facts, unedited: DENVER (CNN) -- At the trial of Timothy McVeigh, an FBI agent introduced clippings from an anti-government novel, "The Turner Diaries," that were taken from the car McVeigh was driving when he was arrested 90 minutes after the Oklahoma City bombing. The plot of the book of course revolves around a right wing militia man who blows up the FBI headquarters with a rental truck packed full of explosive. So you are saying coincidence? Oh, and McVeigh in his own words again: “ If people say The Turner Diaries was my Bible, Unintended Consequences would be my New Testament. I think Unintended Consequences is a better book. It might have changed my whole plan of operation if I'd read that one first."
unfortunately, the only thing which brings us together (as a country) is a tragedy, such as the one that occurred eight years ago today. though it is quite clear we have always been a fairly divided country. for my example, i present: http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2008/01/s7-im-little-bit-country.html
was the "evil committed by our govt" witnessed thru his own eyes? or by watching the news and analyzing the facts of the event? or from some other source?
I'm sure this will bother DFWRocket, but I still haven't read the article. Even so, I think I get the gist and I want to say one thing more. I follow the thesis of the article, as I understand it, when it comes to the issue of abortion and when it comes to other issues where I believe the opposing parties are disagreeing in good faith. I never demonize pro-lifers or pro-choicers. I am somewhere in the middle, though I believe that in this difficult (impossible, really) issue the decision ultimately has to be left to the woman. But I believe that, for all the noise, both parties truly and sincerely mean what they say. On taxes, it is a matter of greed, not sincere disagreement. On Iraq and health care, it is a matter of laziness if there is sincere disagreement. If GOPers believe in death panels or abortion on demand or care for illegals, that is laziness. On Iraq too, if they believe the lies, that is lazy. And it pisses me off. I don't need to seek understanding of people who ignore the truth and then go off marching and shouting. I explained these lies calmly for months or years and then I said **** it. They just want to be contrary so I will too. So it is when I think people are really being jerks that I treat them as such. Otherwise, I really do seek the understanding that the article apparently calls for.
That statement is as broad as the State of Texas. No, you wouldn't be considered a "liberal." That doesn't mean you would be considered anything in particular, just not a liberal.
Good points, and I dont know you well enough. But come on "lazy" is also not reading the article but still having a firm opinon on it (btw the article was interesting & informative, a little bit revealing, not totally groundbreaking or a must read. Cuz its too short and simplistic and needs more detail explaining the simplistic points. You'd probably say the same things even if you read it...) - - - - - - About the article, I definitely have the "as long as it doesnt hurt anyone" belief. I also believe in structure, respect authority and value family. So what category should I put myself in, must I choose a side? He says liberals support this moral impulse- Harm/care: It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering. And conservatives this one- In-group loyalty: People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad. I'm sure its been asked plenty times already about abortion. But shouldnt liberals who dont want to hurt people abort less? And conservatives who have allegiance to their group and are wary of outside threats abort more? Having to consider party affiliation for every judgement call in life just clouds things even more.
The assumption at the core of this is that "the liberal view" is that the aborted fetuses are people.
It is questions like this that lead us to the interesting dichotomy of California where they have abortion on demand but if you kill a pregnant woman you are going down for two counts of murder. The fetus is a person when it suits us, but not when it doesn't.
Look into the history of those laws across the country. There was a big push by pro-life movement groups to insert that in a "back door" fashion to inspire just that sort of dissonance, which, they presumably hope, you will eventually resolve in their favor.
Tell me again about how Republicans aren't ignorant. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2...ll_think_death_panels_are_in_health_plan.html .
Palin's response to Obama's health care speech: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=131081638434 and my favorite part: So when you lie and the President correctly identifies what you said as a lie he is still supposed to pretend it's true and then argue against the lie that he is pretending is true? Is that how it works these days? LOL
Aaah yes. I forgot about that one. I'm still working hard trying to earn my "Recognizing Gotcha Journalism" certificate.
The President did not respond to the arguments behind the death panels claim. She was right about that. If you can understand this distinction then you understand the point of the article. The people claiming that there will be death panels have actual "logic" behind those claims. They aren't saying that there is a section in the bill entitled, "Death Panels - How to kill old people to save money". They are saying that the language of the bill combined with their fears for the motives and plans of the people in charge lead to the assumption that these death panels will be a result of the legislation. By saying that the death panel claims are lies, you ignore the thinking behind the claims. (Technically, I think you give those people too much credit. To call them lies is to assume these people know that the claims are baseless, when I don't believe they do realize this entirely.) By simply claiming that they are ignorant you don't learn anything about why they think these things and how to prevent them from doing so in the future. You also exclude people with this differing mindset from being part of a rational discussion and so you are permanently limiting yourself to working with those who think like you. The problem with that is half the country has that differing mindset and when they do the same thing we end up with the polarization and partisanship that is currently so rampant. Given that the death panel claims are based on fear and, in my opinion, unsound logic, you can address the "merits" of the claim without calling it a lie. I believe Jon Stewart did so a few weeks ago with the lady who came up with the claim in the first place. I'm not saying Obama should have done something different, since there is a difference between what political rhetoric calls for versus civil discussions, but to simply state that the death panel claims are lies and leave it at that is exactly what the subject of the article points to as part of the problem.
The lies being spread by people like Palin don't have a rational argument behind them so to address the "merit" of those lies is pointless. Anyone can make a ridiculous leap in their "logic" and feel justified saying something but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to do anything other than scoff at the pure stupidity of those people. I don't believe people who believe in death panels are genuinely scared. I believe they are mad because a black Democrat is President so they will latch onto any reason they can to hate the man without outing themselves as racists. It's one thing after another with these people so by now I think it's safe to say they are not interested in an honest dialogue or progress. What Obama did was show people who want to get behind him and health care reform that he is going to call the liars out from now but not waste time trying to have a dialogue with people who are only out for political points.
That's all fine that you feel that way, but you're contributing to the lack of dialogue as much as they are. You're refusing to acknowledge their point of view which just further perpetuates the cycle. I think you need to logically separate their viewpoint from the quality of their argument and avoid letting the crappiness of the latter obstruct your understanding of the former.
And I feel like entertaining absurdity is counterproductive. Progress isn't made by pretending all points of view are equal. This is beginning to resemble the creationist argument that there was a controversy surrounding the theory of evolution when, in reality, there was no controversy among the educated. I don't want a dialogue with people who strive to use discussion as a way to further muddy reality. I want an honest dialogue and they have proven unable to participate.
And they feel the same way as you. You won't even address the "logic" behind the death panel allegations. In their mind it is you who refuse to have an honest dialogue. And again, it is important to understand that I'm not claiming all points of view are equal. They aren't. But understanding the inferior points of view (as opposed to accepting them) is important to having that honest dialogue you look for.
Look, we all understand what's going on with these folks. Start with the idea that the world is changing, life is difficult, and reality is not what they imagined. Spoon in some legit gripes about how we run this country and very real economic uncertainty. Throw in a little nostalgia for a world that never existed and racism mixed with absurdist nationalism. Add a dash of unwanted back-of-the-mind self-awareness that it was W and their own people that led to the mess we're in. That recipe leads folks to feel something is wrong but because they can't quite describe it themselves (or are afraid to let themselves understand it), they let others do it for them. Greenwald writes well and has an interesting (if long) column up today. While I don't agree with all of it, it is worth reading. Here's a taste... .
