I got in a little discussion with some fine young conservative gentlemen on facebook recently. I saw that one had commented on blurb someone wrote about the inefficacy of Gov. Palin as a governor and a potential vice president. I could not help but comment on the dishonesty of the original response to the blurb. The following is the whole exchange. Clearly, my wit is a bit lacking in spots (and I'm a dick), but I spent so much time writing to these guys that I feel like reproducing it somewhere else.
Young Conservative Gentleman 1
"In short, through the policies they promote and the judges they support, they want the government to have more control over our private lives than at any time in history."
This statement is completely incorrect. It should be reserved for the candidate that wants to take more of our hard earned money, increase government spending, deny school choice, put government in control of our health, and nominate anti-democratic judges that invent their own rules to prevent the people from making decisions on their own. I'm sorry but that candidate is Obama, not McCain.
Me
More of our hard earned money? Do you make more that $500,000 (sic - I think it's more like 250k) a year? Have a second house you are planning on selling? No? Okay, well then your statement is either ignorance on your part at best or an outright lie at worst.
Increase government spending? These "fiscal conservatives" have been doing plenty of that with their illegal war - no bid contracts and private military companies. Yet, you seem to only be concerned with spending on things that may actually be helpful to the American people - spending that only accounts for a fraction of the budget.
Your statement could have been made decades ago with the candidate names changed. It's the same old conservative bullshit and has just as little relevance today as it did those decades ago.
Young Conservative Gentleman 2
Oh dear, (YCG1), you seem to have hit a nerve...
Louie, you honestly think anyone reading this post makes $500,000 a year? Why would you even go there, keep it clean.
No argument on some of the blunders of the republicans in office. All I can say to you is that conservatives make up many different parties including libertarians and independents, so be careful about smearing conservatives. Second, if you dig deeper on some of the 'issues' you'll find that many are not that big of a deal. For example, no bid contracts are done to speed up the process of getting a job done, as the University of Iowa did this year with flood recovery.
As for increasing government spending, who can say what will happen, the current republicans have done it surely, but they do also happen to be fighting a war. Given the choice between electing two senators who only know how to spend tax dollars, and one senator who also has been doing nothing but spending tax dollars for years and one governor who cut government spending by 5% (by getting rid of corruption and wasteful spending, not by getting rid of necessary programs), I'll take the ticket that is likely to cut spending...
Hey (original blurb writer), long time no chat :) I'm glad Biden has a shot again at being in office. I actually liked him of all the democrat candidates the most, other than his shameful comments about the surge and our military leaders who just follow orders to the best of their ability... For me, should Obama win, his presence will lessen the sting :)
Me
Ah, here comes the pretense train.
Obama is not increasing taxes on anyone making roughly less than $500,000 a year, so the statement that he's raising taxes (" taking more of our hard earned money") is disingenuous. That's why I would go there.
I'm not going to argue semantics - by "conservative," I mean Republican. Surely you know that's what I meant, but I appreciate your attempt to appear as though you are teaching me something.
In regards to your assuming that I have not "dug deeper on issues," then proceeding to use a completely obtuse anecdote to prove a point, I am going to have to call bullshit, as the abuse of said no bid contracts has been well-documented. I see you didn't address the privatization of the military - nothing to teach me about that, chief? Is that one of those issues that is not that "big of a deal," simply because no bid contracts are not always bad?
Finally, your rationalization of the spending issue is ludicrous, as the crux of your argument is simply "if they spend less, it's fine with me, even if what they are spending money on is misappropriated and ultimately misused." If you disagree with my putting words in your mouth, allow me to say this - you're wrong. Do you really believe that line of crap about Palin getting rid of corruption and wasteful spending? You must if you hinge your vote on her being on a ticket in a race otherwise populated by senators with "no executive experience." Also, the argument that they "happen to be fighting a war" is laughably obvious and serves no purpose, as my earlier statements concluded that our presence in Iraq is unlawful and has been categorically mismanaged, resulting in many dead and billions of wasted dollars.
I hope it really stings.
YCG2
There is a difference between someone who is mature enough to have a discussion without looking to provoke a fight, and someone who is outright hostile. This is particularly sad when the hostile one is projecting his own naivities and ignorance on those to whom he speaks... After all, who then can be right who does not share your view? And who could get a chance to learn to respect your opinions when they can't even respect you due to the above?
YCG1
Ignorant? You have lost your mind.
What is ignorant is your inability to engage in a rational discussion. Reasonable people can disagree- you clearly do not fall into this category. Before I dismiss you, I will give you one thing to chew on- maybe the word *OUR* does not pull the same meaning as *MY*, leaving my hard earned income and housing situation irrelevant to the discussion, and your logic skills wanting.
Me
It's hilarious that both of you are attempting appear as though you are taking the higher ground, whilst making a fallacious ad hominem argument to ground your hollow statements. I am hostile, therefore I am wrong / I am not rational, therefore I am wrong. Hostility is debatable, while rationality could be measured against facts. Of course, neither of you choose to address facts.
Then to reiterate that your hard earned income has nothing to do with the discussion, completely ignoring the fact that Obama is only raising taxes for 5% of Americans. If you disagree with the device used to argue this, that's fine, but you choose to completely ignore the substance behind it and not retract your false statement from earlier. Clearly, you don't think it's false, because you optimistically group yourself with the top 5% in a "royal we" fashion. Perhaps you should disclose this as it is otherwise an unstated major premise.
In all, you both speak under the pretense that you are somehow more enlightened than I and that I'm simply being hostile. You place yourselves outside the discussion, attacking the framework of my statements so you don't actually have to address the statements themselves.
Essentially, you are guilty of the very things you accuse me. You have the nerve to attack me personally as a device to ignore the substance of what I said, then call me hostile/ignorant? Well, shucks, I guess I tried to be reasonable and not too aggressive, but I reckon I'm gonna have to call a spade a spade and say that you two are both full of shit. How's that for hostile? Not enough? You are going to write-off what I say anyway, so allow me build a spectrum here, so we can rightfully place my earlier statements on the non-hostile end of things. You keep sucking that neo-conservative dick, hoping that it will one day make you rich, while our troops die in an illegal war with improper equipment while the poor of the nation grow poorer and the rich grow richer. Furthermore, go fuck yourselves.
:)
YCG1
Louie,
Let me break this down for you. I made an assertion. You responded with a very hostile and insulting response that the first point of my assertion was either ignorant or a lie. Your second response was to make a straw-man argument about conservatives irrelevant to the topic (and assume to know my stance on the issues as well), and then you made another vulgar and off-topic remark to finish it off. Then, when I called your inappropriate remarks for what they are, you tell me to "suck a dick" and "fuck myself?"
Here is a link for you, get well.
http://www.webmd.com/conte
Me
I am pleased that you chose to delete your original ad hominem attack and replace it with the same attack with a preface (then apparently delete it again). I stand by what I said, despite the fact it is harsh. You claim that you should not be judged on a personal level when you are vaguely referring to the American people in general. In actuality, you are hiding behind this generality as what you really mean is the top 5% Americans. That is disingenuous or in layman's terms - a lie.
I know it may seem as though I am simply attacking a false construct of the stupid, pompous conservative, instead of actually addressing what you say. Hell, I feel that way when I am typing it. However, run-of-the-mill neocon statements naturally engender responses that sound as if I am simply attacking a straw man. I assure you, I am responding to you and your little tag-team partner here, not attacking conservatives in general and it most certainly isn't irrelevant to the topic. The only straw man in this exchange is the "common person" you hide behind when you make statements that include the word "OUR."
In regards to my original "vulgar and off-topic remark," I assume you mean when I said "bullshit." That's another layman's term for something fallacious, disingenuous, or an outright distortion. I'm sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Now, it may not be incumbent upon you to respond to my allegations/statements, but don't you think it would lend you a little more credibility if you actually responded to the substance, rather than the excess? That is a classic neocon tactic, along with taking statements out of context, which is exactly what you did by referring to my statements of "suck a dick" and "fuck yourself." I was asserting that my earlier statements were hardly hostile, by comically saying things that were very hostile to stand in contrast. While I stand by "go fuck yourself," I don't feel as though "suck a dick" is an good way to summarize what I said... perhaps "suck that metaphorical dick" will do.
Didn't you dismiss me, already? What are you still doing here? I do thank you for breaking it down for me - very illuminating. However, if you really want to seem as though you are above the whole thing (and the use of swear words), you may want to fuck on off like you said you would.
Here's a link for you, get well.
http://www.webmd.com/hw-po
No comments:
Post a Comment