Here is my Facebook status update:
Matthew Rozsa
Kevin ReaganMatthew Rozsa
Agreed
Matthew Rozsa
It's one of the reasons why Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" was so important. While I don't believe liberals or conservatives should pull any punches when criticizing each other, it is imperative that both sides keep their arguments in perspective. I may think that George W. Bush was a vapid tool of big business who used his policymaking power to raid our treasury, destabilize our currency, and plunge our economy into recession so as to benefit his wealthy backers; I may even believe that he was derelict in one of his most basic duties as Commander-in-Chief by failing to capture Osama bin Laden and instead placing his priority on toppling Saddam Hussein; but nevertheless...
Wait, where was I going with that again? Oh yeah...
George W. Bush may rank among the five worst presidents of all time (alongside James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, and Ronald Reagan) but that doesn't justify liberals comparing him to Hitler or accusing him of overblown charges (like conspiring to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or wanting to overthrow democratic government). Similarly, although we may despise Bush, we should still defend him against the likes of Osama bin Laden and Hugo Chavez, who are infinitely worse than Dubya in virtually every noteworthy respect.
At the end of the day, I would easily vote for George W. Bush over any fascist dictator (and I hope conservatives would say the same thing about Barack Obama).
Kevin Reagan
And while I disagree with pretty much every detail of that comment, I agree with the overall point. I would even expand that to defending the President when he is attacked internationally. For example, every liberal should have been just as offended and pissed off as conservatives when that Iraqi reporter chucked his shoe at Bush's head. While you may despise the man's politics, regardless, he is still the democratically elected leader of your country. I would absolutely feel that way if Obama were assaulted like that either physically or verbally.
Matthew Rozsa
Would you feel the same way about Obama's top officials? For example, do you agree that it was contemptible for those Israeli right-wingers to protest the Bar Mitzvah of Rahm Emanuel's son when he chose to hold it in Israel?
On a similar note, do you agree with conservatives like David Frum who believe that, while it is entirely fair to criticize Obama's policies, it is both morally wrong and intellectually irresponsible to make ridiculous claims about him, such as that he wasn't born in this country, that he is a Muslim, that he has a socialist agenda, or that his health care reform bill had death panels?
Kevin Reagan
I'm actually not familiar with that story about the bar mitzvah. It depends on what happened. I can understand them not showing up if they were invited or something, but actively protesting at it I think is wrong (again, I'm not sure which happened). Let the man have his kid's bar mitzvah in peace.
Um, I think for the most part these claims are pretty ridiculous. However, I think that (for a couple of them, anyway) there is more of a legitimate basis for discussion than for, say, 9/11 conspiracies.
Um, I think for the most part these claims are pretty ridiculous. However, I think that (for a couple of them, anyway) there is more of a legitimate basis for discussion than for, say, 9/11 conspiracies.
Matthew Rozsa
They actively protested it. This was a situation in which right-wing political groups in Israel decided to express their objection to Obama's policies in that country by protesting the bar mitzvah of his Chief of Staff's son.
I'd like to know which of those claims you think have a legitimate basis. The notion that Obama wasn't born in this country is patently absurd; he has certainly met every standard for proving native citizenship that has been required of his predecessors, and has even gone above and beyond that by posting an image of his birth certificate online. Similarly, there is no evidence that he has ever been a Muslim (although I wouldn't see a problem even if he was). Saying that he's a socialist constitutes a complete misunderstanding of what socialism actually involves (I elaborate on that here - http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/10/miltons-letter-or-my-thoughts-on-morons.html ). Finally, saying that there were death panels in the health care reform bill requires a deliberate distortion of a clause that would have allowed people with terminal conditions to seek information from their doctors about non-treatment options without having to spend extra money.
How are any of those claims more valid than the bunk ones I listed about George W. Bush? There isn't even the remotest legitimate basis in any of them. I'm tired of right-wingers believing that disagreeing with Obama's economic policies gives them the right to brand him a "socialist", that disagreeing with his health care plan makes it okay to claim that he put death panels in his legislation, or that disliking him as a human being gives them the right to challenge the legitimacy of his citizenship or claim he is a Muslim. The only type of conservative worthy of respect is the one who agrees with David Frum's comment:
"It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.
But he is not. He is an ambitious, liberal president who is spending too much money and emitting too much debt. His health-care ideas are too over-reaching and his climate plans are too interventionist. The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable."
Laura Brown
Civility is Sexy
Matthew Rozsa
Did you read that, Kevin? No wonder you won the heart of a beautiful lady, you civil bastard you. ;-)
Kevin Reagan
Actual facts are sexy, too. And liberating.
Matthew Rozsa
In that case, I should be much sexier than Kevin! :-P
Kevin Reagan
I mean, of course, that our government was in on it.
Matthew Rozsa
Matthew Rozsa
Laura Brown
What about UFO's and the government's trashing of the Remote Viewing Program?
Matthew Rozsa
Um... I'm kind of proud to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about.
Jake Emery
Matt...
I will say it. It was.
Matthew Rozsa
You can say whatever you want, but the facts don't favor you on it. We have an overwhelming body of evidence proving that al Qaeda planned, orchestrated, and implemented the attacks, including the statements of Osama bin Laden himself. I regret to say that those who want to place the blame on George W. Bush are motivated by the same variables as those who defend Hugo Chavez - i.e., a hatred of that president so deep and abiding that they close their minds off to basic facts and common sense.
Jake Emery
I don't place the blame on President George W. Bush.
Matthew Rozsa
If you place the blame on anyone other than Al Qaeda, you're wrong.
Laura Brown
President Obama scrapped the Space Program, UFO's are secret hush hush (area 51), and we used to have a team of psychics that did remote viewing, or astral projection. For real.
Jake Emery
How do you know I'm wrong? How do you know what I'm talking about, for that matter?
Matthew Rozsa
I know, having done research on this, that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You've already said that you believe the "government was in on it", and so I can know that you're wrong, just as I know someone who says "evolution isn't real" or "the world is flat" is factually incorrect without having to hear the remainder of what they have to say in defense of their position.
Jake Emery
From where did you get your information?
Matthew Rozsa
Jake, I'm a bit weary of your evasiveness. If you have a point you'd like to make or an assertion you'd like to put out there, say it and assert it; otherwise, admit that you have nothing in your corner and back off. For you to play coy with me and try to force me to do your legwork for you is intellectually dishonest. The burden here falls on you, not on me.
Kevin Reagan
The better question is, from where did you get YOURS? Take a look at who says the government was in on the attacks. What groups are making this claim? And then tell us why their position is accurate.
Jake Emery
I get my information from same places you do.
Matthew Rozsa
Jake, either directly state your position on this issue and inform us as to your sources or drop the conversation thread. I haven't seen this much evasiveness since watching Kanye West trying to explain himself after the Video Music Awards.
Kevin Reagan
So if all of those sources tell you that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 radical Muslims of a terrorist organization calling itself Al Qaeda operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, please explain how you can logically arrive at the conclusion that the attacks were a government conspiracy.
Jake Emery
I didn't say the attacks were a government conspiracy. Take a look at what I said.
Kevin Reagan
Jake Emery: 9/11 was a conspiracy. I can't believe you're focusing on fictional death panels and not the 9/11 conspiracy.
about an hour ago · Like
Jake Emery: I mean, of course, that our government was in on it.
about an hour ago · Like
Matthew Rozsa
Jake Emery: Matt...
I will say it. It was.
Jake Emery
Yes. That's what I said. I did not say that the attacks were a government conspiracy. The attacks were perpetrated by 19 radical men from Al Qaeda. It'd be ridiculous to think otherwise.
Matthew Rozsa
Um..............................
You know what? I'm going to let this rest there. You've admitted that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the perpetrators of the attack, and I'll settle for that.
Jake Emery
Haha, I'm more than happy to let it rest here :)
Kevin Reagan
I'm good with that too.
Jake Emery
BUT. For the record: "the government was in on it" and "the attacks were a government conspiracy" are not the same claim.
Matthew Rozsa
Fine. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Matthew Rozsa
No. Wait. Please don't answer that. I want this to end.
Jake Emery
I stopped beating her 24 years ago :-D
Christina Cruz
Lmao, Seeing Kevin and Matthew "team up" is a rare treat.
I'd like to know which of those claims you think have a legitimate basis. The notion that Obama wasn't born in this country is patently absurd; he has certainly met every standard for proving native citizenship that has been required of his predecessors, and has even gone above and beyond that by posting an image of his birth certificate online. Similarly, there is no evidence that he has ever been a Muslim (although I wouldn't see a problem even if he was). Saying that he's a socialist constitutes a complete misunderstanding of what socialism actually involves (I elaborate on that here - http://riskinghemlock.blog
How are any of those claims more valid than the bunk ones I listed about George W. Bush? There isn't even the remotest legitimate basis in any of them. I'm tired of right-wingers believing that disagreeing with Obama's economic policies gives them the right to brand him a "socialist", that disagreeing with his health care plan makes it okay to claim that he put death panels in his legislation, or that disliking him as a human being gives them the right to challenge the legitimacy of his citizenship or claim he is a Muslim. The only type of conservative worthy of respect is the one who agrees with David Frum's comment:
"It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.
But he is not. He is an ambitious, liberal president who is spending too much money and emitting too much debt. His health-care ideas are too over-reaching and his climate plans are too interventionist. The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable."
Laura Brown
Civility is Sexy
Matthew Rozsa
Did you read that, Kevin? No wonder you won the heart of a beautiful lady, you civil bastard you. ;-)
Kevin Reagan
The two assertions that I think have a somewhat legitimate basis are the socialist and death panel ones. Here's why.
1) I don't think Obama is a socialist. At least not in the Marxian way. However, I think he would like to see America become more like a contemporary European social welfare state. What Frum doesn't explicitly state but drives his statements above is that Obama's policies are moving America toward becoming more like a modern European socialist/social welfare state. So it's true that many people are misinformed about what actually constitutes pure, basic socialism, and they therefore incorrectly label Obama a socialist. The more accurate term I would use is Uber Social-Progressive.
2) People were never arguing that Obama or congressional Democrats were specifically including death panels into the healthcare legislation. Instead, what they were arguing was that death panels would be an inevitable outcome if the bill were not radically altered. The death panel idea was a subset of the argument that rationing would occur. There was (and still is) a strong case to argue there.
And yes, I agree that civility is sexy. I do my best ;)
Matthew Rozsa
Laura Brown1) I don't think Obama is a socialist. At least not in the Marxian way. However, I think he would like to see America become more like a contemporary European social welfare state. What Frum doesn't explicitly state but drives his statements above is that Obama's policies are moving America toward becoming more like a modern European socialist/social welfare state. So it's true that many people are misinformed about what actually constitutes pure, basic socialism, and they therefore incorrectly label Obama a socialist. The more accurate term I would use is Uber Social-Progressive.
2) People were never arguing that Obama or congressional Democrats were specifically including death panels into the healthcare legislation. Instead, what they were arguing was that death panels would be an inevitable outcome if the bill were not radically altered. The death panel idea was a subset of the argument that rationing would occur. There was (and still is) a strong case to argue there.
And yes, I agree that civility is sexy. I do my best ;)
Matthew Rozsa
1) The reason there is no legitimacy to the claim that he is a socialist is because, as I pointed out in my blog article, that claim is a misuse of the term "socialist." Saying that this is potentially valid because the extreme of social progressivism is socialism would be like arguing that it's okay to accuse George W. Bush of being a theocrat because the extreme version of a Christian right-wing ideology is support of theocracy. If that rationale were taken to its logical conclusion, you could claim that every right-winger is a fascist and every left-winger is a Communist, all the while using this slippery slope mentality to argue that those assertions have "validity". At the end of the day, terms lose their value if people don't use them correctly, and thus arguing that there is even a fraction of legitimacy to saying that Obama is a socialist when he clearly is not is contemptible, end of discussion.
2) You are flat wrong in what you say about death panels. The claim that Obama was injecting death panels into his health care reform bill came from sources ranging from Sarah Palin to grassroots Tea Party protesters. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, it is simply inaccurate to assert that that isn't what they were saying.
By the way, arguing that health care rationing would have been the end result of that clause is equally ridiculous. All it would have done is guarantee that terminal patients who want to discuss options other than extended treatment would have the right to do so free of charge. Claiming that that would result in death panels and health care rationing is a bit like arguing that pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo would lead to forced euthanasia (an argument also bandied about by right-wingers at the time) - it is a charge based more on their personal moral convictions than on any reasonable extrapolation based on the actual facts.
2) You are flat wrong in what you say about death panels. The claim that Obama was injecting death panels into his health care reform bill came from sources ranging from Sarah Palin to grassroots Tea Party protesters. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, it is simply inaccurate to assert that that isn't what they were saying.
By the way, arguing that health care rationing would have been the end result of that clause is equally ridiculous. All it would have done is guarantee that terminal patients who want to discuss options other than extended treatment would have the right to do so free of charge. Claiming that that would result in death panels and health care rationing is a bit like arguing that pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo would lead to forced euthanasia (an argument also bandied about by right-wingers at the time) - it is a charge based more on their personal moral convictions than on any reasonable extrapolation based on the actual facts.
Actual facts are sexy, too. And liberating.
Matthew Rozsa
In that case, I should be much sexier than Kevin! :-P
Kevin Reagan
Good point. I'd like to see some supporting Matt's second point.
1) I agreed that it was a misuse of term socialist. And I agreed that he shouldn't be labeled a socialist. However, the point I was making and why it has, in fact, a shred legitimacy is that it considers the ultimate goal or endpoint of that political perspective. It is exactly the same thing as your concerns about Mike Huckabee and his theocratic aspirations. He's not a theocrat, but does he potentially believe in some aspects of theocracy? That's up for legitimate debate. So while labeling him a theocrat is incorrect and a misuse of the term, I would argue that it holds a small piece of legitimacy considering the fact that it sparks a legitimate debate about his political beliefs.
2) If, in fact, there were people saying that Obama was personally injecting death panels into the healthcare reform bill, then they are dilweeds (Sarah Palin and tea party supporters included). Of course, like I said before, I'd love to see some examples. Anyone with a legitimate opinion on the right side of the political spectrum was not making that claim.
Again, the true point (before it was twisted by some ignorant people) was not that rationing would have resulted from some random clause in the bill, but from a massive government takeover of healthcare. See Britain. It is the perfect example.
1) I agreed that it was a misuse of term socialist. And I agreed that he shouldn't be labeled a socialist. However, the point I was making and why it has, in fact, a shred legitimacy is that it considers the ultimate goal or endpoint of that political perspective. It is exactly the same thing as your concerns about Mike Huckabee and his theocratic aspirations. He's not a theocrat, but does he potentially believe in some aspects of theocracy? That's up for legitimate debate. So while labeling him a theocrat is incorrect and a misuse of the term, I would argue that it holds a small piece of legitimacy considering the fact that it sparks a legitimate debate about his political beliefs.
2) If, in fact, there were people saying that Obama was personally injecting death panels into the healthcare reform bill, then they are dilweeds (Sarah Palin and tea party supporters included). Of course, like I said before, I'd love to see some examples. Anyone with a legitimate opinion on the right side of the political spectrum was not making that claim.
Again, the true point (before it was twisted by some ignorant people) was not that rationing would have resulted from some random clause in the bill, but from a massive government takeover of healthcare. See Britain. It is the perfect example.
Jake Emery
9/11 was a conspiracy. I can't believe you're focusing on fictional death panels and not the 9/11 conspiracy.
Jake Emery9/11 was a conspiracy. I can't believe you're focusing on fictional death panels and not the 9/11 conspiracy.
I mean, of course, that our government was in on it.
Matthew Rozsa
1) The difference between calling Huckabee a theocrat and calling Obama a socialist is that, while Huckabee has directly advocated using religious doctrine to influence government policy (the definition of a theocrat), Obama has never actually advocated the complete government takeover of private enterprise by the state (the definition of a socialist). Therefore, whereas an argument can be made that the former term can be accurately applied to Huckabee, no such position exists for saying that the latter should be designated, even by the farthest stretch of the imagination, to Obama. Calling him a socialist is about as sound as calling Bush a fascist.
2) Sarah Palin said:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Whether you like her or not, she is a prominent figure in the conservative movement today, so "dilweeds" such as her can't be dismissed as not representative of the right-wing movement in America.
3) Obama never advocated a massive government takeover of health care; at his most extreme, he contemplated a public option (which he soon jettisoned, much to my dismay), which would have essentially expanded Medicare and Medicaid, programs that a majority of Republicans today claim to defend.
2) Sarah Palin said:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Whether you like her or not, she is a prominent figure in the conservative movement today, so "dilweeds" such as her can't be dismissed as not representative of the right-wing movement in America.
3) Obama never advocated a massive government takeover of health care; at his most extreme, he contemplated a public option (which he soon jettisoned, much to my dismay), which would have essentially expanded Medicare and Medicaid, programs that a majority of Republicans today claim to defend.
Matthew Rozsa
Jake...
Please don't say that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Osama bin Laden admitted to the crime, and the evidence that this was an attack by (as South Park put it with their own admirable bluntness) "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" is beyond dispute. The real scandal in the Bush Administration is how they focused on a tangent (Saddam Hussein and Iraq) instead of concentrating our resources toward capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice.
Please don't say that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Osama bin Laden admitted to the crime, and the evidence that this was an attack by (as South Park put it with their own admirable bluntness) "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" is beyond dispute. The real scandal in the Bush Administration is how they focused on a tangent (Saddam Hussein and Iraq) instead of concentrating our resources toward capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice.
Laura Brown
What about UFO's and the government's trashing of the Remote Viewing Program?
Matthew Rozsa
Um... I'm kind of proud to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about.
Jake Emery
Matt...
I will say it. It was.
Matthew Rozsa
You can say whatever you want, but the facts don't favor you on it. We have an overwhelming body of evidence proving that al Qaeda planned, orchestrated, and implemented the attacks, including the statements of Osama bin Laden himself. I regret to say that those who want to place the blame on George W. Bush are motivated by the same variables as those who defend Hugo Chavez - i.e., a hatred of that president so deep and abiding that they close their minds off to basic facts and common sense.
Jake Emery
I don't place the blame on President George W. Bush.
Matthew Rozsa
If you place the blame on anyone other than Al Qaeda, you're wrong.
Laura Brown
President Obama scrapped the Space Program, UFO's are secret hush hush (area 51), and we used to have a team of psychics that did remote viewing, or astral projection. For real.
Jake Emery
How do you know I'm wrong? How do you know what I'm talking about, for that matter?
Matthew Rozsa
I know, having done research on this, that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You've already said that you believe the "government was in on it", and so I can know that you're wrong, just as I know someone who says "evolution isn't real" or "the world is flat" is factually incorrect without having to hear the remainder of what they have to say in defense of their position.
Jake Emery
From where did you get your information?
Matthew Rozsa
Jake, I'm a bit weary of your evasiveness. If you have a point you'd like to make or an assertion you'd like to put out there, say it and assert it; otherwise, admit that you have nothing in your corner and back off. For you to play coy with me and try to force me to do your legwork for you is intellectually dishonest. The burden here falls on you, not on me.
Kevin Reagan
The better question is, from where did you get YOURS? Take a look at who says the government was in on the attacks. What groups are making this claim? And then tell us why their position is accurate.
Jake Emery
I get my information from same places you do.
Matthew Rozsa
Kevin Reagan
So if all of those sources tell you that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 radical Muslims of a terrorist organization calling itself Al Qaeda operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, please explain how you can logically arrive at the conclusion that the attacks were a government conspiracy.
Jake Emery
I didn't say the attacks were a government conspiracy. Take a look at what I said.
Kevin Reagan
Jake Emery: 9/11 was a conspiracy. I can't believe you're focusing on fictional death panels and not the 9/11 conspiracy.
about an hour ago · Like
Jake Emery: I mean, of course, that our government was in on it.
about an hour ago · Like
Matthew Rozsa
Jake Emery: Matt...
I will say it. It was.
Jake Emery
Yes. That's what I said. I did not say that the attacks were a government conspiracy. The attacks were perpetrated by 19 radical men from Al Qaeda. It'd be ridiculous to think otherwise.
Matthew Rozsa
Um........................
You know what? I'm going to let this rest there. You've admitted that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the perpetrators of the attack, and I'll settle for that.
Jake Emery
Haha, I'm more than happy to let it rest here :)
Kevin Reagan
I'm good with that too.
Jake Emery
BUT. For the record: "the government was in on it" and "the attacks were a government conspiracy" are not the same claim.
Matthew Rozsa
Fine. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Matthew Rozsa
No. Wait. Please don't answer that. I want this to end.
Jake Emery
I stopped beating her 24 years ago :-D
Christina Cruz
Lmao, Seeing Kevin and Matthew "team up" is a rare treat.
No comments:
Post a Comment