hey you caught me in a generalization, I guess I'm going to have to worry about the politically correct police to come in my room and kick my ass. Well Cheryl just one problem. ----> What are you, a freeloading slacker??? ----> You are name calling Buckwheat here, and thats all fine, believe me, you wanna be a 1st grader again thats ok. Except that when you begin a response sounding haughty and cultured and then resort to name calling, it just doesn't seem right. But hey, I'm sure you are a mother and successful and probably started out from the bottom like Incertus here and worked your way up to CEO of Dell. Hats off to you Cheryl.

And Incertus (and to Buckshot), see, I hate to admit it to you two, (Incertus more than Buck) is that, guys, no one cares, and furthermore no one believes your life story. This is a blogger site, the internet. Here, it doesn't matter you who are. Lol, yeah Incertus you got me. Its y'all not ya'all. I knew I was going to get some pithy comment on that (I did predict that in my post) Just wonder how Cheryl or Incertus is going to spin this one. And Buck, you commented on the length of my post, well, this is a public site, and if people are going to talk big in here, like Incertus here who is gift wrapped in the American Dream come true, then I'm sure they have the brains to read what I have to say.


Yeah you caught me on a rant, I'll give it to you. I came to this site on a random Google search looking for Ahmad Al-Qloushi's essay, wondering what the conversay over it is, and I find a long and quite frankly insulting response to it defending a professor that quite clearly is in the wrong on this one. If spelling and grammar were really the issue on that one, the professor would've made a case on that, and if you are following the issue, he is claiming harassment on the part of the student, for the kid simply standing up to his beliefs. Where is the outrage in that? But, that is a different issue, and this issue was on Hannity, and now has devolved into taxes, peoples intelligence, blusters, and so on. And yes, it was an incoherent tirade, I know and don't care. If you are going to call me on it call Heather on such no brainers as "not only that, but the word "left" in the title is actually slanting to the left." But hey, I'll give you the moral high ground, two wrongs don't make a right.

For starters, if Hannity were to be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't that intimate some sort of intellect at play to begin with? Hannity doesn't make intelligent arguments, even at his best. He's BLUSTER and waving the bloody shirt
--Dude, Hannity has arguments. If he didn't, he wouldn't be on TV. And Incertus, see, the problem I have with types like you is you are the first to shoot down Buck for calling you young and ignorant, and then prop yourself up as being from the bottom of the barrel and now being some big shot Stanford kid, while calling someone that is clearly more successful than you a BLUSTER and waving the BLOODY shirt.

And you are going to post on this, I know you are, and say I'm incoherent somehow, or that I made no sense. Thats the cheapest tactic around. If someone makes an argument you can't counter, or if you want to throw them off balance, just call them incoherent, say they make no sense, laugh. You are playing the same game that you accuse Hannity of doing. Let me guess, you are going to say I'm incoherent now? Always a snide remark, lol.

Peace Y'ALLLLLL

Incertus

AG,
If I thought that anything I would have to write would cause you to perhaps open your mind a touch, then I'd put some effort into it. Frankly, I don't care enough about someone like you who puts together these rants that regurgitate "talking points" from Hannity et al without attempting to make any salient argument of his own to bother. I'll gladly have intelligent conversations with people I disagree with--as long as there's actual conversation going on, and not just bluster. With you, it's all bluster. You wouldn't change your mind on any of these issues you've raised if the Lord Jesus Christ came down from on high and slapped you himself, so why should I waste my time on the same task?

Buckshot

Incertus,

I guess the name calling led me to believe you were a bit younger. Most folks grow out of that by their thirties - not all.

Congrats on the degrees. I worked my way through engineering school in underground mines, as a pipefitter, a laborer, and other sh** jobs. I too, understand being broke, living on the cheap, etc. I grew up in a dying town, where people were committing suicide because the main employer shut down. I've seen union guys beat the shit out of scabs (and each other). I grew up watching families at each other's throats over the Vietnam war.

Yet, with these experiences under my belt, and having worked my way into relative financial comfort (finally) I am ridiculed by your liberal blog mates, for having been "working in a mine and baling hay", as if it were something to be ashamed of, rather than just the reality that faced me at the time.

Yeah, well maybe David had it pretty easy. Sounds like he feels the world owes him (and the other non-producers) a living.

He asks a myriad of questions, answers nothing, and spews some of the most child-like, socialistic babble I have ever heard from an otherwise intelligent person. And you seem to be in the same pod.

The way we grow up and the role models we have definitely influence the way we look at things. I grew up knowing that being on unemployment was a disaster - not something to brag about. Any decent job was something to BE PROUD of, whether it was running a train undergroud or cutting trees, setting choker cables, or doing farm work (most of which sucked).

Later, I worked as an engineer, a surveyor, a commercial fisherman and fish buyer, and have been all across rural Alaska for 25 years. A lifetime's worth of experiences I would not trade for any amount of money.

Now I am routinely lambasted by young know-it-alls who I often suspect have never really even dreamed of what it would be like to own & operate a business. They view a profit as something evil; dirty. Related to greed.

Yet they will hold out their hand for any pittance that may be dropped into it, from whatever source. Then they will curse all who are rich for making it possible.

Somehow they get money to live. College loans? Mom & Dad? I don't know.

One thing I do know - if a person's income is from the government, it is likely he is defensive, has low self esteem, calls names, and generally loathes anyone who is successful. If David had been my helper on some of the jobs I've had, I suspect he would have cried like a baby for his mama. I've seen young men cry when having to do serious work. And I've seen them livid with rage when they get their first big paycheck, and find 40 percent of it gone, due to several sets of taxes, which they don't seem to even understand.

Heather will be one of those, if she ever gets done milking the student loan bandwagon. If she doesn't spend her life working at Starbucks (which would be fine) and gets a real good paying job, she will really SHIT HER PANTS when she realises that all those years she screamed about increasing taxes was going to come back and bite her right in her ample ass. ha. Now that's funny.

DavidByron

Quite the file-mouthed little brat aren't you Buckshot? I don't buy your Grapes-of-Wrath routine. It doesn't go with how quick you were to retreat and blow everyone off with a stream of insults.

AG

Buck, seriously, I'm on your side ideologically, but whats with the venom I sense in your posts towards the young? What real damage did they do to you with your life long experiences? Give it a break man.

AG

it's because I've seen it firsthand, and that I and some of my friends

You been in war now, Incertus?

here's what's left

This discussion is ridiculous.

Buckshot,

of course, I wasn't talking about your comment that addressed Sean Hannity. I was talking about your ridiculous diatribe, which i think it clear from the context of the comment.

you say

Here is your quote....."Buckshot, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself. You come on my site and you talk about how everyone wants to take your money no matter what I say."

No, Michael, I have never said that or anything like that. In fact, if you can show me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I will send you a $1000 money order. Now put up or shut up on that.

even though earlier you said:

It's very amusing to me to see how college aged kids "think". The best part is that I was where you are once, but none of you have been where I am. Yet you know how the world works and how to CHANGE IT (using other people's money).

oh, so you said other people's money.

but really what bothers me is your absolute internal contradiction. you claim to be so frustrated by lack logic, but your logic apparently involves assuming that i'm a college student (i'm not), college aged (i'm not), and then insulting my readers. how can you have a civilized discussion if you don't even make any arguments?

i have never pretended that this blog is anything more than what it is. it's my reasoned opinion, presented in a somewhat unedited manner. you, however, hypocritically claim to be interested in facts, in logic, in arguments, but you never make any. are you intentionally wasting my time, or do you have something to say?

this really isn't amusing to me anymore.

and AG, seriously, if you want to comment on the thing about Al-Qloushi's essay, go right ahead. the guy's essay fucking sucked. i documented all of it. if you find something incorrect, or weakly argued, go comment. i'm listening.

Cheryl

Dear Buckshot,

I apologize for mangling your name and belittling you. My bad. I reacted out of instinct simply because some of the things you wrote offended me deeply. You are right, I should be above that sort of thing and let you make all the gaffes instead.

One thing I do know - if a person's income is from the government, it is likely he is defensive, has low self esteem, calls names, and generally loathes anyone who is successful.

I have one hypothetical question. Let us assume that taxes had been cut across the board for two decades and that the Republicans were in power right now, funding all their deserving rich friends with corporate subsidies so that they could go out and create jobs. We should experience an economic boom and a huge increase in tax revenue due to the phenomenal economic expansion.

So where's the boom?

Buckshot, you seem to aggressively, even obnoxiously, assume the most indefensible stance (such as the inherent inferiority of black intelligence) just to prove how tough a debater you are.

No, I do not think of you as a racist any more. You just seem to want to run the decathlon standing on your hands.

I presume that you think of yourself as an independent thinker. I would like to share something with you. It comes from a workshop I attended on the Radical Right. The handbook was printed in 1999. See if you recognize anything here.

Rigid Thinking
Rigid thinking allows for only one possibility. It often applies to everyone in all situations. Often information is ignored or rejected when it contradicts the one possibility.

Clear Thinking
Clear thinking follows a process that allows for more than one possibility. Usually, it is a conscious choice that applies to a particular choice and individual(s). Other decisions may result when the choice and/or individual(s) are different.

A Tested Agenda
The ultimate goal of the Christian Right is to dismantle the gains of the Civil Rights movement and to subject social and political life to Christian authoritarianism. To achieve this goal, they must attack not only African Americans and other people of color who gained from the Civil Rights Movement but also the gains of the Women's Movement, the Lesbian and Gay Movement, and eventually, the People with Disabilities Movement.

They have found fertile ground in economic hard times marked by societal and political chaos. Generally, people feel assaulted, at risk, and in search of stability and meaning in their lives. Perhaps the greatest sense of loss is economic, providing an easy arena for scapegoating. The Christian Right offers an explanation of disorder by saying that it stems from social and economic disruption caused by people of color, women, lesbians, and gay men who have unfairly taken jobs from white men, destroyed the economy by welfare fraud, and demolished the traditional family by demanding autonomy and choice.

In response to this climate of fear, the New Right has built a national campaign centered on the idea of "No special rights." Their position is that the Constitution already covers everyone equally, and that, despite racism, sexism, and homophobia, to ask for anti-discrimination laws or laws providing equal protection and access is "special rights".

Strategies of Confusion and Division
...major strategies or tactics of the Christian Right can be observed. The "wedge approach" is a central strategy. The point of the wedge, or point of entry, is on an emotionally charged issue such as abortion, homosexuality, or the failing economy. The Right then uses this to gain widespread support and to build a broad constituency base that can then be expanded to include other issues on its agenda. For example, they provide information about abortion, affirmative action, parental leave, welfare, etc., to the membership and voting base built around the issue of homosexuality and then organize them to vote on these issues.

The second way the wedge is used is to divide communities against themselves and to break up the progressive base for social change. For instance, in Portland, the OCA (Oregon Citizen's Alliance) is entering African American churches and writing letters to the African American newspaper to say that homosexuals are tring to take a share of the small piece of pie that African Americans earned the hard way.

A second critical strategy is to frame the issue as one of morality rather than civil rights. To do this, the Christian Right names certain behavior as immoral, attaches that behavior to a category of people, and then identifies that entire group as immoral and to be restrained and controlled. For example, David Duke, following a long line of racist polticians such as George Wallace, Reagan, and Bush, furthered the development of coded language to get the public to think spontaneously that when crime or drugs or welfare or affirmative action are mentioned, African Americans are the problem. Hence, when he and others name drugs, crime, and illegitimacy as immoral, then connect them to a single group of people - African Americans - the next step is to think that these people are not only connected to immorality but are immoral themselves.

Now Buckshot, I commend you on your fortitude and your energetic devotion to making a point the hard way. However I do question your motives, especially since you made a point of mentioning that you hold no adherence to any particular religious belief system.

Did you realize that you were being used by a bunch of fanatical Christians?

I wager that you and I actually have far more in common than you are willing to admit. In fact, I wager that you have more in common with most of the leftists on this blog than with your friends on the right. You seem to crave uncomfortable truths. That is exactly what we do too. We just try not to let others misdirect our debate on the issues. That is why Michael keeps asking you to stay on topic.

It might be a refreshing exercise for you to unload both barrels into us, but to us that gets tiresome quickly. Everyone on the left has already heard those bigoted arguments and instinctively dismissed them some time around puberty. We enjoy discussing our commonalities and developing new understandings, just as you yourself claim to.

The one difference is that we refuse to let others use us as pawns regardless of what the hidden agenda may be. We want it all out in the open. We want facts and truths. We want clear thinking. We get off on clarity. That is why we are just as critical of Kerry as we are of Bush (or at least I am). That is why we support democracy and socialism rather than authoritarianism and economic tyranny.

The right has clearly overreached. Bush's inaugural limousine was egged in 2001 and pegged with snowballs in 2005. Despite pulling out all the stops, the Bush Crime Family lost both those elections and only took power by cheating. The election fraud stinks so badly now that even Jimmy Carter refuses to monitor the elections in Florida because basic elements of accountability present in third world countries do not exist in Florida. Any attempt to monitor the election would be an exercise in futility.

For most of my adult life now the social and economic climate in the US has been stuck in a rut while much of the westernized world has looked on in amused befuddlement. It is time to break up the logjam. It is time to remove the fanatics from power. I get the feeling that you feel the same, in your own way. I think however you might not have found a home yet.

Join us.

Incertus

You been in war now, Incertus?

I have not been, and I worded that statement very carefully so as not to leave that impression. I've been on the receiving end of shitty Republican economic policy most of my life, however, so I have a particular distaste for it.

I have a great number of college friends who have seen it, however, simply because I came from a place so economically distressed that the Army Reserves was the best place to get the money for a college education. And there but for the grace of God (and missing a question on a vision exam for depth perception) go I--I was ready to take the oath and ship out to basic up to that point. That was 1999. I'd likely be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now otherwise.

buckshot

Hey Incertus,

If you had been around before Reagan's massive tax cuts, you could have really cried about shitty economic policies. Go look at the tax rates pre-Reagan.

What I enjoy the most on this blog is thinking about the day that you young folks realise....

"Hey, I've been crying for TAX HIKES my whole young life, and now they've finally RAISED TAXES ON ME, and now I'm really huring....and will be hurting for the rest of my life!"

That is known as "waking up and smelling the coffee."

The comments to this entry are closed.