The futility of arguing with hardcore Leftists *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Sep 10 2008 at 8:45 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Prior to Palin’s appearance on the national political scene, conservatives had long griped about the fact that the media’s narrative was slanted against them, but it was often difficult to point to something obvious that demonstrated this fact. The media slipped up occasionally in big ways, such as Rathergate, but usually the bias was expressed more subtly, with turns of phrase, and over- or underexposure of issues. With Palin, though, the ideological Left has abandoned subtlety and given up on any effort to advance actual facts.
I’m not the only one who has noticed the wholesale embrace of absolute falsehoods. Ace noticed it too and did some investigating. He discovered that the hardcore Left is encouraging the dissemination of out and out lies as an absolute necessity in the war against McCain and Palin. Here’s Ace:
That’s a weird thing: Coordinated mass lying. Shit is slipping by us that we’re assuming might be true or somewhat true (those missing months of Bristol’s when she was carrying baby Trig, that “Alaskan Airline crew members stated Palin didn’t look pregnant,” etc.) just because we’re simply not used to thousands of people agreeing to spread deliberate lies to as many people as they can. The fact that multiple people on multiple websites are claiming it, seemingly independently, tricks us into thinking, subconsciously maybe, “Gee, they must have gotten that from some article; they all couldn’t just be lying in unison.”
Or could they?
I’ll print this posting found at DU, tipped to me by the great Larwyn, again:
122. What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.
The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it” bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?
If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls” are not helping shape the message.
J
By the way, if you’re a student of history, the directive in the last paragraph quoted, the one about abandoning truth in favor of useful lies, may strike you as familiar. It’s the same technique that Goebbels perfected on Hitler’s behalf. Goebbels’ theory was that the only “truth” is that which leads to the desired goal. Or, as he said, “That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.”
Repeat lies, big and little, often enough, and you will convince people of their truth. Confuse straightforward arguments with myriad irrelevant, and often false, facts, and you will eventually exhaust people. The good will walk away in disgust; the weak will capitulate and accept your false premises. Either way, you win.
There is a point to this post beyond the obvious one of highlighting the way in which the Progressives, Liberals and Democrats (and whatever else they’re styling themselves)* have gone after Palin in an attempt to destroy the Republican ticket. As many of my regular readers have noticed, my comments have been visited with overwhelming frequency by a handful people who oppose Bush and the Republicans, and are supportive of Obama and the Democrats. Certainly that is their right to hold those views.
However, while their views are rightfully theirs, this blog is mine. I’ve always encouraged open debate in the comments at this blog, and I’d like to continue to do so. As long time readers know, some of the most interesting, enlightening and truly civil discussions here have involved people who are not conservative, but who come here with genuine good will and a desire to discuss issues.
My recent liberal commenters, however, seem less interested in reasoned debate, and much more interested in generating confusion and disinformation. In other words, their tag team approach, demonstrated by an overwhelming volume and immediacy of responses, suggests a concerted effort to “shape the message” in precisely the way described in that DU post Ace describes. Not only does this hog space, but it turns reading my blog into an exhausting exercise, and makes the blog a hostile environment to my regular, more temperate readers.
If this were a public forum, of course, we would all put up with this noise, since it would be a sign of a healthy public marketplace of ideas. This is not a public forum, however. It is my personal blog. If you, my readers, are enjoying the debate, I will continue to let it flow freely. However, if the intentional or unintentional tag-team approach that’s playing out now results in my blog being co-opted as a forum for views with which I disagree, let this post stand as warning that I will block commenting privileges — and I will do so by the end of this week.
And please don’t anybody cry censorship. I’m not the government. This is not a public space. This is my intellectual parlor, and I am free to include those I feel enter with good will, and exclude those I feel come with a more nefarious purpose.
_____________________
*A propos the way in which liberals keep changing their name: There seems to be a sense among them that one term after another that is associated with them degrades in value. We know this happens with language. The most lovely example is the word beldam, which now means an “old hag,” but which comes from the French phrase for beautiful woman. As the term “liberal” has become degraded from its association with the Left, the Lefter side of the spectrum has abandoned it for the term Progressive. However, as long as the ideas continue the same, I suspect the title “Progressives,” too, will fall into disrepute.
UPDATE: Old War Dogs has an excellent no troll policy. A little more blunt than anything I would write, but the spirit is dead on correct.
Email This Post To A Friend
85 Responses to “The futility of arguing with hardcore Leftists *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Book, you’ve done a great job calling them out for what they are and what they do while trying to steer a civil discourse.
Here’s my recommendation:
The link below summarizes Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which derives from Goebbels’ propaganda techniques.
http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm
Analyze the content of the commentators’ posts – if it looks like an Alinsky-style assault, kick them off and alert us readers as to why you did it. The rest of us could also call them out when we see it.
As you said, it is exhausting to sort through and deconstruct the reams of lies they throw against the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. That is not debate – it’s hectoring and trying to shout down those that disagree. If they throw more than three of four charges without evidence, on issues that are easy to refute via a simple Google search, toss them.
That’s my vote, anyway.
Hi Bookworm, This is, indeed, your blog. And you do, indeed, have a right to moderate. I found a similar conversation on a conservative blog, with comments that liberals were not allowing free discussion. Too bad. I won’t allow people to call one another names (using adjectives or nouns) on my blog. That’s moderation.
Now, I’m for Obama/Biden and hope McCain/ Palin lose. As you said, it is my right to hold that opinion whether you agree with my logic or think I’m nuts. I like Palin all right but don’t want her as VP and more than I want McCain as President. Adding her to the ticket didn’t sway me. And I’ll give substance to my opinion on November 4. I’m sure we agree this is the way voting should work.
But I sincerely hope I’m not one of the liberals (by any name) you are talking about. I’d like to be welcome on your blog after November 4, no matter who wins, beacuse life in America will go on.
Helen, you are one of my favorite liberals, and the person I had in mind when I spoke of the civil and interesting discussions we’ve had in the past on this blog. Although your views are often at odds with those expressed at this blog, you are manifestly a person of good will, who comes here to discuss issues, not to scream the most loudly.
Helen, as you are not going to vote for McCain Palin, and as I am certain there is nothing I could say or do to dissuade you, I will not make the attempt. I am interested in your reaction to 1) media treatment of Palin and 2) the assertion of some posters on this blog such as Ozzie, that the nomination of Palin means the potential for an imposition of a theocracy or something like that. ( check some postings to get a better I idea: I do not want to misrepresent Ozzie’s position.)
I recall asking you a question of how you as Hillary supporter would respond to Obama as the nominee, and you gave the sensible answer that as a Democrat, you would be supporting Obama, as his positions were closer to yours than McCain’s were.
Bookworm, I think I made this point on your site very recently (and even cited Goebbels), but as it applied to the conservatives who also are engaging in this very unfortunate behavior. I think if you look carefully and honestly at even your site you will find the very same ills you decry in liberals. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but play devil’s advocate on both sets of sites. And I must say that the level of intolerance and lack of willingness to examine facts or engage in civil debate is as bad on conservative sites as it is on liberal blogs.
I haven’t “tag teamed” with anyone (although I have been ganged-up upon), do not represent any liberal organization, and certainly do not subscribe to Alinsky or Goebbels propaganda methods. So I don’t know if you are referring to me, but I suspect you are. Hence, I would like to say the following…
If you think I am producing “misinformation” then others ought to rebut it by saying why it is incorrect. That is the marketplace of ideas that powers both capitalism and democracy, when they function properly. From my perspective, I am not waging a campaign of misinformation but am trying to open people’s minds to the other side of issues, because I do not believe that either conservatives or liberals have a monopoly on truth or the correct way of looking at the world. And I find it sad that when I raise a competing viewpoint, that is also legitimate (until fairly rebutted), I am met with silence, ad hominem attacks or completely illogical, emotional rants.
For example, take your criticism of the liberal feminists who will not support Palin because she is not for their issues, such as abortion, equal pay, etc. When I raise the issue of equal pay on your site, you call it a tar baby. Those liberal feminists that you choose to characterize in what I found to be a highly biased caricature care deeply about that issue, but you say it is irrelevant. If that is “misinformation”, then perhaps you should show why. Either because you have poll data showing that liberal feminists do not care about that issue, or that they are wong on the issue. Telling everyone on the site to ignore it is supressing open discussion and (while Goebbels would be proud of that) I don’t think you want to quash debate. You strike me as too smart for that.
And there are several other examples like this that I have found on this site, from claims that Obama has a muslim background and is a “baby-killer” to allegations that economic growth was higher under Reagan than under Clinton. But if I present data or ideas that you or other conservatives disagree with, that should not be viewed as “nefarious” but as an opportunity to learn, discuss, debate, refute, change one’s own mind, or agree to disagree.
You are correct about one important thing, though. It is your site, and not the government’s. It is not illegal censorship to kick people off. And if you want your blog to be merely a community of like-minded individuals who perpetuate views, some of which are factually incorrect but nonetheless comfortable, then that is indeed your right.
It would be a shame, however, since your site actually has at times been a lot better than that. I have learned from some of my exchanges with Danny or BobK and will continue to seek out such intelligent people with different viewpoints to learn and improve my worldview. And I have much to offer in return, given my knowledge in selected areas of economics, history, law and finance, where some of your other guests (dare I say it) are less than expert. However, I cannot and will not tolerate attempting this endeavor to exchange and debate ideas with those who believe they already have all the answers and prefer ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.
I am interested in your reaction to. . the assertion of some posters on this blog such as Ozzie, that the nomination of Palin means the potential for an imposition of a theocracy or something like that. ( check some postings to get a better I idea: I do not want to misrepresent Ozzie’s position.)- Gringo
With McCain’s nomination, I thought, “OK. Kevin Phillips was just an alarmist,” and I was at peace with the world.
I thought the 2004-2005 silly season was probably just a blip in our nation’s history.
In my mind, however, Palin’s nomination confirmed how deeply entrenched the Relgious Right is within the GOP, reaffirming things I’d been reading – and suspecting – for years
I now believe that the GOP will never again elect a candidate that doesn’t appeal to Christian Conservatives. And that Phillips, who was a visionary about other issues, was probably right about America’s eventual descent into a “soft theocracy.”
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.., But if I’m right, well, it’s gonna suck to be our kids.
They’re my views and I dont mean to shout.
I’m not tag-teaming with anyone.
And I’ve not been sent here on a mission from a foreign message board.
I’m not a Democrat.
And I’m not a mole.
Its an odd world, however, when concern over the Constitution, based on the work of a GOP strategist (and echoed in the the writings of a Republican Senator and Episcapalin minister), is considered the work of “hard-core leftists.”
Hi BW,
Thanks for the analysis. I really am blind. Wondered why I was getting exhausted reading some of the posts lately. It’s going to be even more interesting over the next two months than I thought.
Al
Here is some of my dissatisfaction with the way dg goes about things. In a nutshell, they focus on three issues: throwing irrelevancies into the discussion, making careless and/or undocumented statements, and making false accusations about what other posters said ( plagiarism, “I didn’t say that.”) To his credit, dg will concede points when shown evidence. The problem I have here is that dg , or anyone else posting here for that matter, should not be making undocumented statements that documentation can easily refute. That bespeaks carelessness.
For example, take your criticism of the liberal feminists who will not support Palin because she is not for their issues, such as abortion, equal pay, etc. When I raise the issue of equal pay on your site, you call it a tar baby.
dg, do you really believe that equal pay is the big issue w liberal feminists’ dislike of Palin? And if you claim that Book brought up equal pay first, please document. IMHO, equal pay is not at all the leading issue regarding why liberal feminists are dissatisfied with Palin. Maybe reason #10. As such, it appears to be an irrelevancy.
Perhaps part of it is “failure to communicate.”
Ex. This is from memory, which can be faulty, but I can’t find the original thread: there are so many. Some time back, dg advised us to go to certain paragraphs in a link. Those paragraphs in the link discussed previous experience in Presidents: Lincoln and Hoover, among others.
I replied w a comparison of the respective experience of Obama and Lincoln.
dg replied: “I didn’t say that.” My reaction: I didn’t say you did. From later postings, we find out that dg had instead wanted us to compare Hoover with Obama, if memory serves me correctly. Which is fine, but to claim that I misrepresented what dg said, is not fair.
In another thread, dg claimed that Palin implied in her convention speech something which I documented was not at all what she ACTUALLY SAID.
To his credit, dg conceded the point. But he shouldn’t have been making an undocumented statement that is easily refuted. That shows carelessness on his part.
From the OINK thread:
I opined that “the minute Obama gets away from the teleprompter, he crosses over into gaffe country. Inflating tires, anyone?” Also note that in a previous thread I had already provided a good link for showing why Obama committed a gaffe in his air in tires discourse.
dg replies, “see what the Republican-controlled DOE says about inflating tires”, “maybe negative ads simply work on people who do not know what they are talking about (e.g., inflating tires).”
I reply, WHAT DID OBAMA ACTUALLY SAY? IOW, why did I believe that Obama committed a gaffe in the air in tires discourse? I quote Obama and cite information that shows that YES, Obama was very mistaken when he claimed that inflating tires could substitute for proposed increases in drilling. Meta-message: dg was throwing a bunch of irrelevancies into the discussion. Focus on what is being discussed: Obama’s gaffes.
To dg’s credit he finally admitted that Obama had misspoke. “And I do agree with your friend, the blogger, that Obama should have simply owned up to the misstatement, if in fact he didn’t…”
But then he misrepresents what I said/did: “you basically plagiarized one blog site to get your info.” As I acknowledged the source of my information, that is not plagiarism. Look up the definition of plagiarism, or review the song Lobachevsky.
dg also makes a statement that is so carelessly written it is difficult to discern WHAT he meant.
“And, Gringo, it didn’t come as news to me that inflating tires would replace domestic production, much less make us energy independent.” WHAT?
BTW, when it comes to drilling. is Governor Palin a Kelly girl, or NOT a Kelly girl?
I have often noticed that these type of commenters usually include a bit of passive aggressive behavior. It’s interesting to note that Obama appears to exhibit the same. That, and they often tend to say they are either lifelong republicans, or independents, and they’re just “concerned.” Guffaw.
I visualize the “chaff” expelled by “Red October” to cause the incoming torpedo to explode before it reached the submarine…
That, and they often tend to say they are either lifelong republicans, or independents, and they’re just “concerned.” Guffaw- Allen
I never said I was a lifelong Independent, but became one when it became clear to me that the Democrats could not – or would not — deliver on most campaign promises.
I didn’t vote in the last election, and was considering sitting this one out, too.
But remember that scene in the movie “Fatal Attraction,” when Glenn Close’s character jumps out of the bathtub – and scares the crap out of you, after you were certain she was dead in the water?
That’s how I feel about the Palin pick, and the enduring nature of the Religious Right.
I am concerned. And hopefully my concerns are over-the-top and unfounded.
It’s my honest opinion, based upon a laundry list of reading over the years. If I’m wrong, no big deal. But if I’m right? Well, I’ll probably be dead before we regress to Scopes Monkey Trial-level stupidity, so it wont affect me personally. My children, on the other hand, will still be here.
But accusations that I’m here for some nefarious purposes or have been teaming up with anyone or whatever else has been implied are also over-the-top and unfounded, too.
But then again, back in 2002, people called me a “wild-eyed leftist” when I doubted the Bush administration’s WMD claims, while others accused me of looking through Cold-War-colored glasses when I predicted there’d be tension with Russia over the pipeline though Georgia.
Anyone who says unpopular things should expect to be attacked and have those who dislike the message attack your integrity and motives, as others nod their heads in agreement.
Today is the anniversary of the 2001 9/11 attacks.
It sure says worlds about the success of the Bush Administration’s response to terrorism that, for some, the biggest threat today is Christian religious fundamentalists.
Gringo, I appreciate the post. Obviously I do not agree with all of it, but will take it under advisement. What you think are irrelevancies, however, sometimes are actually relevant but differing points of view. BrianE just posted yesterday that separation of church and state is not in the Bill of Rights, even though the Establishment Clause is the first part of the First Amendment. Tiresias said that growth slowed under Clinton (presumably versus prior, lower taxing administrations), but this is not the case, as the government stats I provided have clearly shown. Suek continues to post articles on lobbying links between Democrats and the GSEs even after I have repeatedly shown that Freddie and Fannie’s failure and the wider housing crisis have nothing to do with politics but with bad monetary policy and regulatory oversight under a Republican administration. You have maintained that equal pay is not an important issue to feminists, although on the website of the largest women’s PAC in the country (NOW), a constitutional amendment for equal gender rights, including equal pay, is clearly listed as one of the five key issues promoted by the group. These are not irrelevancies, as you and Bookworm have alleged, but an attempt to correct a stilted account of events or downright misstatements.
Your claim that I have at times been careless is true. Blogging is not like publishing and many people make mistakes on this site. But I readily admit when I am wrong, when evidence to the contrary is produced. And I don’t document everything, because some of it is so easy to find or too time consuming to link to, that I rely on others to find it or show it is wrong. But I do not lie or knowingly post stuff that is incorrect, although some have so alleged. If my statement is wrong, it is an accident. For example, I didn’t know that Obama had made the erroneous comment that he had about tire inflation, and I admitted as much. This was not a deliberate attempt to cover his error. Yet I have not seen many conservatives return the favor by acknowledging the gaffes that McCain or other conservatives have made (e.g., some conservatives denying that inflation increases fuel efficiency at all (as one of your linked sites said), or McCain’s followup comment that Obama thinks inflating tires leads to energy independence (which he never said)). In fact, I think if you count the frequency of admissions of error, I have been fairer than most anyone else on this site.
As to the false claims about other bloggers, I have made those too. And you are right on the false plagiarism claim. Plagiarism was the wrong word. I meant to say that your entire argument was someone else’s rather than your own, but you did give credit to that source. However, I have been the recipient of many more of these claims by conservative bloggers on this site (e.g., Bookworm’s implication that I am tag-teaming or attempting to obfuscate in a nefarious way, or Ellie2′s comment that I don’t know what hope is, or Suek’s comment that I lie). These individuals, in my opinion, have been far less willing to admit when they are wrong or ignorant on an issue, and have passed on opportunities to learn or broaden their view, especially on issues where numbers and statistics can be brought to bear to illuminate a complex issue (e.g., economic policy, the housing crisis, etc.) or issues where the identical set of facts is viewed differently depending on which party or ideology benefits (e.g., EU, US and Indian examples of censorship). Also, there are cases when you think I am making false claims when in fact I have misunderstood what was written (e.g., I’ve no idea what a Kelly girl is, much less whether Palin is one…).
I could take issue or refute some of the disagreements you’ve raised (e.g., that the McCain campaign hasn’t overstated how much domestic fossil fuels can contribute to energy independence, that I am trying to make Obama-Lincoln-Hoover comparisons or that Obama is a gaffe machine), but it is really beside the point at this stage. Rather, I would close by noting that while you have carefully inventoried many of the failings of my posts, you have not really admitted the failings of yourself or others on this site. This inability to self-criticize is a very risky trait to maintain, as it is the most certain way to failure. That I have admitted mistakes and your haven’t does not mean that I am more wrong than you; quite the opposite could in fact be true. As I mentioned in my last post, this trait also makes it impossible for others to engage you in the kind of debate on the issues that is necessary for markets and democracies to work–especially the later. And that is a huge loss to everyone, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
Danny, how many years between hits on the World Trade Centers? Hint: more than the 7th anniversary we celebrate today. I’m happy we haven’t been attacked and believe that Bush has done some important work. But you should be careful about declaring success on the part of the Bush Administration just yet…
I feel like I was caught fighting with the kids in the school yard and the teacher comes up and pulls me off the pile by my shirt.
You play nice, she says, or I’ll send you to the principal’s office!
I think I was enjoying the debate, though weary of subtle distortions (IMHO), and becoming exhausted by the sheer overload!
I’ve appreciated the opportunity to vent my spleen at times, and am convinced that the variety of opinions is healthy.
Maybe Bookworm needs to institute a 12 post a day rule, to slow things down.
You know, dg, I was thinking of something nice to say about you, but you make it so hard.
You’ve been rude to Bookworm and this is her blog.
You need to practice disagreeing in a more agreeable fashion.
Ok, here’s something nice. You’re very smart.
“That I have admitted mistakes and your haven’t does not mean that I am more wrong than you; quite the opposite could in fact be true. As I mentioned in my last post, this trait also makes it impossible for others to engage you in the kind of debate on the issues that is necessary for markets and democracies to work–especially the later. And that is a huge loss to everyone, whether you choose to recognize it or not.”
After reading this, maybe not.
Is this an apology?
Bookworm -
As you know, I love your site. You invite us here to your private salon and give us an opportunity to discuss the issues of the day.
I enjoy reading the opinions of others, so long as posters are respectful – particularly to you given that this is your site. And that is one of the biggest differences I have noticed with some of the new posters – one or two repeatedly seem to go out of their way to insult your intelligence and talent.
It really turns me off.
Hopefully things will improve but if they don’t and choose to deny access to certain posters, that’s OK. You’ll still have plenty of fans!
Deana
Today is the anniversary of the 2001 9/11 attacks.
It sure says worlds about the success of the Bush Administration’s response to terrorism that, for some, the biggest threat today is Christian religious fundamentalists.- Danny
The 9/11 Commission concluded that another terror attack is all but certain.
I’ll be suprised if we arent hit again.
But yes, I am mostly concerned about changes to our country than can only come from within. You’re right, though. The Christian Right is but one expample of those who’d happily pervert the Constitution.
Gen. Tommy Franks said that a major terror attack — happening anywhere in the Western World — would most likely cause the U.S to scrap the Constitution and “change the very fabric of our society.”
But, then again, maybe the growing influence of the Religious Right is just the natural evolution of a country that’s reached its peak and is beginning its descent?
Part of me believes that increased fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism are the natural result of America’s decline, which is accelerating even faster than experts had forecasted.
Maybe Ms. Palin, who has spent days being told what to say during interviews, is just a symbol of our inevitable lowered standards?
BrianE, how about simply admitting you were mistaken on the First Amendment and separation of church and state? Once again, no admissions of being wrong, but lots of ad hominem arguments. They say the truth hurts, so maybe that’s why you view me as rude. Sorry you cannot handle it. The truth, that is.
Deana, tell me how I have disrespected Bookworm’s intelligence and talent. Who just wrote the following? “I don’t think you want to quash debate. You strike me as too smart for that.” Disagreeing is not disrespecting…
dg –
I didn’t mention any names.
What does it mean that you assumed it was you?
Deana
Thank you, DG, for so eloquently illustrating Book’s point.
Your posts are exactly what Book was talking about – kitchen-sink litanies of undocumented charges (half-truths (for e.g. – see #13: the establishment clause is only half of the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, the rest addresses the “shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) and non-sequiturs.
Examples? Your response #12 to my post, the point of which addressed fears about Christian Fundamentalists (directly at Ozzie’s hysterics, mostly) raises a more-than seven-year gap between the two Trade Center bombings (the non-sequitur). Huh? Certainly you aren’t trying to convince us that there were no attacks after the first WTC bombing, were you? The false implication in your reply is the implication that I suggest Bush could declare victory. No, neither said that nor implied that.
Ozzie, meanwhile, chirps in with caricatured statements like, “The Christian Right is but one example of those who’d happily pervert the Constitution,” and “the Religious Right is just the natural evolution of a country that’s reached its peak and is beginning its descent?”, proving that she really doesn’t know anyone of or much about the “Christian Right”, or much of world history for that matter.
Look, DG…I agree with BrianE: you’re intelligent. I also agree that you are rude (perhaps unintentionally, I’ll give you that) when you steam-roll over people arguments with reams of undocumented statistics, random charges of the “Bush lied, people died” meme, and poorly fashioned replies.
So, here’s a suggest – throw out only one or two cogently argued, well-documented arguments at a time. For the most part, contributors on this blog love to discuss and deconstruct different points of view, even if we don’t agree (Helen can attest to that, I think). That way we can all get a little more intelligent in the process.
Ozzie, what is your reaction to this article by Juan Cole?
What’s the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick
Bookworm, You are right that sometimes the troll infections get downright exhausting. A brief review of recent comment threads will show that one very adept troll – let’s be honest – has been successfully hijacking almost all the comment threads in your posts regarding the upcoming presidential election. By the end of the comment thread, the discussion revolves not around your original statement but around responses and counter responses to earlier comments by the troll. Two noteworthy examples were a earlier post you made on the lipstick controversy which generated a masters thesis length revisionist history on the evils of Reagan’s tax cuts and the “embittered women” post about the tone of feminist argumentation that devolved into a stilted academic discourse concerning the validity of demands for “equal pay.” If you wish to remain the owner of BOTH your blog posts and the comment threads, you need to pay attention to what is happening.
This is your official Zhombre Update:
Intrade now has Obama 47.7 and McCain 50.6.
But of course the only thing that matters is how people vote on election day and any poll or other indicator is only a ‘snapshot’ and can’t give you any real feeling of how things are with the people or with the country.
@ Ozzie #18
You are seriously a one note wonder.
You remind me of the Hyenas in the “Lion King”
“Mustaffa”
“Oooh, say it again”
“Mustaffa”
Just insert “Relegious Right” in place of “Mustaffa”.
Seriously though,
I think you used General Franks quote out of context. Here is the actual quote from a multi-part answer from a question about why the Iraq war was not just about WMD’s but part of the larger war against terror:
“the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps: very, very important.”
Or read the whole interview if you like:
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,201,00.html
I don’t think General Franks would agree with your point of view, nor with your assessment of the threat from the Religious Right. I’m betting he wouldn’t appreciate you using his words to make it appear that he supports your own “troofer” like conspiracy theory. But I’m just speculating.
I would agree with your assessment that our society/culture is in moral/intellectual decline, but I see it more as a product of our liberal “anything” goes popular media culture rather than from the “Religious Right”. If any body endorses anti-intellectualism it’s our friends from the media and left (MTV, Michael Moore), not the Moral Majority. But hey, there are scumbags on both sides of the spectrum and I’m sure you can point out a few examples on the Right (I know I can). But I’m betting the average person on the block is more likely to know who Moore is rather than Dobson.
Just sayin,
Spiff
would agree with your assessment that our society/culture is in moral/intellectual decline- Spiff
Actually, I was also thinking about this recent bit of news:
An intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president on future global risks envisions a steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades. . .
[Thomas Fingar, the U.S. intelligence community's top analyst] saw U.S. leadership eroding “at an accelerating pace” in “political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302.html
Ozzie, meanwhile, chirps in with caricatured statements like, “The Christian Right is but one example of those who’d happily pervert the Constitution,”
Once again, there are people who are VERY Active in the Religious Right who want to turn the U.S into an official “Christian Nation.”
I’m being accused of highjacking threads and have already posted my thoughts about this, so I dont want to keep droing on.
But this article in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution describes one such instance, where the Religious Right, through a bill that was passed by Congress, used a loophole in the Constituion to try to topple the wall between Chruch and state:
An Excerpt:
“That is a power grab of breathtaking consequence. If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.
And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law — say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress — and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.
That’s why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora’s box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.
It’s hard to know what our Founding Fathers envisioned with that provision, or whether they understood its possible implications. But if implemented as House Republicans now intend, it would have enormous ramifications on the system of government and concepts of justice that have evolved over the last 200 years.”
Ozzie said:
[snip]
BrianE said:
[snip]
Come on, Ozzie. You’re validating the heading.
Hi Ozzie -
Just off the top of your head (no googling, please), what percentage of Republicans do you think belongs to the religious right? (And for what it is worth, I don’t have any statistics, I’m definitely not trying to play gotcha or anything think like that. I’m telling you up front right now: I don’t have an answer.)
The reason I ask is that I have noticed that many on the left seem to be convinced that the vast majority of Republicans are members of the religious right. And this perplexes me because while I know they are there, I, as a conservative, have never felt threatened by them. I rarely run into one! Do I agree with all of their ideas? No. In fact, some really annoy me. But I realize that the chance of them gaining control to the point that they would set the agenda and completely steer America on a different course is so unlikely that I simply do not worry about it.
And yet, the left can’t seem to focus on anything else. At the very most, they will admit that radical muslims MIGHT pose as big of a threat to our way of life in the U.S. as the religious right.
I know this is slightly off topic but I notice that this is a recurring theme for you and others. I’m really not trying to prove you wrong or anything – I’m just trying to get a sense as to why this seems to occupy the left to such a degree because when I think of all the things that threaten the U.S. (radical Islam, the dissolution of the family, our inability to save, questionable education of children, the rise of powers around the world that don’t care too much about democracy and the protection of individual liberties, and so on), the possibility of some fanatic from the religious right taking over and redirecting our lives is way, way, waaaaaaay down the list.
Thanks.
Deana
And PS – I have to go to work so I can’t respond for a while. I’m just interested in your thoughts.
Come on, Ozzie. You’re validating the heading.- Brian
That’s fine and well, but the people who pushed through this bill were following the marching orders of the Chrisitan Right, not the Athiest Left.
If the Athiests of America were behind legislation designed to bypass the Supreme Court, and change the structure of the government, I’d find them frightening too, Brian.
Republican House leaders did this.
After the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage, they cited Article III, Section 2 and voted 233-194 to pass the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), which is what the excerpts of this article referred to.
At the time, the New York Times also weighed in, using particularly strong language. Calling the Marriage Protection Act “a radical assault on the Constitution,” the Times deemed it a “radical approach” which “would allow Congress to revoke the courts’ ability to guard constitutional freedoms of all kinds.” Moreover, the Times noted the precedent it would set. “And although gays are the subject of this bill, other minority groups could easily find themselves the target of future ones,” the editorial asserted.
So ,yes, ANYONE, could become vicitms if this bill passed in the Senate, as it would have removed Constituional protections
And America’s Atheists weren’t advocating using the untested provision. The Chrisitan Right was, as this op-ed shows:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/06/20031006-085845-5892r/
Just off the top of your head (no googling, please), what percentage of Republicans do you think belongs to the religious right?
Deanna,
I think the Religious Right is a fringe group that has become very politically active and powerful, without most Republicans even realizing exactly how active they’ve become.
Most Republicans (like Mr Ozzie) arent paying attention to the minutia and think that the religous right only cares about overturning Roe v Wade, which is a core principle many believe in.
And I brought up the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), along with its assorted can of potential worms to show that, while the whole thing may have been a political ploy, the potential ramifications are serious. Conservatives used to care about protecting the Constiution and now theyre trying to subvert it to please Christian Conservatives?
I am obviosuly NOT a Republican but I come from a long line of Republicans and am very dismayed by what I see.
John McCain had it right when he called Dobson et al, “agents of interolerance.” But these days, he’s asking Gary Bauer to help draft the GOP platform.
But Ozzie,
You do, in a way hijack every thread, because every issue for you can be turned into a “Religious Right are the same as the Sith” thread.
You are obsessed; and just have not convinced us that it is so.
Like the Troofers, one has to suspend reality to believe your conspiracy. One has to believe that the extremely improbable to impossible is actually extremely possible and the most likely is impossible. Personally, I go with the Occam’s Razor philosophy.
Spiff
Ozzie:
“…the people who pushed through this bill were following the marching orders of the Chrisitan Right”.
I know many people on the Christian Right. They are lovely people with generous hearts and wonderful families. They are also a very distinct minority. For the record, they don’t want anything to do with a State that involves itself in their religion.
Most people that I know that go on rants about the “Christian Right” are Jewish – I think they brought this irrational fear with them from the European Middle Ages and Tsarist Russia, but who knows? I do know that many (most?) Jewish people don’t have a clue about Christianity and tend to view it monolithically. Sadly, most that I know aren’t really interested in trying to understand the huge differences between different Christian sects and denominations in this country (unlike European countries, which tend to be either dominant Catholic or dominant one-denominational Protestant.
Fact of the matter is that even if there was an effort to create a “Christian” nation, nobody could agree as to what kind of nation that would be. Would it be Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon???? Get the idea? Most of us do.
Finally, there is no constitutional “wall” between church and state. There IS however, a very clear directive in the Constitution that the State has no right to throw up barriers against people practicing their religion, in private or in public.
I know many people on the Christian Right. They are lovely people with generous hearts and wonderful families. They are also a very distinct minority. For the record, they don’t want anything to do with a State that involves itself in their religion.- Danny
You’re talking about individuals and I’m talking about a very politically active leadership.
I’ve posted legislation to make my point. I’ve posted articles and op-eds to prove my point. And I’ve directed people to books that address this head on.
It may sound as if its something I’ve just drawn out of thin air, but I assure you, it’s not.
I know you dont see what I’m saying and I can’t make you see what I’m saying.
Kevin Phillips and Kathernie Yurica are two writers who’ve done a lot of reseach on this – and they have articles you can Google.
If you’re really interested in learning more, I’d suggest reading them
I have read what you’ve linked, Ozzie. I just don’t read into those links what you think you see therein. And I don’t think you read into my postings what I convey to you. To cite one example, I have followed Dr. Dobson’s writings for years and I really, really don’t see anything threatening in what he writes. Many conservative Jewish commentators—such as Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, agree with my assessment of the Christian Right.
I suggest you look deep into yourself to figure out why they pose such a threat to you. It’s really not rational.
Just out of curiosity – which of the particular “Christian” values cause you so much fear and anxiety?
I suggest you look deep into yourself to figure out why they pose such a threat to you- Danny
I know exactly why Chrisitan Conservatives bother me, Danny: It’s the authoritarian mindset.
I understand that many believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and it’s fine that they beleive that. But that type of thinking has no place in government.
(Focus on the Family cofounder Gil Alexander-Moegerle also considers Dobson “a tremendous threat to the separation of church and state,” by the way, so it’s not just radical lefties who share my concern).
“which of the particular “Christian” values cause you so much fear and anxiety?’ Danny
It’s not their values. It’s their political activism that bothers me.
If they stayed in Church and away from Congress, I’d not bat an eye.
So, Ozzie, we’ve come full circle.
If people petition the government on the subject of say, gay marriage, which is quite often, though not always, approached from a religious point of view, that petition is to be ignored because they approach it as a religious value?
If another group petitions the government on the same subject, from the view that is merely a proper tradition, that petition should be heard?
It’s interesting how the center has been redefined in this country and now appears to be moving left like a duck at a shooting gallery. Interesting you put James Dobson in that fringe Religious Right camp.
So, Ozzie, we’ve come full circle.
If people petition the government on the subject of say, gay marriage, which is quite often, though not always, approached from a religious point of view, that petition is to be ignored because they approach it as a religious value?- Brian
And you dont see the difference between “petitioning the government” and passing legislation that uses an untested provision in the Constitution to actively attempt to neuter the Supreme Court and change the separation of powers forever.
“Interesting you put James Dobson in that fringe Religious Right camp,: — Brain
Along with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Timothy LaHaye etc.
I can see, however, how people who think James Dobson and Michelle Malkin are mainstream would think I’m a member of the far left.
But, anyway, Brian, if you think the country is moving left, you should listen to Dwight Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” speech and contemplate the reaction Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh woud have to that speech today.
Plus, in the past, the GOP was the party of mainline Protestants, and is now the party of a growing Evangelical, Pentocostal and Fundamentalist movement.
I found this Kevin Phillips interview from 2007 who thought the Religious Right would be dead in the water after the 2004-2006/Gay Marriage Amendment/Terry Schiavo unless something occured between then and now.
Sarah Palin is what happened.
http://fora.tv/2007/04/18/Kevin_Phillips_American_Theocracy
http://fora.tv/2007/04/18/Kevin_Phillips_American_Theocracy
Interesting response, Ozzie. So, tell us, would you define an “atheist” as representing faith-based (i.e., religious) view point that would also be the subject of your concern?
Another question – what is it specifically about the “religious authoritarian mindset” that concerns you? Could you define it for us? What “rules” cause you specific concern?
Ozzie said:
No, I don’t think the country is moving left, but I think the MSM, by their characterization of people’s positions, have moved the perception of where the country is to the left.
So you don’t object to religious people petitioning their government, and advocating moral positions based on their religion, as long as they don’t advocate the use of that untested provision?
I hope Bookworm will forgive me on this, but I think it needs to be said. Make your damn points. Knock off the sad, concerned, just lookin’ out for the folks passive aggressive nonsense.
Conservatives proudly announce it. Why don’t you announce your belief structure? I know why, and you do too.
Proudly point out the superior Obama/Biden proposals so we can examine them. But no, you can only denigrate, a priori, McCain/Palin.
You have no interest in debate. You see yourselves as anthropologists who have studied conservative hand waving and hoots and know how to interpret us. You’re wrong. To hell with you, we are more educated, and higher thinking than you could ever imagine.
Stereotype, you people own it.
Just my two cents worth. It has indeed become a chore to sift through comments lately. I welcome thought from people like Helen, at least they argue in honesty.
dg, however, is very careless with the truth and has no interest in honesty. Time is too valuable to try and respond to the untruths. I do not even read his comments anymore. He is a master at diversion, turning the conversation away from the topic.
Interesting response, Ozzie. So, tell us, would you define an “atheist” as representing faith-based (i.e., religious) view point that would also be the subject of your concern? Danny
Of course. If Atheists were trying to turn America into an official Atheist Nation and trying to subvert the powers of separation in the process, I’d be JUST as upset.
“So you don’t object to religious people petitioning their government, and advocating moral positions based on their religion, as long as they don’t advocate the use of that untested provision?- Brian
If Congress passed a law preventing the Supreme Court from reviewing the Constitutionality of the laws it passed, Congress could make laws without worrying about adhering to the Constitution.
Sounds like a confusing way to spell out “Can of worms,” no?
But anyway, Brian, I’d object regardless which special interest pushed for such a thing. But that’s what the Relgious Right did in 2004 and I don’t trust them.
I thought they were D.O.A. I thought they had lost clout. I was wrong.
Thank you, Bookworm.
Gringo, We’re busy planning , or trying to plan a three week trip to Missouri. I’ll be happy to discuss my reactions when we get back (last of the first week of October). But please ask me whatever it is you want me to comment on again then, because I promise to have forgotten it by then. And I will, as always, have opinions. But right now I am looking forward to having no internet access for three glorious weeks.
Ozzie,
Let me ask this another way.
Because you believe in an absolute separation of church and state, do people who are religious have a right to propose and lobby for legislation, not using any untested provisions, based on their religious beliefs?
Helen: is that MissourEE, or MissourAH- as my father, born and raised in Illinois 30 miles from Missouri, would say.
Because you believe in an absolute separation of church and state, do people who are religious have a right to propose and lobby for legislation, not using any untested provisions, based on their religious beliefs?- Brian
I believe that Congress should pass no law establishing a state religion.
And doest the tax exempt status prevent churches from petioning the government?
In my mind, it gets rather sticky when government becomes guided by superstition that is not in the best interest of the state and/or the taxpayers.
(Terry Schiavo comes to mind as does leaked e-mails between White House officials and the Apolstic Congress).
But in today’s GOP, nobody can get elected without the approval of organizations like the Council for National Policy.
I’m not sure how many voters even know that.
Or how well it would sit with them if they did.
We say MissourEE, Gringo.
Ozzie said:
I’ll take that as no.
A speech before the Council for National Policy by John Stossel:
“Freedom and Its Enemies”
http://www.policycounsel.org/58602/65845.html
He’s always great.
I would suggest intersted folks go over to the nefarious, secret Council for National Policy. The one that’s trying to subvert the Constitution. There are some interesting speeches by some interesting speakers.
Judge Robert Bjork speaking before the Council for National Policy, Spring 2006:
[snip]
http://www.policycounsel.org/46101/59902.html
Well worth the read.
Hi Ozzie –
Thank you for your response.
It is clear that you (and some others here) honestly believe that conservatives “aren’t paying attention” or, as dg clearly intimated earlier, that we aren’t as “expert” on the big issues and therefore need others to point out the truth and the dangers that apparently are lurking everywhere. And that’s fine. Believe me, most conservatives know very well by now that regardless of how many years we spend in school and/or work in a particular field, those on the left will forever be convinced that they and they alone hold the keys to knowledge, awareness, and intellect.
Ozzie – I don’t know who the folks are whom you know on the religious right and maybe they are the scary kind (and yes, I agree with you, there are some that are scary!!). But the conservatives I know who are deeply religious really want few things: yes, they do want the unborn to have the opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like the rest of us received. But they also want government to get the **** out of their lives and stop taxing them to death!!!! They want a strong national defense, justices who seem to remember what it is they are supposed to do and NOT do, and a society in which people are advanced based on merit. Mostly, they just want government out of their lives. Is that so bad??
Ozzie – have you ever read a book about a country or population that was eventually taken over by fundamentalists? I happen to be thinking specifically of Iran at this moment but there are others. The reason I ask is this: our society simply is not in the kind of shape that is required for fundamentalist activity to take root. I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen in the future – it could. But for now, our lives and our realities do not in any way resemble those societies in which fundamentalism took root and grew to devastating proportions.
I apologize for the choppiness of my post but I’ve been working all night and am hitting the wall here. Anyway, I do appreciate your response.
Deana
It is clear that you (and some others here) honestly believe that conservatives “aren’t paying attention- Deanna
It’s not just conservatives. It’s Americans in general. People are busy and only have time to get snippets on TV. Nobody gets a full picture without reading a great deal.
“I don’t know who the folks are whom you know on the religious right and maybe they are the scary kind (and yes, I agree with you, there are some that are scary!!). – Deanna
Once again, I’m not talking about individuals. Most of the people I know belong to mainstream religions, and aren’t actively seeking to meld church and state. I’m talking about the Evangelical movement and its leaders’ intentions.
“But the conservatives I know who are deeply religious really want few things: yes, they do want the unborn to have the opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like the rest of us received. But they also want government to get the **** out of their lives and stop taxing them to death!!!! They want a strong national defense, justices who seem to remember what it is they are supposed to do and NOT do, and a society in which people are advanced based on merit. Mostly, they just want government out of their lives. Is that so bad?? -Deanna
None of that is so bad, Deanna.
My issue is that there seems to be a disconnect between what Republicans have traditionaly stood for and what the party actually delivers. (Ditto for Democrats, by the way).
The party of Eisenhower and the party of George W. Bush are lighyears apart, and the government is in people’s lives more than ever before.
Mainstream religions, whose leaders have met with every president since George Bush, were pushed aside by the Bush adminstration, in favor of the growing Evangelical churches, whose leaders have actively sought to subvert the separation of powers that have been in effect since day one, which could create a more autocratic government, rather than one that stays out of people’s lives.
Mainstream churches weren’t trying to meld themselves with the government. Evanglical leaders have explicitedly stated that this is what they intend to do.
“Ozzie – have you ever read a book about a country or population that was eventually taken over by fundamentalists? I happen to be thinking specifically of Iran at this moment but there are others. The reason I ask is this: our society simply is not in the kind of shape that is required for fundamentalist activity to take root. ”
We will never be like Iran. This country is too big and too diverse.
Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists, however, want to overthrow the government and create a hardcore theocracy based on Biblical law.
They’re hardcore fundamentalists. I dont think they’ll ever get their way. But the fact that they’d had access (and were behind legislation that actually passed in the House) should give Americans pause.
But the fact that they’d had access (and were behind legislation that actually passed in the House) should give Americans pause — me
Hi Deanna,
As soon as I sent this, I realized that the above statement was inaccurate.
Dominionists were behind the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and 2005, which was not passed by Congress.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
Robert Bjork said:
I assume you don’t put Robert Bjork on the fringe, certainly not of the Religious Right.
This is the grave danger facing the Republic, the usurpation of power rightly granted to the legislature that has been co-opted by judicial activists.
If these are issues you feel are injurious to the country, or as Scalia noted, “day by day the supreme court is designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize”, some have come to the conclusion that the supreme court must be bypassed. I don’t know if this concept of limiting the scope of the Supreme Court will ever be tried. If you have a solution I would be interested in hearing it.
But as Bjork again identifies: “Now, I want to stress that none of these developments, not one of these things the court has done that I just recited, not one of them is consistent with the Constitution, but every one of them is consistent with Olympian or intellectual class of values. That court is consciously engaged in social engineering to remake America in the blue-state image was made clear by Justice Kennedy in a recent interview he gave to something called The Academy of Achievement. They gave him an award. Stating his conception of the role of the court, he said, “You know, in any given year, we may make more important decisions than the legislative branch does, precluding foreign affairs perhaps.””
These Olympian values are being taught at law schools across the country, continuing the cycle of subversion of the judicial system.
Most Christians, maybe the exception being amillenialists, don’t believe that laws will perfect the human race. We aren’t trying to turn America into a theocracy. But we do understand that… “However, these values (radical socialist agenda) are so contrary to the commonsense of the American people that their constant trumpeting and enforcement leads to moral anarchy and lowered morale. We are in the grip of a mood common to intellectuals that not only is America a highly imperfect society hardly worth shedding blood and treasure for, but that the individual is more important by far than the community and the community’s moral standards. That is radical individualism and it is a plague throughout the Western nations.”
some have come to the conclusion that the supreme court must be bypassed. – Brian
I know.
I get it.
The three branches of government aren’t working for these folks so they’d like to do away with the Supreme Court.
And, in absense of that, they’re looking for ways to subvert the separation of powers.
I see danger in that.
I’m guessing that you see wisdom.
>>”It’s increasingly clear that a court majority thinks that the sovereign individual has a constitutional right to be free of any legislation based upon community morality.”>>
That way lies anarchy.
Ozzie…
What standards would you apply to the appropriateness of a law?
How do you arrive at those standards?
Hi Ozzie –
Thank you for your response.
You contend that the Bush administration ignored mainstream religious leaders and instead cultivated strong ties with evangelical churches. Assuming that this is even true, this could not possibly be a serious concern of yours unless you believe that most evangelicals believe in and are willing to support what the Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and other radical Christian groups are aiming for. I really do not think that is what is happening out there.
Even if most evangelicals out there are sympathetic to these radical groups and are committed to making significant changes to our laws and practices, what evidence is out there to show that they have been even remotely successful? President Bush has been in office for 8 years and if we are to believe everything we have been told, he is (simultaneously) the anti-Christ who will stop at nothing to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. He, along with his minions in the evangelical movement and that nefarious Karl Rove, has had plenty of time, money and support to subvert the First Amendment. And what has happened? Have there been laws passed “encouraging” citizens to convert to Christianity? Do churches get seats in Congress? Do they get to participate in the judiciary? Are non-Christians pressured by the government to convert, required to pay higher taxes, or forced to somehow separate themselves from Christians? Maybe you think these are extreme cases and you are just worried about the “subtle, nuanced” influences of the evangelicals. Well, look at the whole faith-based and community initiative that President Bush established early in his presidency. Even though the funds were distributed through state agencies and then to local organizations based on grants and the program had safeguards to protect the separation of church and state, there was significant criticism of the program and various lawsuits ensued. The whole initiative was an effort to help religious (not just Christian) AND non-religious community organizations address the many social problems that affect our communities and people went bonkers. Don’t you think that there would be just a little bit of upheaval if there were serious infringements on the First Amendment?
Maybe you are aware of this already but the churches I am familiar with pay attention to politics, NOT because they are trying to influence laws but because they want to keep Washington as far away as possible. They know that the more contact there is between them and Washington will guarantee further intrusion by the state into the church. They want them out.
Ozzie, I truly am not trying to belittle your fears. I look at some in radical Christianity and they give me the creeps. But Americans, including religious Americans, do not like others telling them what to do. They don’t like others interfering in their lives, even if they happen to share similar beliefs. In order for your fears to have even a remote chance of becoming a reality, vast swaths of the American public would have to undergo a significant change in their ideas, beliefs, and lifestyles. We, as Americans, simply do not hold the type of values, nor do we live the types of lives that are necessary for these concerns of yours to stand much of a chance.
Thanks.
Deana
Here’s a good example of why people like Oz kept badgering Palin for an interview.
Can’t fight the enemy if they keep running away, you see, ala Saddam’s fedayeen
Oz feels comfortable with Saul Alinsky and Ayers. It is the Christians oz is worried over.
As many of my regular readers have noticed, my comments have been visited with overwhelming frequency by a handful people who oppose Bush and the Republicans
I don’t remember seeing these people criticize Bush when I was talking about Bush in 2005-6.
They certainly oppose Iraq, Vietnam, and saving the lives of other people who deserve it.
My recent liberal commenters, however, seem less interested in reasoned debate, and much more interested in generating confusion and disinformation.
I comment a lot, so I know to what extent writing links and analyzing positions on a blog’s comment section takes in terms of time. It would be a full day task, in fact, to replicate Oz or Dg. It’s why I leave most of it to BrainE, for I want to read other blogs about Palin and I wouldn’t have the time if I started responding to everything Oz or Dg said, every day.
I disagree, let this post stand as warning that I will block commenting privileges — and I will do so by the end of this week.
If you just block dagon, everything will be alright.
and exclude those I feel come with a more nefarious purpose.
Oz doesn’t have a nefarious purpose. And Dg is just biased. When I say biased, I mean compartamentalized bias, such as double think.
Oz has that nihilistic complex that sees destroying things, enjoying witnessing destruction, and helping people blow stuff up rather than rebuild, is somehow a mark of complexity and construction on Oz’s part. What this means is that if you start talking with them, be assured that your philosophical assumptions are going to meet a hammer and you’re not going to feel all that good afterwards. Cause when two mutually exclusive philosophies meet, what you have is a battle, not a pleasant conversation over the weather.
As for practical advice, Book: I think you should tell people and the people who want to argue with them, to keep it in an older thread. Stop continuing to grab attention on new threads, if you have as yet un-resolved arguments on previous threads. Use the previous threads. Do not use the newest threads under the newest posts. That is designed to grab people’s attention, and not the attention of the people they are arguing with primarily.
This includes people on both sides. BrianE as well as Dg.
People should and can argue amongst themselves for however long they wish to devote to it; they should not be called for derailing the primary subject of one of BOok’s post. However, if you continuously make the same views known, across multiple threads, even as Book posts new things, that’s not just arguing with one person over an issue you find interesting. That’s dominating Book’s readership to your message. A common information warfare tactic. You cannot convince people, unless you have their attention. And Book has a lot of attention, in her readers, that can be re-directed towards a commenter’s issues.
with comments that liberals were not allowing free discussion.
There’s nothing about lying and making deception work, that could be called “unfree”. Lying is a product of freedom.
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but play devil’s advocate on both sets of sites.
Dan Rather and Bill Keller of the NYTimes says the same thing. They were both lying, though. And the one they were lying to, was themselves.
I haven’t “tag teamed” with anyone (although I have been ganged-up upon)
I guess that’s an example of dg’s “devil’s advocate for both sets”. He hasn’t tag teamed, but he has gone against tag teams. Yeah, that’s arguing for both sides.
Thanks for the analysis. I really am blind. Wondered why I was getting exhausted reading some of the posts lately.
If you have ever read Neo-Neocon’s blog when she got attacked by a bunch of people who kept masking their IPs to stop her from banning them, you’d know what it would feel like to read a blog war ongoing across multiple days, weeks, and months.
I never said I was a lifelong Independent, but became one when it became clear to me that the Democrats could not – or would not — deliver on most campaign promises.
Like getting out of Iraq. Oz doesn’t like Iraq, especially now that people are living better lives. That’s a fact, interpret it however you wish.
That doesn’t mean Oz is sitting on a fence with no bias towards either side. That’s like an arms merchant saying he takes no sides by selling both sides weapons to kill each other with.
You have maintained that equal pay is not an important issue to feminists, although on the website of the largest women’s PAC in the country (NOW), a constitutional amendment for equal gender rights, including equal pay, is clearly listed as one of the five key issues promoted by the group.-Dg
Dg doesn’t use the same logic that I do or even the rest of us do.
It’s like I nuke Moscow, when I said I would’t, but my supporters defend my action as being a consistent issue because of how I made it clear when I posted up a Constitutional Amendment for “Not Nuking Moscow Now” 5 months ago.
You can see the problems of logic with that. Why are my actions in one field, necessarily consistent and directly tied to my actions in another field? One’s an action of nuking and attacking; the other is words on paper. Which takes priority in terms of determining people’s consistency and predilections?
Plagiarism was the wrong word. I meant to say that your entire argument was someone else’s rather than your own, but you did give credit to that source.
Plagirism is the right word, for Dg cannot be stupid enough to misremember what plagiriasm means. What went wrong is that Dg showed what he really thought of other people’s debating tactics. He thought of them as Goebbels or following in that philosophy of propaganda, which is a bias and a prejudice. But the facts, as they increasingly do, turn out to refuse to substantiate dg’s biases.
Danny, how many years between hits on the World Trade Centers? Hint: more than the 7th anniversary we celebrate today.
That’s another example of Dg’s “logic” for you.
Just because there was X number of years with Clinton between two events, doesn’t mean that Bush would have made the time smaller or even longer in terms of intervals between another event. It is totally irrelevant. It’s a non sequitur. It’s illogical. But it is perfectly reasonable to Dg and how it sees and uses logic, however.
But you should be careful about declaring success on the part of the Bush Administration just yet…
Another non sequitur.
How many does dg have? Nobody knows.
Examples? Your response #12 to my post, the point of which addressed fears about Christian Fundamentalists (directly at Ozzie’s hysterics, mostly) raises a more-than seven-year gap between the two Trade Center bombings (the non-sequitur). Huh? Certainly you aren’t trying to convince us that there were no attacks after the first WTC bombing, were you?
Who said non sequiturs had to make some kind of logically consistent sense? They don’t have to. It is not required. That is why people use them.
Look, DG…I agree with BrianE: you’re intelligent.
Which is why when dg said he used the “wrong word”, plagiriasm, you really have to think about that for more than 2 seconds.
As people should have noticed now. People are continuing to drag issues they spoke of in the past, to the latest and newest thead. Where people like me, who have little interest in reading BrianE’s numerous arguments with dg and Oz’s numerous with X.
I firmly recognize that this is useful if you want to make a point about Dg and Oz’s previous actions, but you certainly have to recognize that you are falling into the trap of giving them the Top Notch attention by regurgitating their old arguments in a regenerating format. Readers of Book’s comment section cannot “ignore” the arguments Oz and Dg comes up with. Why? Because people keep bringing them up to the newest comment sections, and across MULTIPLE comment sections.
Stop doing that. Or if you want to do that, do it once every 3 days, not once every 5 hours.
It’s not like you people can’t link to one of Book’s perma link older comments, and keep your arguments there, not here. Is that so diffcult after people have unleashed a barrage of other links to “sources” these days?
Or is it that it is simply more convenient to draw attention to Oz’s and Dg’s arguments so that people cannot ignore them without scrolling past huge text every time they want to read the comment response to one of Book’s newest posts.
I remind people that this is September the 12th and Book’s post was written on September the 10th. All the comments after this, was on subject. That’s how it should be. If people have problems with other commenters, keep it in the thread where you have the problem with him or her. Do not follow him or her into some other thread, nor should you allow him or her to raise objections on the other thread, when they could have easily raised those objections on an older thread.
You contend that the Bush administration ignored mainstream religious leaders and instead cultivated strong ties with evangelical churches. Assuming that this is even true, this could not possibly be a serious concern of yours unless you believe that most evangelicals believe in and are willing to support what the Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and other radical Christian groups are aiming for. I really do not think that is what is happening out there. – Deanna
Hi Deanna.
Dominionists were behind the Constituion Restoration Act, but Evangelicals were behind the Marriage Protection Act, which cited the untested provision, Article III, Section 2, as a loophole. This bill passed in the House, but not in the Senate. (The New York Times called the Marriage Protection Act “a radical assault on the Constitution,” and deemed it a “radical approach” which “would allow Congress to revoke the courts’ ability to guard constitutional freedoms of all kinds.”).
This bill woud have allowed Congress to bypass the Supreme Court and not allow the Supreme Court to consider whether laws they passed were Constitutional or not.
I found that alrming, Brian did not.
But yes, the National Council of Churches, which represents the country’s Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians , etc were largely ignored by President Bush, while evangelicals enjoyed unparalleled access.
This is what Council of Churches general secretary Rev. Bob Edgar told Salon.com in 2004:
“Bush has shown an ideological commitment to the literalist Christian tradition at the expense of the broader view of the larger religious community. He is the first president not to meet with the leadership of mainline Christian traditions since George Washington. We’ve been able to talk with the prime minister of Britain and the chancellor of Germany, but not our own president.”
*******
“Even if most evangelicals out there are sympathetic to these radical groups and are committed to making significant changes to our laws and practices, what evidence is out there to show that they have been even remotely successful? President Bush has been in office for 8 years and if we are to believe everything we have been told, he is (simultaneously) the anti-Christ who will stop at nothing to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. . “Deanna
I breathed a sigh of relief after it looked as of the Religous Right had overstepped its bounds in 2004-2006. Did you ever hear of David Kuo? He’s a very smart and very sane Evangelical who worked inthe Bush White House and wrote a book and an 2006 New York Times op-ed saying that Evangelicals should stop mixing religion with politics.
He believes that Evangelicals actualy sully their faith by mixing it with politics. And that faith should be a priority.
He also used a line that I thought was pretty funny:
“Jesus was resurrected only once. The religious right has been resurrected at least twice in just the past 15 years.”
Well, anyway, today he wrote a post about Palin, saying that she’s a politician first and would throw her faith under a bus for political gain.
http://culture11.com/blogs/kuoandjoe/2008/09/11/palins-grand-sellout/
I’m not sure if it made me feel better or worse, but it’s nice to see an Evangelical who’s seen the inner workings of the White House weigh in.
But once again, I’m not concerned that America will become an Iranian-type Theocracy, but that the GOP has become the political arm of the Christian Right.
The Palin pick proved that to me, showing that, though many thought the Religious Right was D.O.A in 2006, it’s been resurected yet again.
Ozzie,
If Bush had met with the mainline denominations, led by the National Council of Churches, that would have been OK by you?
Do you know why he didn’t?
They’re pro-choice Democrats!
Everyone should have a voice in government, but the people working to defeat you probably aren’t going to get the best seat at the table, metaphorically speaking.
Look, there evangelical Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian associations, but they’re not part of the NCC.
I’d be happy to continue this discussion, and get in depth on the Council for National Policy, eschatology, dominionists, reconstructionist or anything else, but let’s move this over to the other thread if you want to continue.
Sorry, but using the New York Times as proof of anything is not proof of anything.
I guess Ozzie is justified in getting really alarmed Governor Palin.
Better get the storm cellar ready, Ozzie.
Sorry, but using the New York Times as proof of anything is not proof of anything.
It’s proof of how Oz thinks and what Oz thinks is valid logic and reason.
That is important, Brian.
Gringo, some people cannot imagine Palin not bringing her own personal issues to a position of power like the Governorship of Alaska. Why? Because they could never resist abusing such power, Gringo, so why should they believe Palin is any better than they?
Hi Ozzie -
Wait a minute. You are saying that the nomination of Palin to the VP slot on the GOP ticket is evidence of the resurgence of the religious right.
Then you quote this “very smart, very sane” evangelical, David Kuo, who says that Palin is a politician first who would throw her faith under a bus for political gain.
Ozzie, if she truly is someone who is willing to throw her faith under the bus in a heartbeat for her own personal/political gain, then why are you so worried about her nomination? Do you really think she is going to spend her time collaborating with all of these radicals to ensure America bends to her religious will? I mean, if the GOP really is the political arm of the Christian right (which you seem to equate with the Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and other far radical groups), then how can her nomination possibly prove to you that the religious right is resurrected and on the warpath?
One other question: it is obvious that you spend an inordinate about of energy thinking about the dangers of the religious right or the radical Christian groups. (So far, you seem to use these concepts interchangeably and don’t seem to distinguish between those people who are conservative and go to church versus the tiny minority of people who belong to truly radical groups). You clearly are concerned about the danger these groups COULD present IF they were to ever become powerful. Again, these are POTENTIAL dangers – they have not happened, even though we are assured over and over again that these groups have never had a better friend than George W. Bush.
My last question is this: do you spend the same about of time and energy worrying about the ACTUAL assaults on freedom presented by members of other religions? Do you worry about the installation of foot-washing stations for Muslims on college campuses? That is not a potential danger – it has happened at various colleges around the U.S. Do you worry about the increase in reports of Muslim student associations demanding separate prayer rooms at U.S. colleges? Do you get concerned when you read about how Muslim schools in the U.S. are being funded by radical Muslim groups (and we need to be clear, here: radical Islam means something a little different than radical Christianity)? How do you react when you hear members of the press admit to self-censorship for fear of angering Muslims? Did you worry when you found out in August that Random House US pulled out of publication a novel titled The Jewel of Medina for fear of inciting Muslim violence (see link below)? These are but a few examples of ACTUAL events that have already happened here in the U.S. It doesn’t even begin to address the actual assaults on freedom that Muslims have perpetrated on others in European and other countries.
I’m just wondering.
Thanks.
Deana
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/64777-random-us-no-regrets-over-islam-book.html
These are but a few examples of ACTUAL events that have already happened here in the U.S. It doesn’t even begin to address the actual assaults on freedom that Muslims have perpetrated on others in European and other countries.
You should be aware of the thinking that the Christians are hidden and require stringent research by Oz, while Muslims are getting attacked and balanced all the time. So this means the Christians require more proactive action than against Muslims, for the Muslims are known to the public but the Christian extremists are not.
Wait a minute. You are saying that the nomination of Palin to the VP slot on the GOP ticket is evidence of the resurgence of the religious right. – Deann
I have no doubt that she was chosen to appeal to the Religious Right, particularly after Dobson, Lahaye and other members of the Council for National Policy vetted her, the way they did Geroge W. Bush.
Dobson and Gary Bauer changed their mind about voting for John McCain after he picked Sarah Plain, with Gary Beuar being invited to help draft the current GOP platform.
“Then you quote this “very smart, very sane” evangelical, David Kuo, who says that Palin is a politician first who would throw her faith under a bus for political gain. ” – Deanna
That’s what Kuo believes George Bush eventually did, which is why Kuo became so dissillusioned. Kuo is no longer in cahoots with the political arm of the Christian Right, and believes, as did C.S Lewis, that when people mix politics and religion, politics and religion both suffer.
Once again, I have no problem with Evangelicals as individuals. But when their agenda becomes the country’s agenda, I become a sad panda.
“Ozzie, if she truly is someone who is willing to throw her faith under the bus in a heartbeat for her own personal/political gain, then why are you so worried about her nomination? ” — Deanna
Well, that’s why I said, I’m not sure how I feel about Kuo’s assessment, though I appreciated reading his thoughts. If she’s a true believer, that could be very bad for the country, should she become President and the GOP control the Senate and Congress again.* If she’s pandering and we arent subjected to the silliness that accompanies one-party rule, she might end up being just another Dan Quayle.
* (During the Terry Schiavo drama, when Tom DeLay’s Values Action Team pipelined some scary legislation to Congress, Christopher Shays said, “This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” which is how it felt to me, also. It was difficult to tell whether George Bush was a true believer or just pandering, but in the end, Kuo believers Bush took Evangelicals for a ride, the way politicians typically do).
I don’t have a cyrstal ball. Just memories of the 2004-2005 silly season and an increased awareness I can’t ignore.
I cannot know for certain what is in Palin’s heart and mind, but I’m not only weighing the onslaught of “Christian Nation” legislation the country endured during 2004-2005, and hoping we never have a repeat of that.
But here’s the other side of the coin: I believe that Palin was chosen to appeal to the Relgious Right, which should not be a qualification for the second highest office in the land. I would prefer to have a VP who showed INTEREST in events that occured during the past 8 years, and didnt have to be spoonfed talking points..
I’m just a goober and I know what the Bush Doctrine is. It was clear she didnt, which I’m filing under the same, “Ut-Oh” file as Gov. Plain’s Dec 2006 observation that she wasn’t really paying attention to the war Iraq.
Some watched Palin’s interview and thougt she did well, while others, like David Frum, cringed and reminded himself that John McCain had a 6 in 7 chance of making in through his first term.
But that’s where were are in this country.
Whatever The Republcian and Democratic parties once stood for, that’s all gone.
I became an Independent after watching the Democrat’s keep mum and play along, when they should have been shouting objections from the rooftops.
These days, I vote for individual politicians based upon their merits. But, when it comes to national politics, I vote against the special interests that scare me most.
And Sarah Palin, as the darling of the Relgious Right, (whether she’s pandering or is a true believer), does not sit well with me.
My last question is this: do you spend the same about of time and energy worrying about the ACTUAL assaults on freedom presented by members of other religions? Do you worry about the installation of foot-washing stations for Muslims on college campuses? That is not a potential danger – it has happened at various colleges around the U.S. Do you worry about the increase in reports of Muslim student associations demanding separate prayer rooms at U.S. colleges? – Deanna
If Muslims ever became so powerful in this country that Republicans’ or Democrats’ only chance of winning was through the blessing of secretive and very powerful Muslim organization or if members of Congress created a “Values Action Team” designed to streamline legislation designed to turn this country into a Muslim nation, I’d be even MORE concerned.
But with Human Secularists being shut out of the Democratic National Convention due to the political danger of associating with agnostics or athiests, I highly doubt Muslims will ever be granted access to Congress or that a candidate would have to be a Muslim to make it to the second highest office in the land..
Footwashing stations at College campuses for ANY minority or majority relgion would not bother me.
Relgious students demanding seperate prayer stations at colleges dont concern me much either.
Having actual power and using that power in ways that affect the structure of the U.S government is a much bigger deal.
Ozzie said:
So this “ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy”, according to Max Blumenthal, is powerful indeed.
Just subsititute Council for National Policy for Muslim and you have what Ozzie believes is their power.
Not only do they have the Republicans in their sway, acting as king makers, but they have the Democrat party in a hypnotic trance, a kind of thought control, where they are afraid to associate with humanists for fear of the CNP wrath.
This is the kind of power from which myths are made, legends are born and totalitarians will eulogize centuries from now.
Not only do they have the Republicans in their sway, acting as king makers, but they have the Democrat party in a hypnotic trance, a kind of thought control, where they are afraid to associate with humanists for fear of the CNP wrath.- Brian
The CNP belongs solely to the GOP, Brain.. Dobston, Lahaye et all would NEVER vote for a Democrat..
But, in 2006, Evangelicals became upset with the Republican party, and started leaving in droves, and the Democrats tried to capitlaize on it. (This was before the Palin pick, mind you).
I think it was ridiculous, but that’s how it goes.
From the Denver Post:
What about Democrats who are not “people of faith?”
The party that will soon nominate Obama is to be praised for its acceptance of and respect for its religious members. However, it is the nonbelievers who are now being ignored.
Hearing of the plans for the prayer/unity/values event leading off the convention on August 24, Ron Millar, Associate Director of the Secular Coalition for America, wrote a letter on July 2 to Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Democratic National Committee and planner of the “big tent” event. He asked Daughtry if nontheistic Americans were welcome and, if so, how this would be manifested.
While not replying directly to the Coalition, Daughtry did discuss the request with the Associated Press.
For more:
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_10216736
I’m not sure what to make of this. Athiests feel excluded from an event where people who believe in a Supreme Being are asking for guidance, blessing, forgiveness, etc? Why would they want to be there? It makes no sense.
So this “ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy”, according to Max Blumenthal, is powerful indeed- Brain
Once again, Brian, if you want to read more, there is plenty out there, and not just from Max Blumenthal.
Conservative authors who are concerned about the wall between Church and State have addressed this issue too.
If you’re not keen on reading an Independent like Kevin Phillips, David Kuo, an Evangelical who worked in the Bush White House, wrote a book about this, from an Evangelical’s point of view, while Republican Senators have aired their concerns..
You keep trying to disprove what I’m saying, by twisting everything, and acting as if I dont know what I’m talking about. I’m not sure what your motivation is…Perhaps you feel attacked and feel the need to discredit me and/or what I’m saying?
I dont know if you’re deliberately trying to distort what I’m saying, or if you are reacting to something in your own head, but I’ve done the best I can to explain my point of view
I’ve stated my opinions and tried to back them up the best I can.
Ozzie,
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic.
I’m aware of the debate inside Christianity about the extent of involvement in societal affairs. The Christian mandate is to reach the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ, not to turn society into a theocracy.
In terms of religious involvement in society, even Obama understands this though: “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”
It’s not my place to judge the sincerity of Obama’s profession of faith. But the Bible does say you will know them by their fruit. Is the message of Obama’s faith about personal redemption or societal redemption? And was the democrat attempt to woo disaffected Evangelicals sincere or manipulative?
I’m not sure Evangelicals, however unhappy they have been at some of George Bush’s initiatives (think immigration) would migrate to Obama, a candidate who represents the extreme of the abortion on demand party.
The Great Awakening, and other spiritual revivals in this country have always began with personal repentance, which then manifests itself in a public call for piety. Chang happens from within.
I think there was the beginning of a sincere spiritual awakening in this country following September 11, and whether or not we are seeing a manifestation of that is hard to judge, given the overwhelming bias against things spiritual by secularists.
I don’t need to discredit you, but I do believe the extent you give power to the Religious Right, whoever that my be, is exaggerated, despite your documentation.
I’ll try to lay out a case for that soon.
The fact is, the majority of people in this country believe in a Supreme Being who is involved in the affairs of this world.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic.- Brian
I didnt know if you were deliberately twisting my words or not, Brian, but I never equated the Council for National Policy with Muslims.
You didnt offend me. You just made me question your intentions.
I’ve said all I can say on the topic and think this particular horse has been beaten to death – and then some.
Ozzie: But with Human Secularists being shut out of the Democratic National Convention due to the political danger of associating with agnostics or athiests
Perhaps the “Human Secularists” should form a new political party.
The buzz term is “Secular Humanists,” not “Human Secularists.”
I find it extremely hard to believe that Secular Humanists had been shut out of the DNC. Then why do about 2/3 of nonchurchgoers vote Democratic? As about 1/6 of the US do not attend church, then about 1/5 of the Democratic vote comes from nonchurchgoers( do the math” 2/3X 1/6= 2/18 ~ 10% and Demos get 1/2 of national vote.). You are going to inform me that their points of view are not respected within the Democratic Party?
Such statements as the above italicized one lose you credibility.
My experience as a nonchurchgoer all my life is that the US is very comfortable for those of my ilk, as long as I accept the fact that not everyone agrees with me.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/945/religion-alaska-palin 16% of Americans unaffiliated with churches, compared to 27% of Alaskans.
This is just one big circular logic, Oz is making.
Christians are dangerous because Oz found out how a hidden council. Why Christians are more dangerous than Muslims is because Oz found out about a hidden Christian, not Muslim, council.
Why has Oz found a Christian, but not a Muslim, hidden council?
Wait for it…
Because Christians are dangerous.
You see how this works, Brian. What, exactly, are you arguing with Oz about then?
Well, this thread was certainly hijacked! Not that the topics under discussion aren’t interesting, but the comments aren’t comments relating to Book’s original post.
Book, I wonder if there isn’t a way for you to hide “off topic” comments so that by default they don’t appear? Or all that can be seen is the header, for example:
Mike Devx [Off Topic] on 14 Sep 2008 at 19:01:02
Of course then you’d have to administer the comments. Ugh. And even if you monitored only the most recent N comments each day, it would probably be too much of a pain. And you’d have to do it at least twice per day, or your threads would still get hijacked by the provocative comments designed to steer the discussion away from the expected topic.
(Yes, I know I’m guilty of some of those alternative postings as well.)
Mike, there are programs that you add to comments that allow comments to be left in threads, with sub issues tying into each other. Unfortunately, they don’t work in WordPress! It’s simply a matter of separating wheat from chaff on your own….
It’s a matter of providing a zone of comfort in the comment section of each new post. A grace period of a day or so that you can’t argue, which is different from commenting or reproducing information on other topics, with another person about subjects that you two are somehow particularly interested in to the point where you are going to keep arguing for more than one pass.
The readers of this blog should not have to scroll through 5-25 comments that devolve around an argument between two or more people, that don’t particularly argue anything in Book’s thread. And they should not have to do this, constantly, every time they want to read one of Book’s posts, for the first time, and then proceed to read the comment section under it.
As I made a, belated, comment on the previous post right next to this one, people should not just accept Dg’s illogical arguments and then make a huge debate about it, assuming those illlogical arguments are logical and true. Illogical arguments don’t deserve attention or words on paper.
Once the core or the base of an argument is rendered invalid, you no longer need to worry about any of the conclusions that line of reasoning will come up with.
And Btw, the problem is not that people talk about “Off topic” things. That is totally irrelevant.
What we have are personalities designed to instigate arguments that force people to pay attention to them. This is done by constantly being argumentative and attempting to pick apart people’s comments by starting a fight.
Obviously, people can and should be able to defend their statements here. But the burden of proof is on the aggressor, not the defendant. If you want to talk about how “honest” Andrew Sullivan is, and you are going to use that appeal to authority to bulk up your claims, then you also can’t claim that people are killing the messenger by destroying Sullivan’s authority as “honest”. You brought it up. You defend it if you want the benefits.
The defendants do not have the burden of proof on this matter. By making it so, you create endless chains of arguments based upon wrong and false logical foundations. That will always produce pointless arguments in the end.