Mancow and The New McCarthyism

By chi_nick
December 6th, 2005 @ 8:54 AM Uncategorized

free%20speech%20radio%20network.jpg
Defeat is victory. Good is evil. Truth is treason.

I didn

64 Comments so far

  1. Darby (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 1:59 am

    I don’t do the whole name-calling thing and don’t agree with anyone who does.

    I have to bust you on this. You called me a liar. you also attacked me for “calling names” while ignoring the actual truth of the matter. I shut you down completely on that so you decided to totally sidestep the issue. Those are the facts. That said, you managed to actually say something that demonstrates some knowledge, so I’ll stay in this one.

    Your first problem is you associate the Left with individual rights.

    Very nasty to play it assuming a “problem”, but I’ve come to expect that on this forum, so fine.
    In kind, your problem is that you’re assuming I’m a leftist. Presumably you’ll again ignore it if I ask you to demonstrate anything I’ve said that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that I’m what you’re assuming I am. Hating Fascism doesn’t make one a leftist.

    If you are talking about Liberalism in the classical sense then you’d be correct

    Call me old fashioned if you like, but I’m not aware of any other word that describes my beliefs. Just because both the Left and the Right have aggressively attacked the word in an attempt to destroy the concept of individual liberty in favor of big oppressive government doesn’t change the fact that Liberalism is the idea that individual liberty is key. In fact I sum up Liberalism in one Sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal”. Since we’ve gotten this far, I have to assume that you know that the peak of the Liberal movement is The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Spare me any mention of the Libertarian party as I am aware of them, I voted for Badnarik, although if Bush had a chance in Illinois I would have held my nose and voted Kerry, but they seem (To me, pure opinion, to just be a bunch of anarcho-capitalist Randroids)

    but in talking about the Left you would certainly be hard pressed to prove they are for “individual rights.” I’m anxious to get into this one with you :).

    Knock yourself out. You would be much harder pressed to prove the Right is for it.
    It’s pretty simple really.
    The Left agrees with the basic premise of Liberalism. Their problem is that they want to use the power of the state against the individual to enforce that equality. Da, comrade? I’ll admit that I lean a tad bit to the left. I think that the outlawing of slavery was a good thing. I think that *some* anti-discrimination laws are necessary evils. A few things like that are IMHO essential at this point in time.

    Now, the Right on the other hand, disagrees with the basic premise of Liberalism. They don’t think that all men are created equal and further they think that the power of the state should be used to prevent equality. Don’t bitch at me about this part of the argument, those are how Left and Right are defined. That’s why the Republican party is *the* party of the wealthy elite. The Dems suck up corporate dollars as well, but they have to appease a lot of different people as well.
    It plays out somewhat muddy in American politics, since the Republican party are *extreme* Right wing, and the Democratic party are moderate Right wingers with a few Left-fascists (Plus Russ Feingold, who I personally consider to be the only member of congress who wouldn’t be a better person with a bullet hole where his face used to be, but that’s just me.)

    There is no real left in America ( ok, the Green party but I did qualify it ;-). There is no center, unless you consider the Libertarians to be that, which I addressed already, briefly.

    Seriously, one of the things that most pisses me off about all the political nonsense you hear is “Left this, Right that” How many of them actually have a clue what they’re right or left of?!?

    It’s this little thing called Liberalism.

    Yes, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, they are all corporations.

    No, ignoring certain ways of “structuring” things, *they* aren’t.

    NBC/MSNBC are *owned* by a corporation. That corporation is called General Electric (GE) It is one of the largest corporations in the world. It is also one of the largest weapons manufacturers. When shit blows up, they get paid.
    Were NBC to have stood up against the war in a real way, then that would have negatively affected GEs bottom line. That would leave GEs execs open to a lawsuit from the shareholders. They would not have acted in a way consistent with maximizing profits. Whether or not a particular group of shareholders would have had demonstrated their complete amorality in order to undertake such a suit is irrelevant to the topic. The fact is that that is the way corporate law is structured.

    ABC are *owned* by Disney. I know a lot of people grew up on Disney and think they’re great, but I’m sure you know of the “Mickey Mouse Copyright Act”? The “Senator from Disney”?

    Tough to get more anti individual freedom than locking up ideas.

    CBS are *owned* by Viacom. Surely, you’re aware of their support for various anti citizen (if you ever call me a “consumer” I will kick you square in the nuts if I ever see you) legislation?

    CNN are owned by Time Warner/AOL

    All of these corporation are major donators to Bush. In fact they relied heavily on his support of removing restrictions on media ownership to acquire greater holdings. It’s a deal made in hell. Greater profits for them, less people he has to have a drink with to get a few things done.

    They are also staffed and headed by Leftists

    A reasonable person would agree that this point is laughable by now.
    General day to day stuff… well it doesn’t really matter, does it? Big deals? Well, that’s obvious. As I made clear in my discussion of the leadup to the war.

    Lets see…. deaths, killing civilians, atrocities (the orgy of Gitmo),

    Well, heck, that sells, right? You’re a right winger aren’t you? Profit above all?

    That you consider the fact that America, bastion of freedom and Liberalism ( Too bad if you hate that word ) has decided to go down the road of torture and oppression (not exactly a new thing) and it still is able to be reported to be a bad thing is no longer frightening, but the cognitive dissonance still hurts.

    the orgy of Cindy Sheehan

    I missed that. Do you have a torrent?

    the free ride to Kerry about his military service compared to Bush,

    Wow. You have totally lost it.
    Mostly all I heard was Swift Boat Vets.
    That’s all that was on Mancow apart from Ann Freaking Coulter. ( Well gosh darnit all to heck, I managed to get on topic!!!).

    Why no mention of the fact that a large portion of the money that allowed Bush to grow up as a spoiled coke addled drunk was “earned” by his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush who narrowly avoided treason charges because he was dealing with the Nazis all throughout WW2? Sure, don’t blame the sons for the treason of the fathers. Instead portray him as a “regular guy”.

    Heck, the fact that Saudis constituted the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers was barely glossed over, if that.
    Besides the fact that they are old old friends of the Bush family, they own a substantial portion of America. Wouldn’t want to upset profitable advertisers, now would we?

    Oh wait. You’re saying that doesn’t matter at all because they’re all leftists.

    Right.

    Did you know that the Left gets its donations generally from corporations, rich white guys, and PACs? And the Right gets theirs from individual donors on average? Did you know that the average Evangelical Christian is richer, happier, more educated, and more affluent than the normal American and not a dumb lemming?

    I know you’re throwing out averages all muddled up.
    I can conclude from what you said that the Republicans get the majority of their donations from evangelical “Christians”. No surprise. The quotes are to remind me to ask you to find a way to demonstrate how somebody could be both a Christian and a Republican. As far as I can tell, they’re diametrically opposed philosophies.

    Do you remember Colin Powell at the UN showing the tapes of the Iraqis speaking of the WMDs moving over to Syria?

    Not so much. Mostly, I remember him shaking around a vial ranting nonsense about how we were all going to die if we didn’t invade now. I’m not saying he went long on GE, but…..

    Do you remember Dan Rather’s false documents?

    See above (previous posting in this thread) I obviously remember it much more clearly than you do if you’re attempting to use that to prop up your point.


  2. Darby (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 2:08 am

    I don’t do the whole name-calling thing and don’t agree with anyone who does.

    I have to bust you on this. You called me a liar. you also attacked me for “calling names” while ignoring the actual truth of the matter. I shut you down completely on that so you decided to totally sidestep the issue. Those are the facts. That said, you managed to actually say something that demonstrates some knowledge, so I’ll stay in this one.

    Your first problem is you associate the Left with individual rights.

    Very nasty to play it assuming a “problem”, but I’ve come to expect that on this forum, so fine.
    In kind, your problem is that you’re assuming I’m a leftist. Presumably you’ll again ignore it if I ask you to demonstrate anything I’ve said that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that I’m what you’re assuming I am. Hating Fascism doesn’t make one a leftist.

    If you are talking about Liberalism in the classical sense then you’d be correct

    Call me old fashioned if you like, but I’m not aware of any other word that describes my beliefs. Just because both the Left and the Right have aggressively attacked the word in an attempt to destroy the concept of individual liberty in favor of big oppressive government doesn’t change the fact that Liberalism is the idea that individual liberty is key. In fact I sum up Liberalism in one Sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal”. Since we’ve gotten this far, I have to assume that you know that the peak of the Liberal movement is The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Spare me any mention of the Libertarian party as I am aware of them, I voted for Badnarik, although if Bush had a chance in Illinois I would have held my nose and voted Kerry, but they seem (To me, pure opinion, to just be a bunch of anarcho-capitalist Randroids)

    but in talking about the Left you would certainly be hard pressed to prove they are for “individual rights.” I’m anxious to get into this one with you :).

    Knock yourself out. You would be much harder pressed to prove the Right is for it.
    It’s pretty simple really.
    The Left agrees with the basic premise of Liberalism. Their problem is that they want to use the power of the state against the individual to enforce that equality. Da, comrade? I’ll admit that I lean a tad bit to the left. I think that the outlawing of slavery was a good thing. I think that *some* anti-discrimination laws are necessary evils. A few things like that are IMHO essential at this point in time.

    Now, the Right on the other hand, disagrees with the basic premise of Liberalism. They don’t think that all men are created equal and further they think that the power of the state should be used to prevent equality. Don’t bitch at me about this part of the argument, those are how Left and Right are defined. That’s why the Republican party is *the* party of the wealthy elite. The Dems suck up corporate dollars as well, but they have to appease a lot of different people as well.
    It plays out somewhat muddy in American politics, since the Republican party are *extreme* Right wing, and the Democratic party are moderate Right wingers with a few Left-fascists (Plus Russ Feingold, who I personally consider to be the only member of congress who wouldn’t be a better person with a bullet hole where his face used to be, but that’s just me.)

    There is no real left in America ( ok, the Green party but I did qualify it ;-). There is no center, unless you consider the Libertarians to be that, which I addressed already, briefly.

    Seriously, one of the things that most pisses me off about all the political nonsense you hear is “Left this, Right that” How many of them actually have a clue what they’re right or left of?!?

    It’s this little thing called Liberalism.

    Yes, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, they are all corporations.

    No, ignoring certain ways of “structuring” things, *they* aren’t.

    NBC/MSNBC are *owned* by a corporation. That corporation is called General Electric (GE) It is one of the largest corporations in the world. It is also one of the largest weapons manufacturers. When shit blows up, they get paid.
    Were NBC to have stood up against the war in a real way, then that would have negatively affected GEs bottom line. That would leave GEs execs open to a lawsuit from the shareholders. They would not have acted in a way consistent with maximizing profits. Whether or not a particular group of shareholders would have had demonstrated their complete amorality in order to undertake such a suit is irrelevant to the topic. The fact is that that is the way corporate law is structured.

    ABC are *owned* by Disney. I know a lot of people grew up on Disney and think they’re great, but I’m sure you know of the “Mickey Mouse Copyright Act”? The “Senator from Disney”?

    Tough to get more anti individual freedom than locking up ideas.

    CBS are *owned* by Viacom. Surely, you’re aware of their support for various anti citizen (if you ever call me a “consumer” I will kick you square in the nuts if I ever see you) legislation?

    CNN are owned by Time Warner/AOL

    All of these corporation are major donators to Bush. In fact they relied heavily on his support of removing restrictions on media ownership to acquire greater holdings. It’s a deal made in hell. Greater profits for them, less people he has to have a drink with to get a few things done.

    They are also staffed and headed by Leftists

    A reasonable person would agree that this point is laughable by now.
    General day to day stuff… well it doesn’t really matter, does it? Big deals? Well, that’s obvious. As I made clear in my discussion of the leadup to the war.

    Lets see…. deaths, killing civilians, atrocities (the orgy of Gitmo),

    Well, heck, that sells, right? You’re a right winger aren’t you? Profit above all?

    That you consider the fact that America, bastion of freedom and Liberalism ( Too bad if you hate that word ) has decided to go down the road of torture and oppression (not exactly a new thing) and it still is able to be reported to be a bad thing is no longer frightening, but the cognitive dissonance still hurts.

    the orgy of Cindy Sheehan

    I missed that. Do you have a torrent?

    the free ride to Kerry about his military service compared to Bush,

    Wow. You have totally lost it.
    Mostly all I heard was Swift Boat Vets.
    That’s all that was on Mancow apart from Ann Freaking Coulter. ( Well gosh darnit all to heck, I managed to get on topic!!!).

    Why no mention of the fact that a large portion of the money that allowed Bush to grow up as a spoiled coke addled drunk was “earned” by his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush who narrowly avoided treason charges because he was dealing with the Nazis all throughout WW2? Sure, don’t blame the sons for the treason of the fathers. Instead portray him as a “regular guy”.

    Heck, the fact that Saudis constituted the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers was barely glossed over, if that.
    Besides the fact that they are old old friends of the Bush family, they own a substantial portion of America. Wouldn’t want to upset profitable advertisers, now would we?

    Oh wait. You’re saying that doesn’t matter at all because they’re all leftists.

    Right.

    Did you know that the Left gets its donations generally from corporations, rich white guys, and PACs? And the Right gets theirs from individual donors on average? Did you know that the average Evangelical Christian is richer, happier, more educated, and more affluent than the normal American and not a dumb lemming?

    I know you’re throwing out averages all muddled up.
    I can conclude from what you said that the Republicans get the majority of their donations from evangelical “Christians”. No surprise. The quotes are to remind me to ask you to find a way to demonstrate how somebody could be both a Christian and a Republican. As far as I can tell, they’re diametrically opposed philosophies.

    Do you remember Colin Powell at the UN showing the tapes of the Iraqis speaking of the WMDs moving over to Syria?

    Not so much. Mostly, I remember him shaking around a vial ranting nonsense about how we were all going to die if we didn’t invade now. I’m not saying he went long on GE, but…..

    Do you remember Dan Rather’s false documents?

    See above (previous posting in this thread) I obviously remember it much more clearly than you do if you’re attempting to use that to prop up your point.


  3. Darby (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 2:23 am

    Sorry for the double post.


  4. Will (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 12:38 am

    Did you know that the average Evangelical Christian is richer, happier, more educated, and more affluent than the normal American and not a dumb lemming?

    This is rubbish, all noise and no signal. First, from what data are you drawing these conclusions? Second, does this statement have any actual meaning outside of its rhetoric? What is “average” versus “normal?” What does “happier” mean — how do you define happiness?

    Your language here poses your supposed “rich and happy” Evangelical Christian as abnormal, though it doesn’t bother to define normalcy. “Richer” and “more affluent” sound, to me, like softened terms. One cannot be “richer” or “more affluent” without being rich or affluent, however. So if your argument is that the “average Evangelical Christian” is rich and affluent, I have to not only disagree but doubt your motives.

    If you want to argue that the most nationally visible and audible Evangelical Christians are rich and affluent, I could probably be convinced.

    I don’t know if you’ve done this on purpose, but your argument can be rhetorically reduced to this: “Did you know that the average Evangelical Christian is better than the normal American?” Does that sound like what you meant?

    Is it a wonder why folks can’t settle in for civilized debate when so many arguments come down to fancy, uninformed generalizations and declarations of hostile disrespect from both sides? This all reminds me why I used to just be wary of associating myself with a single party — and why today I’d be ashamed to do it.


  5. Darby (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 10:24 am

    Is it a wonder why folks can’t settle in for civilized debate when so many arguments come down to fancy, uninformed generalizations and declarations of hostile disrespect from both sides? This all reminds me why I used to just be wary of associating myself with a single party — and why today I’d be ashamed to do it.

    I have to agree with you 100% on this.
    It seems like many people have “religious” beliefs in their party, since they treat any criticism even if done in a polite well-reasoned manner as heresy.
    It really baffles me when it’s pretty obvious that both major parties act in their own interests pretty much exclusively to the benefit of their major donors and to the detriment of pretty much everything else.


  6. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 10:55 am

    Darby-
    Now, the Right on the other hand, disagrees with the basic premise of Liberalism. They don’t think that all men are created equal and further they think that the power of the state should be used to prevent equality

    You are making crazy generalizations. You know nothing about the difference and this is the problem. The Right disagrees with equality? Are you kidding me? What more of a slander can you come up with. There are two types of equality… equality of opportunity and equality of condition. The Left (Today’s Liberals) seek to IMPOSE equality of condition through power of government. It seems you disagree with this and I applaud you for that.
    For the record I disagree with 80%+ of what Bush Jr. does at home. I think he mishandled the public relations of the war and I am not a Republican. I, though, agree with equality of OPPORTUNITY. I believe that each individual can make a decision for themselves without Daddy Sam stepping in and forcing them this way or that. I believe that coprorations are inherently amoral, and that if the American citizens backed up their beliefs with their dollars we wouldn’t need a whole lot of regulation. I am a Capitalist and believe in the properties of the theory of emmergence that relate to the economy and turning it into a basically self-regulating system. You have spoke out about gross generalizations, but to lump “Republicans” as the party of the wealthy elite you are gravely mistaken.
    As I said in this post or another, its the Democrats that get their donations from the elite, the Unions, and the PACs. Republicans by far get more from individual small donations. Look at the elections maps lately. Is Idaho the state of the wealthy elite or did I miss something? Maybe you forgot that Chicago, LA, San Fran and New York vote Left… maybe you forgot the Hamptons vote Left and not Republican. Your statement about the “difference between the two sides” is blatantly and embarassingly false.

    Will-
    This is rubbish, all noise and no signal. First, from what data are you drawing these conclusions? Second, does this statement have any actual meaning outside of its rhetoric? What is “average” versus “normal?” What does “happier” mean — how do you define happiness?

    First of all, though I’m sure you’ll try to discount it, polls, studies and scientific inquiries prove this. I don’t know what you consider rubbish but it seems that any fact that opposes your viewpoint falls in that category. Let me rephrase my statement so you don’t get so caught up in trying to parse it to oblivion:

    An Evangelical Christian is more likely to be rich and happy than a non-Evangelical Christian.

    Rich is a loaded word, the government considers rich to be 6 figures income, maybe less. But considering the median income in the US is 45k or so anything more than that is “rich.” Your other HUGE problem is that you DON’T know how to define happiness. In a secular society, which is inherently materialistic, a lot of people think that terrorism is caused by poverty, racism is at fault for the economic differences in races, etc. In a society like ours, happiness is basically not even talked about because you can’t quantify it. Maybe you should talk a few people, maybe a lot of people, and ask them if they are happy. I bet they know.


  7. Darby (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 1:55 pm

    You are making crazy generalizations.

    No, in fact I’m using those terms as they are generally defined. They *are* generalizations by definition. You seem to be arguing that the Republican party and the Democratic party do not fall neatly into those characterisations and if so, then I would agree with you. In fact I pointed it out explicitly.

    The Left (Today’s Liberals) seek to IMPOSE equality of condition through power of government.

    Again, I’ll have to ask you not to use the left and liberal as synonomous, unless you can come up with another term to replace it.
    Also, “left versus right” and “liberal versus conservative” aren’t the same thing, nor do they take into account the spread of political views.

    It seems you disagree with this and I applaud you for that.

    In the interest of pure pedantry, I’ll have to disambiguate this:

    I certainly don’t disagree with this as it’s exactly what I said. That is the *definition* of the left. The right is *defined* as the opposite.
    That’s why I keep to the definition of Liberal I continually use because otherwise you’re left with no word to use when discussing the idea that there is another view that doesn’t involve using the power of the state against anyone.

    I do disagree that it is a good thing, in general, though (which is what you meant ;-). As I said, I do lean a tad to the left, so I do think it is a necessary evil in *some* circumstances, human nature being what it is.

    I believe that coprorations are inherently amoral, and that if the American citizens backed up their beliefs with their dollars we wouldn’t need a whole lot of regulation.

    No need to “believe” corporations are inherently amoral. It’s explicitly encoded into the laws governing them. I’m not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that an opinion or belief is far less strong of an argument than an established fact. Since the stronger argument is available to you, why not use it?
    I also agree that if beliefs were backed up by dolars, then we wouldn’t need as much legislation in that arena, but I’m wondering if you don’t actually realise that most of the bad legislation in regards to corporations are enacted by the corporations to their benefit.
    Some examples are the DMCA, the Broadcast flag (struck down a few times lately, but still not going away for long) the various other copyright extension laws as well as the raft of other pro-corporate anti-citizen laws and the massive corporate welfare programs. I mean our government is so ridiculously slanted in favor of corporate interests the the Patriot act (nice Orwellian name that) which was ostensibly designed to help fight the “war on terror” includes a clause exempting Eli Lilly from any lawsuits brought against them in the event that it is demonstrated (as has been conjectured) that one of their medications is a cause of autism in children.

    If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have noted that the DMCA was largely pushed by the Democrats and signed by Clinton, so I’ll save you the effort of trying to jump on that as if it was either specifically relevant or contradictory to my points. Those are all inherently right wing laws. You’ll note that I have never tried to classify the Democrats as Left.
    Pro corporate laws are right wing by definition, as is corporate welfare and in fact, are Fascist by definition as well.

    I am a Capitalist and believe in the properties of the theory of emmergence that relate to the economy and turning it into a basically self-regulating system.

    So, would you describe yourself as an “anarcho-capitalist” then? Just curious.

    The problem with capitalism is that it is an inherently flawed system. Its saving grace is that it’s generally less flawed than others.
    It’s flawed in a number of ways:

    First, the end result of capitalism is one company that everybody works for for room and board with one person at the top with all of the wealth.
    OK, that’s what would happen in theory. In reality, there would be several people at the top since it’s pretty boring to be that rich alone, plus a moderately sized middle lair of people pointing guns at the rest. That system was called Feudalism when it was last in place, but we’re steadily heading back in that direction.

    This result is inevitable, since capitalism relies entirely on a complete fiction known as the free market.

    There is no such thing as a free market, and no possibility of there ever being such a thing. To many things act to destroy it when any approximation to such is put into place.

    A free market depends absolutely on a couple things.
    One is perfect knowledge on the part of the participants in the market i.e. you and me.
    Marketing’s primary purpose is to prevent this. Control of all major media sources by major corporations is another thing designed to prevent this.

    Another requirement for a free market is competition. This is in no way in anywhere near as bad a shape as knowledge is, but monopolies and cartels completely warp the market. That these arise is likewise inevitable without some form of regulation, which I’m sure you will quite correctly point out is another influence to make the market “unfree”.

    What we have going on in America fairly recently (well since WW2 at least) is the government working with the corporations to enact legislation to help shift the market even farther away from free towards one which most benefits the wealthiest corporations at the expense of the citizenry and the free market.

    A very simple current example of the results of this can be seen with the off shoring craze.
    The labor market is fairly free relative to the market for the results of that labor. You can offshore your manufacturing to a country where labor is much cheaper in part due to the lack of any sort of health and safety concerns for the workers. Yet, you can’t get the goods at the price that would be dictated by that same market without running into serious government restrictions.

    Another example is DVDs. You may or may not know this, but most DVD movies are “region encoded”. That means that if you buy a DVD in a different part of the world and then come back here and slap it into your DVD player, it won’t play.
    This is done by the members of the MPAA cartel in order to avoid working in a free market.
    A DVD of the same movie costs substantially more in England than it does in America. In an actual free market, people in England would order their DVDs from America (or actually, we’d both order them form another region where they’re cheaper still), pay the shipping and still be better off.
    This is specifically prevented by a cartel in order to extract more than the market price for their goods.

    So, I’m certainly not a socialist or a communist, but neither am I of the opinion that capitalism in a vacuum with no means of oversight is the answer either.

    You have spoke out about gross generalizations, but to lump “Republicans” as the party of the wealthy elite you are gravely mistaken.

    I said they were *the* party of the wealthy elite, the intent being that the Democrats are *the other* party of the wealthy elite.
    The Republicans are far more aggressive and open about this though. Most of the massive corporate welfare comes from the Republicans, the recent tax cuts are geared to help the wealthiest of the wealthy pay less for a system from which they receive the most benefit.

    Look at the elections maps lately. Is Idaho the state of the wealthy elite or did I miss something?

    Perhaps you did miss something, or rather I was unclear.
    By saying that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy elite, I meant that most especially in regards to the federal government, the people elected as the representatives of the Republican party act to benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of everybody else. I wasn’t referring to the demographics making up those who vote Republican.

    Maybe you forgot that Chicago, LA, San Fran and New York vote Left… maybe you forgot the Hamptons vote Left and not Republican.

    Now you’re mixing and matching incompatible terms again. LA, SF and NY largely vote Democrat, not Left.
    In the Hamptons bit, you set Left versus Republican which is again a false dichotomy.

    That’s why I keep harping on about using these terms correctly.
    You seem to be saying Left, Liberal, and Democrat are all equivalent when they are completely distinct terms which sometimes overlap but quite often don’t
    Similarly for Right, Conservative, and Republican.

    Your statement about the “difference between the two sides” is blatantly and embarassingly false.

    No, in fact, my statement about the 2 sides (Left and Right) is entirely accurate. You are mischaracterising 6 different things as being only 2.


  8. Will (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 3:49 pm

    First of all, though I’m sure you’ll try to discount it, polls, studies and scientific inquiries prove this. I don’t know what you consider rubbish but it seems that any fact that opposes your viewpoint falls in that category.

    This, sir, is why you and I won’t be able to have a conversation. It’s the same reason why so many political debates fall into scree. Because you’ve looked at a single response and categorized me away. Didn’t take long.

    You don’t know me, but you’re sure I discount anything that opposes your viewpoint. That’s a lazy assumption. I’m a Christian with moderate, slightly Republican political beliefs. Assume what you will.

    Second, you’re a disembodied voice on the internet. When you say that a “scientific inquiry” proves something, that simply doesn’t make it so. What polls? What studies? Let’s all stop presuming that statistics are accurate simply because someone polled.

    The statement that Evangelical Christians are somehow more likely to be “rich” and “happy” is a statistical observation, not evidence of a causal relationship. Can you show me data that explains how my becoming evangelical will increase my likelihood of being rich? Can you show me data in which more Evangelical Christians reported being happy than non-evangelicals? Can you show me data that demonstrates that evagelism is why the “happiness spread” (if you follow me) falls as it does?

    This is what I mean when I say the statement is noise and not signal. It is an unsupported claim within your argument with no higher point. What is your “rich and happy” claim supposed to inspire? How is it supposed to change the way I think? A hollow statistic is like a prosthetic leg without a body


  9. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 5:09 pm

    Well Will I agree with a lot of what you said. I apologize if my comments came off harshly, most of my bantering has been with Darby and such that tend to assume viewpoints also. My goal was not to assume your viewpoints.

    So my question then, is, since you want the evidence to back up my claims… if I listed the studies and links to their information, would you believe them? Probably not, what I find in a place like this (though I am not speaking for you) is that whenever a source is used there is an attempt to destroy whatever credibility it has or brush it off. I can sure list the studies, here are a few:

    ABC News report on a study by an MIT economics professor
    An overtly Christian website with polls on happiness

    Now I can suspect that Darby would try to destroy these sources and any more I throw out. The problem with happiness is that it is not “measurable” in a scientific sense. Much of the human brain is not. Wealth, though, is easier to measure. I can argue quite easily that there are a lack of studies on the relationship between faith and happiness/weath because people don’t want to hear the answer they know is there. The other problem is that if someone has “faith” in ORDER to be happy or wealthy, they don’t have faith.

    So, I guess my question stands. If I produce these and other sources, does my argument stand to you?


  10. Bear (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 9:51 am

    I call conservative republican politicans “Religious Merchandisers”, or as they’re referred to in the Bible, “grievous wolves”. They play on our sympathy, in this case, for the social unrest in Iraq, and our faith, by claiming to be one of us. George W. Bush claims to be a protestant, yet until he was pressured over months and months, he supported torture of human beings. “Do unto others as thou wilst have done unto thee,” is how the bible reads. Has George W. ever read the bible? I doubt it, because if he has, he’d know that the middle east, Iraq included, has been plagued with unrest for thousands of years. Our political ideals and agendas will never convert barbarians into peaceful human beings. Iraq will not be peaceful until the return of the Lord. A learned protestant should know this. George Bush is just another grievous wolf, and Mancow blindly supports him and his party of counterfeit Christians.

    I support Howard Dean, although he should not have backed down when confronted about his potent choice of words. He who hath no rule over his spirit is like a city broken down without walls. By giving the enemy ground, Howard allowed the enemy to stampede right over him, and that “enemy” being armchair warriors and people so blinded by their love of God, they do not use logical perception to peer behind the mask and see the truth.

    My father was an indepentent contractor in Iraq for many months. My second cousin is a soldier in the national guard. Many times, I was cut off over the phone when my father tried to talk about how he really felt about the situation in Iraq. The phones are censored, and so is the media. A great example of how the administration in power has tried to use the media to “prove” that progress is being made in Iraq is the recent conference between Bush and soldiers in Iraq. The event was totally rehearsed, and in the administration’s best interest, rightfully so, because any unrehearsed conference would result in a negative outcome for the religious mechandising team.

    This exercise in futility and senseless sacrifice disgusts me.

    That is all.


  11. nikkos (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 10:53 am

    Bear, thanks for your comments.

    That’s the first I’ve heard of censorship of phone calls.

    I think it’s interesting that you are coming from a religious perspective, while I am not, and yet, we arrive at essentially the same conclusion.


  12. Ben (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 11:11 am

    Bear says “A great example of how the administration in power has tried to use the media to “prove” that progress is being made in Iraq is the recent conference between Bush and soldiers in Iraq.”

    A higher percentage of Iraqi’s voted in the election than have EVER voted in the USA.

    Progress? No way!. The Iraqi people obviously don’t want to be free and elect their leaders. Bush just staged the election. He’s such a fraud!


  13. nikkos (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 11:17 am

    Ben, you know as well as I do that Bear’s comment was not in regards to the election.

    That being said, let me say that the initial results are a reason for some hope and optimism. It’s nice just to see something good happening in Iraq. However, my optimism is tempered by the reality that democracy is a process, not an event. The smiling and cheering crowds can, as we have already seen, quickly change to hostility and bloodshed. We are now at the point where our departure from Iraq is inevitable- the only question that reminas is whether or not it will be an orderly withdrawl or a fighting retreat. Positive events such as the election help to point the needle, perhaps only temporarily, towards the former as opposed to the latter. But the latter scenario is still a very real possibility.

    So, while I am pleased with the election, in terms of turnout and levels of participation, I can’t agree that this somehow retroactively justifies the lies and distortions which led us into this war in the first place.

    Democracy is wonderful thing- and the election in Iraq is a reason for hope. But the question reamins: should we be exproting democracy around the world, at the barrel of a gun, if need be?

    Would Americans have supported going to war in March 2003 if they were told that its main aim would be to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq (rather than the non-existent WMD’s)?


  14. Ben (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 11:43 am

    I



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.