Now... I've made the case before that the racism charge is, at worst, perfectly accurate and, at best, giving them the benefit of the doubt. You can only see so many "Muslim, Kenyan, communist, socialist, sleeper" signs before you're convinced that these people are in fact racists, if for no other reason than because it is hard to fathom a level sheer stupidity high enough to otherwise motivate and rationalize these signs. Racist is an explanation I can accept. Stupidity is as well, but... that much stupidity? Purely on stupidity alone? I almost have a hard time believing that. Anyway, I couldn't find the sign I was looking for (after sifting through literally hundreds of signs that ranged between the unintentionally hilarious and the outright offensive.) But I did find this one:
And it pretty much makes the same point.
And as well-designed as this one is... seriously: Is this how these people "think?" We're "losing" the debate? Perhaps, but only because 60% of America is too stupid to recognize the difference between something that is GOOD for them and something that is BAD for them. Seriously. And there was a perfect exampleof this in today's MSN article about the tightening Congressional races:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818378/ns/politics-decision_2010
As far as the article goes? OK, yeah, whatever, we'll see in a few weeks. Good news, I guess, but I'm still going to stand of the street corner with my sandwich warning people of the end of days, thankyouverymuch. But there was one section that just drove me crazy:
OK... now "Cap-and-trade" we can discuss that. That's certainly debatable. Liberals are smart enough to realize SOMETHING has to be done, but obviously there IS a cost, and in all reality? It probably won't accomplish all that much. (It was originally a Conservtaive's idea, as well. Just like everything else these idiots are blaomign OBAMA for!) But let's put that aside for the moment and look at the other two. (Because we really do like to list things in threes, don't we? One thing alone isn't enough to win is it? You need THREE to make case, right?)Pennsylvania Republicans say the intense former Navy admiral is too liberal for this centrist state. They note that Sestak, a two-term House member, wanted a public insurance option in the new health care law, a larger stimulus package than the $814 billion plan Congress approved, and a tougher cap-and-trade energy bill than the House passed.
He's "too liberal," which is conserva-speak for "bad," because he wanted a public health care option and more stimulus. In other words: He wanted to get people CHEAPER HEALTH CARE and MORE JOBS. Can someone please exp-lain to how any individual person, anywhere, can possibly see either of those as a bad thing?!
Public Option: If you can do better, do so. If it's cheaper, THEN WHY NOT?! What is wrong with these people? How can you possibly argue (unless you own an insurance company!) that this can be a bad thing?! Seriously. Who can honestly believe this?! How do you reach that conclusion?! "Socialism," maybe? But if "Socialism" was really going to give it to you for less, then why the hell would you NOT be a Socialist? It makes no damned sense at all!
Same goes for the stimulus. Which is another word for JOBS. Campaigning against the stimulus is campaigning against JOBS! Who does that?! Can you imagine what it would sound like if the Republicans were even half-way honest and the average American wasn't completely, mind-numbingly stupid? He be saying: I want to put more of you out of work, and then vote against unemployment for any of you! Who the heck would vote for THAT guy?
But yeah. "All" we're doing is shouting "racist." (No: what we're doing is looking for a REASON behind all the blatant STUPIDITY!) But apparently "if we don't call it racist, we'll lose the debate. Well of COURSE we will! If we're arguing with someone who thinks paying MORE for health and having LESS jobs is a GOOD thing! How on earth would you debate with someone who has so clearly lost their freaking mind?!
See... it's not us who shout "racist" to squelch debate.
As I've said before, twice now, in fact, it they who say "liberal" and not only squelch debate, but then happily go and campaign for, and vote for, their own royal screwing.
Racist? That's us being optimistic. It's a compliment, compared to what we'd say otherwise, assuming there is even a word in the English language for this level of ignorance, gullibility, irrationality and stupidity.
"Racist is an explanation I can accept. Stupidity is as well, but... that much stupidity?"
ReplyDeleteIs it really that much more stupid than usual? Do we forget Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary this easily? They had everything dumped on them that was available for dumping. Just because Obama inspires different things to dump with doesn't mean that the dumping mindset is much different.
If I ever ran for public office, I'd spend most of my time telling the voters how stupid they are. And I'd spend most of my interview time with the media telling them how stupid they are.
Maybe I should quit my job and launch stupidfrigginvoters.com. But by the time it got off the ground, a republican will have been elected president and the country will have ceased to exist.
You've laid out the case against the "racism" strawman pretty damn well in an earlier post, so I'll address the issue of debate with conservatives itself.
ReplyDeleteYou can't debate between your position of what health care should be, budgetary issues, and foreign policy, with people who say "death panels" and think their taxes are higher than they've ever been, and think Obama is a Kenyan usurper.
There's no debate there. You can't cross the fields and hope to meet in a no man's land between sane and insane. That's what progressives have been doing since Clinton, and basically it's changed a Liberal politician's role to this-
"We stand as a gatekeeper between what we have now, and the anarchy that the right wishes to impose."
Well, that's great. Except you're perpetually playing defense.
But that's more of an objective stance. Lemme try laying out a more scientific one. Sociological studies have shown that arguing with conservatives is fruitless. I'm not just saying that to bash them, or because I'm a liberal. No, they literally make up their mind, and stick to it. It's become one of the backbones of their entire ideology.
I mean, look at Sharon Angle. Absolutely refuses to say that she was wrong about immigrants killing Arizona citizens. Because she CAN'T be wrong, and be conservative. There is no "wrong". And therefore, there is no compromise between her "correct" position, and someone else's.
Other studies say that facts may be detrimental to political arguments. That's right. Facts scare certain people, and since conservatives cannot be wrong, they must bunker down fortify, and connect with other people who still believe what they believe. It leads to a collective, pure, group conscientious, which is what we see with GOP "purity tests" and the like. An aversion to facts makes them stronger.
One of my favorite videos is this, which covers one of the studies done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzUzR-ymS2U
@Steeve,
ReplyDeleteYou ask me if it's really that much worse? I say, "Yes, absolutely, it's THAT MUCH worse."
Sure there was plenty of STUPIDITY aimed at Clinton'42, Gore, Kerry and Clinton'45 (LOL) but what I'm seeing now is closer to PSYCHOPATHY.
Case in point: THIS GUY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8dDkBxR_T0
And poke around YouTube a little. Watch a few of these TeaBaggers, look at what the mainstream media ISN'T showing you. And then come back and tell you still think it's the same. It's always been BAD, but it's WAAAY worse than I remember it being. And I was in college, in a Conservative part of what was a solid Red (Bush'41) State in 1992. So, yeah... I remember. But any mobs at the time were like McLaughlin Group compared to what we're seeing now.
Also, don't forget: Glenn Beck was a complete unknown in 2004. Sean Hannity still sat next to Alan Colmes and Bill O'Rielly had by far the most Conservative show on Television. The 2004 election was largely decided by the Swift Boat Vets. And as despicable lying scumbags as they were (and I still blame Kerry for not coming out swinging against them) and as stupid as those who were swayed by them were, I wouldn't have dreamt of applying the epithet "Psychos." And they were worse that any single force Gore had top contend with, and any non-Congressional force Clinton did.
But with these TeaBaggers? Nothing other than "psychotic" really applies. They've completely gone off the deep end. And it can't be because of SOCILAISM, becuase... well, duh! So what is it? Why are they so willing to believe literally ANYTHING they are told about Obama? If it's always been this way, then the reason is only because it's taken the Right this long to figure out just HOW stupid they are? I can't believe THAT.
So, yeah, I say it's much worse, and as far as EXPLAINING the REASON for it goes? "Racism" seems to me to be a reasonable and as complimentary an explanation as any other I can come up with.
Thanks for your comment.
@Dradeeus -
ReplyDeleteI'm going to come back and comment, once I've had a change to view that video. As for the studies, yeah... that's pretty much it isn't it? I mean, they called it a "mental illness" not too long ago. That seemed to bother them, but I really don't know what ELSE you can call it when the reallity you percieve is night-and-day differetn from the one percieved by everybody else; the one that's ACTUALLY THERE.
Thanks for your commment. I'll have to check that vid out tonight, when I get home.
I took a reply to the comments by Dradeeus that ran a little long and turned it into a full-fledged post over on my own little corner of the internet, if anyone is interested:
ReplyDeletehttp://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/meeting-mad-half-way.html
"Why are they so willing to believe literally ANYTHING they are told about Obama?" -- you seem to be saying that conservatives would have pushed back against any lie told about Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. Not buying that.
ReplyDeleteHas the real (as opposed to public) ideology of conservative politicians changed one tiny bit in 20 years? Has the ideology of the leaders of Fox News moved one inch since its inception? Has the gullibility of conservative voters? I say no.
What explains the crazy slide? Republicans are in their death throes. The fox-bots left in this country are no more than the number of people who approved of Bush in 2008. If they win this next cycle, it'll be because of non fox-bot fools who don't care about politics at all, and wander into a poll grunting "thing bad, vote opposite" in ape-like gurgles.
@Steeve-
ReplyDeleteWell... yeah, I suppose you have a point. Several actually. And I can't find anything to disagree with there at all. I still say it somehow seems worse, but I'll have concede to you on all points made.
Still: Clinton never had to deal with Mr. Rabid Dog "Only Good Communist is a DEAD Communist," did he? I sure can't remember seeing THAT guy before this year. And yet, now? I do seem to see a LOT of them.
Not disagreein', just sayin'.
Thanks again for comenting.
@Classic - On my way.
ReplyDeleteI was raised by a racist. I know racism. The tea party movement is racist. That is all I have to say. I am sick of the apologists on the right.
ReplyDelete@Jlarue - I'm sorry to hear that. I'm happy to hear that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.