Contributors

Monday, June 18, 2007

I Feel Therefore I Believe

Generally, I have found that people don't like me when the subjects of politics, sex, or religion come up in conversation. Throughout the years I have micro-analyzed why this dislike arises, kicked around some ideas, and quite recently have figured out the answer.

I get them to think.

And thinking, to Americans these days, is just too much darn work. It takes them out of their Cheeto-bliss comfort zone, which makes them extremely uncomfortable. Thinking is like that other bad thing.....reading...and we all know what happens when people read:)

One of the phrases I always hear out of the mouths of conservatives is, "Say 'I think', not 'I feel' or 'I believe'...it shows intelligence." If I had a dime for every time I heard a conservative say this little gem (gee, I wonder if they get all their talking points from the same source...hmm....), I would be fucking chicks with great big round asses on top of a pile of cash. Honestly, though, I think this is a good way to look at things because it is the first step towards examining issues from multiple perspectives.

Too bad, though, I have yet to meet a conservative who actually lives by this phrase.

To illustrate my point about the FACT that conservatives talk a good game about thinking but in reality are wrapped up in a one dimensional, overly emotional 8-year old stubborn-temper tantrum-child like view of the world, we need look no further than Fred Thompson.

In 1994, Fred Thompson took over Al Gore's Senate seat in Tennessee when Gore became Vice President. He was elected again in 1996 in a landslide victory. He decided not to seek re-election in 2002 citing Congress as "boring and slow." The scuttlebutt around DC at the time was that Thompson was basically a lazy Senator who was using his post as a stepping stone to the Presidency. There were also many stories of adultery and philandering. After he left office, occasionally he would grace us with pearls of wisdom like "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11."

Gosh, that is so insightful......and...um....completely fucking wrong.

And, in between acting gigs (see Die Hard 2 and Law and Order), he would spend his time making sure that people who have cancer as a result of working for big corporations would not see a dime of Anderson T. Wilson's third vacation home money. Super!

Oh, and ol Fredo might be running for president. Republican nomination, of course. How could they resist someone who plays the part so well? And conservatives are going wild. Can you blame them?

Because you see, dear readers, the current crop of possible nominees for the Republican ticket are "a group of midgets" who aren't "real conservatives" (sidebar: will someone please explain to me what a real conservative is these days?) Thompson, however, is a REAL conservative and you can make book on that, sister! There would be no equal rights for sinful faggots, no more uppity broads who think they know shit about loose nukes and stuff, and...praise the Lord(!), the beginning of the extermination of the Islamic Empire would finally begin. If Thompson is elected president the policies of George W Bush will graciously continue in earnest, save one of course. All of the spics will be deported back to Mexico or killed because that's what it's all about.....people killing people cuz they fucking deserve it, dammit. They're taking away our freedom, after all.

Go out to any conservative blog and read about how all the little Bushies and neocons are dropping their pants, jacking off, and cupping their balls (with a little taint tickle for good measure) at the thought of a Thompson presidency. Read what they have to say and please tell me where the "thinking" part comes in.......

"Big Fred's a coming and he's a gunnin'"

"If Thompson runs, my worries will be over. I will finally feel (what the?) happy.

"Thompson is a kick ass, no bullshitter who knows how to fuck people up. He's a big stud and he can park his shoes on the side of my bed anytime." (Just to be clear, this was a woman, btw, not a man....which, given some of the current preferences that have come to light vis a vis the conservatives....well, I just wanted to be prudent)

"Just wait to ol Fred gets in...he'll show that homo loving, gun hatin Giuliani a thing or two about national defense. God, I love him."

"Thompson's got guts and we need someone who will think with his guts, not his head like those pansy liberals." (Question: How does one think with their guts?)

I could go on and on. Google "Conservative Blog" and "Fred Thompson" and find out for yourself. That's how I got these. It's hilarious.

So, here are my questions: where is this "thinking" that I have heard so much about? Could it be that conservatives actually have feelings and perhaps a set of beliefs that govern how they make decisions? Are they sooooo hypocritical to the point of silliness that Clinton's philandering-bad, Thompson philandering-good? Could it be that this group of people, that stupidly force certainty in an uncertain world, have finally found their man?

Could these beliefs and feelings be so myopic, jingoistic, filled with abnegation and rooted in fantasy that someday it will cause the deaths of thousands of people?

Oh, wait. That's already happened. Time for some more, I guess.

31 comments:

johnwaxey said...

Fred Thompson has not announced his candidacy yet (I don't think), but even if he does, it really doesn't matter. The ability to counter bad decisions or desires really lies with the other two branches of government and until those two houses are clean, we are going to continue to take the pipe.

After the first year of GW's presidency I became desperate for any hope that might lead to his removal from office or at least a checking of his idiotic tendencies. I clung to the idea that democrats were the answer because after all, things had been good in the Clinton years for me. I felt that it was only a matter of time before the democrats could regain control of either the house or senate, so I continued to hope and pray for that day. As it turns out, we (as a nation, I like my representative and senator) have elected a group of "thinkers" who now dedicate their time to thinking about their careers rather than the good of the nation. Up until Nancy Pelosi took the position that "impeachment was off the table," I really liked her, thought she was strong and open to putting the country back on the right track. Instead, we have a paper tiger with lots of roaring, but no teeth. Then there was the spending bill debacle. Quite frankly, these democrats who are supposed to be thinking about what is right for this country are a bunch of opportunists afraid to risk jeopardizing whatever conservative constituency they might have and therefore losing their jobs. Guess what? Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.

You "conservatives" out there may hate the democrats, well, right now they aren't doing a good job of representing the countries wishes and it is a cruel twist of fate that I find myself in the same political bed as you. What strange bedfellows.

So, on the one hand Markadelphia, I can appreciate your sentiments about who thinks and who doesn't, but I have to say, sometimes it is what is being thought about that makes a difference. There will always be idiots like the ones that you quoted who are more concerned about extracting revenge and imposing their will on everyone else, but are the people who think only of themselves any better? Two sides of the same coins says I.

Anonymous said...

Liked post numero uno. Yes. We need another self-serving thinker or nest-featherer, at the expense of THE PEOPLE (we're just extras on the action set...) like we need a hole in the head.

Hurray!! Those who are praying for World War 4 (because only they shall be saved: God is Don God.. the Head of a Mafia clan after all..) your dreams are about to come true if hollywood policies succeed.

Anonymous said...

The answer to why many people don't like talking politics with you can be seen later in your post...you consistently mock their beliefs and insinuate that they are racist in addition to being very condescending. Can't you just put down your thoughts on here without insulting anybody?

Just like your last posting - when you typed "Let's kill all the..." know that anybody who already didn't agree with you had probably stopped reading at that point because you constantly insult them.

Regarding sex - talking sex is alright but I know a lot of people don't want specific details about their sex lives available for public consumption. Perhaps they don't want things they may tell you repeated to others (that is a bad thing as well). My guess is that that is why they are uncomfortable. Hell, maybe it's just none of your business.

Not sure why you care so much about how conservatives around you live.

Just a few posts ago you admittied wrongdoing by saying you were falling into Karl Roves "divide and conquer" plan for the country yet your last few postings have been some of the most divisive you have ever written. Know that you are doing absolutely nothing to bring people together with the large majority of your writings on here.

Speaking of 8 year old mentality, I just happen to think that there are social norms in place in our country and many people simply don't use the word "fuck" around people they don't know as freely as you do. Just know that many see that as 8 year old behavior as well. "I'm going to use this word and you all have to be subjected to it". Who else does that? 8 year olds throwing temper tantrums, that's who.

Mark Ward said...

RLD,

The conservatives that I am speaking of are inherently racist towards Mexicans. I would think that that part of the Republican party makes their feelings pretty obvious.

The insulting thing...yeah, you know what? I try to do my best and it's true...I can seem like I am of two minds a lot of the time...but in the end I hear that "Ooo, you're insulting my beliefs...you're mocking my beliefs...how dare you!" line all the time and you know what? It reminds me an awful lot of the problem conservatives have with liberals....creating a "victim" where their isn't one. Ironic, isn't it?

At the end of the day, most conservatives don't like liberals who call them on their bullshit. They want them to shut up and tow the line...as the current Democratic Congress is doing....and continue to control the language of the argument, which is exactly what you are doing.

When someone's "beliefs" involve screwing people over on a daily basis...well, I think that means that all bets are off.

Anonymous said...

Fred Thompson is none of the things you say and he is the only chance this country has to keep from going under. You don't seem to understand the simple fact that our country has enemies that want to kill us and Thompson is the only one of the whole lot that will stand up to these facists.

johnwaxey said...

To the sarge,

You seem so sure that Fred Thompson is not the things that Markadelphia says...I am wondering...do you know this man personally? In this modern era of anonymous electronic conveyance, it is always possible, so I ask the question, not with belittling intention, but with sincerity.

If you don't know this man personally, how can you be sure? It becomes a question of whether you "believe" this man to be honorable or whether you know this man to be honorable. Two different things, knowing and believing although they can seem the same at times. You may have read some magazine articles, watched his television program,or heard some speeches, but is this really the measure of a person seeking the highest office of one of the most powerful country in the world? Bear in mind, when evaluating what you know or believe about this person that the man is a form of professional illusionist(an actor, no disrespect intended here), and in my own opinion open to some suspicion when it comes to what this person really stands for and/or how they will behave in office.

George Bush turned out to be every negative thing that people said about him before the election, yet he was believed to be a good enough leader to be voted in by a slim majority at least initially. Fear on the part of many people (along with some dubious election day activities) allowed a disastrous second term. Fear plays at least a part of the Sarges response above.

We are all painfully aware that the U.S. has enemies, many of which we made ourselves through short-sighted foreign policy motivated largely by greed. The sarge's name suggests perhaps a military affiliation...is this the case? If you examine the history of this country, there has NEVER been a time when we have not had enemies, many of whom were tremendously more powerful than we were. Yet it was during the darkest times that laws and rights were created to protect our citizens rights to privacy, freedom of speech, right to judicial oversight and many others. Decisions were made not to be aggressive and not to go to war frivolously during many situations that there seemed to be no alternative. When we did go to war without clear purpose or direct threat, the consequences have been disastrous (the war in Iraq, the Vietnam War) both for the U.S. and the indigenous populations were supposedly there to protect. Of course the September 11 bombings will be offered as a turning point in our history. If you are older than 20 years old, you will probably remember that the former Soviet Union had freaking ICBM's pointed at us. We aren't talking about a couple of buildings going down and 3000 people dying, we were talking about the end of the world. Can you honestly make the argument that we are in more danger now than ever before? Terrorism is a regular part of daily life outside of the U.S., yet somehow people manage to get by. Can't we get by in the same manner without the institution of draconian laws and practices or getting involved in unjustifiable war?

I think we can and will. Don't let fear and unsupported belief cloud your judgment about ANY candidate. We have become a society that has largely lost the ability to make critical judgments about people and situations. If you like Fred Thompson, more power to you. But do all of us a favor and look into this man's life. It is publicly available, don't just listen to what he says and the way he acts, look at what he has voted for and how he has lived his life. Balance the facts with observations...the last thing we need is another wolf in sheeps clothing like George Bush.

Anonymous said...

RLD, who exactly is markadelphia mocking? People that are, in fact, supporting the murder of hundreds of thousands based on a "schoolyard bully" value system. Who is markadelphia accusing of being racist? People that have, in fact, said they don't want Mexicans in our country.

Help me out, here.

Anonymous said...

As a moderate, non-religious, sometime supporter of Bush I have to say...generalize much.
I didn't vote for Bush but I don't always disagree with him.

Lumping all Bush supporters in with the religious right is a little much. Doesn't that make you as bad as the other side when they do their lumping together.
(hey, lumping all republicans in as Bush supporters is a little much too!)
The country is divided this way approximetaly, 40% of the country is registered Democrat, approx. 30% of the country is registered Republican, and approx. 30% are God-Damned-Independents like me. (religious comment was intentional)

"On election day, exit polls revealed a modest decrease in self-identified members of the "religious right" compared to 1996 (14 versus 17 percent of voters)."

So only 14% of voters identified themselves as members of the religios right.

"Despite organizational problems, the Christian Coalition and other groups worked hard for the Republican ticket, and received a few concessions on issues, such as late-term abortions. The smaller "religious right" voting bloc went 80 percent for Bush, up from the 65 percent for Bob Dole in 1996."

So only 80% voted for Bush, which means that you are down to about 11%.

The truth is there are all kinds of Republicans and Bush supporters. There are big business republicans, state's rights republicans/small federal govt, anti-tax republicans, etc.

Don't be a hater or a generalizer (new word?)

Bwahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

Education and Communication (between different as well as like-minded perspectives, as is going on right here :) are the key. And NEITHER ever really occur in US presidential election campaigns, so we are our only hope.

GOOD that you tell Markadelphia that he pisses you off because he uses the 'f' word a LOT and his questioning of your way of thinking is often abrasive. GOOD that Markadelphia responds(and yes, he does sometimes sound like a kid :) but i think in a good way, apart from the sex-talk :) tells you that all bets are off because screwing people in real-life is actually a lot worse than swearing.

THAT'S HONEST COMMUNICATION. Which we need more of.

I can not agree more with JW as WELL as see the points of view of the Sarge and the Independent American.

We need to ask very honest questions and get very honest answers from our prospective or actual leaders and hold them account for their lies, which are at the very least irresponsible or negligent and at the worst criminal on a global scale. And no they can not say 'Well, this event changed everything' -- NO IT DIDN'T, it only changed everything for people who don't know or never knew the other side of our actions and the story. When we attack people, we will be attacked (it's the exact same logic as saying we will go after you if you harm us.) When we screw them in their own countries, and in their democracies, as a MATTER OF POLICY, we will be vulnerable and open to being screwed. So, the problem here, is/are THE POLICIES and the rhetoric which CAMOUFLAGE and hide these policies and the facts from the people rather than bring them out into the open for honest debate.

What the hell are we doing in Iraq ?? (okay i know we're stuck there now, thank you mr completely failed CEO of the USA..) How on earth did the invasion or the occupation make America safer?? Our new military bases there? The 2nd largest oil reserves in the world? Weren't there MUCH better ways of getting to the goal, unless the intention all along was malicious..? How will attacking Iran make us safer?? Pakistan is 20 times more unstable than Iran and is an Islamic country, they have nukes, we don't care, a./ because we continue to have 10,000 nukes of our own and b./ because we support and are ALLIED with Pakistan....

Always read between the lines, presidential candidates lie or do not divulge the truth as a matter of standard practise, you can't GET TO THE TOP today without lying or being beholden to your benefactors. They do this ONLY to get ELECTED, that is the ONLY goal, once elected President, they can behave as they please. And then lie to get us into new military conflicts which will nightmare consequences.

Thank you for the very interesting information and statistics above, Independent Thinker, 11% ultimately voted for George Bush, yet he acts as though he has the mandate of the entire country to do as he pleases with it's people and future...?!

If we read between the lines and never take ANY poltician (of either party) at face value, do some honest and independent research about individuals and their policies (as per John's advice above) not just falling for cool talk (i CRIED at Bush's 2000 inauguration speech for God's sake..!!) or big bucks or style every time like suckers, and KEEP THE LINES of honest communication open -- we will become our source of greatest strength and the fear of others and their possible actions or intentions will fade away. Replaced by self-confidence and trust in ourselves. Leaders and policies will be forced to improve their self-serving act at home and hateful acts abroad & at home.

Anonymous said...

VHeights, you sure missed a few things. For a teacher to have such a selective memory is quite troubling.

Who is Markadelphia mocking? How about these gems from Markadelphia, "There would be no equal rights for sinful faggots", "the beginning of the extermination of the Islamic Empire would finally begin", "All of the spics will be deported back to Mexico or killed because that's what it's all about.....people killing people cuz they fucking deserve it, dammit" and from another entry "the "let's kill all those fucking faggots" crowd".

Blogger, where did I ever say that I was pissed off that Markadelphia uses Fuck all the time? I mentioned that he uses the word a lot, not sure how that makes me pissed off. Read the quotes in the above paragraph to see who is pissed off on here, all those quotes from someone who claims he wants the country to be united. In one breath, Markadelphia can write about wanting the country to be united and in the very next sentence he can say "All bets are off, I can use this language because they started it" and so on. It’s like an 8 year old in a sandbox, and Markadelphia knows that to be true which is why he accuses others of that. You want to see some real abusive language just go to a rabid liberal blog and read the comments there, something Markadelphia probably also knows to be true so he accuses others of that.

When you start out the debate by saying that one particular position on immigration is driven by ethnic hatred you aren’t going to change anyones mind at all. This kind of charge will be familiar to any public figure who has taken a public position against affirmative action and found himself/herself called a racist. As a debating tactic, it is low and - not to put too fine a point on it - disgusting. It is meant to bully and intimidate. What should be a spirited debate about facts and the effects of policy on this blog starts out with an assault on character and motive. I do not question the character of those who favor wholesale legalization and more liberal immigration policies, I simply disagree with them. I would like to think that the American society that immigrants seek out - the one that new immigrants, we are told, will assimilate to - is one that values civility in debate and a mutual respect between opponents, not insults, juvenile slams and accusations of racism.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag..
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

johnwaxey said...

rld,

Your points are well taken (by me at least), but unfortunately, the immigration issue is heavily entangled with racism. You can't get around it in any part of the world or in discussions of large groups of people. Human beings tend to categorize for the sake of generalization and the truth is that there is a long history of legislation that revolves around very racist views of our neighbors. I grant you that accusations of racism can be and are used as debating tactics meant to bully, but sometimes they are right on the money and deserve a place at the debating table.

To argue any point from the standpoint of "I don't like this or that simply because it looks different or because it acts differently or because a person has had such and such experience with one or a small group of individuals" also makes for a poor point to argue from. If it is just opinion, then fire away, but if it is an attempt to convince someone of something or to educate, then it is very weak indeed.

Most of the people who post here are logical, well-reasoned individuals that can agree that Markadelphia uses the f-bomb too much. I don't like the pieces of sh_t expression either. Something about that rubs me the wrong way, while I find "piece of sh_t to be okay. Its the "pieces" thing that I don't like I guess. Markadelphia is a big boy though and he should be able to use whatever language he wants to get his point across. Try arguing UFO's with Markadelphia sometime...yikes!

Mark Ward said...

Funny, I put up a post about unity and people rip me for being too "kum-by-ya." I put up a post that is filled with harsh rhetoric and I am too devisive. So, basically there is no way I can win. Cool, I must be on the right track. That's fine because I write to express the duality of my nature. People are inherently at loggerheads with themselves and I think that is a good thing. It creates character.

On the subject of immigration, the part of the the Republican base that are vehemently against Bush's immigration policy are racist. It is not a "low blow" or a debate tactic...it is a fact. RLD, while you may against immigration, I don't think you are racist but you really need to spend some time talking with the core of the anti-immigration folks--they are frightening. One thing I have found over the years hanging out with conservatives is they really have no idea what their side is all about--completely clueless.

That being said, an immigration column from me is coming soon. Need to think some things through first...

Anonymous said...

RLD,

I hear all of the things that markadelphia has said from the conservative side everyday...at school, on the radio, on TV...they may not say the word fuck but they are thinking it.

In fact, when it comes to homosexual men, I have heard far worse far too frequently. I have not seen such hatred of a group of people since I was a kid in the 60s, living in the south and seeing black people beaten daily for simply being black. Day after day in my school, children are bullied and physically abused for being gay, whether they actually are or not.

Anonymous said...

I’ve brought up the topic of language a few times in the past; time to go back to the basics…

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65090&dict=CALD

What a sad state of the nation that citizens who simply expect the government to enforce its own laws are labeled racists. Whatever will liberals do when they must describe someone who truly is racist? There will be no words left.

Foul language? Sure, it’s America; you can say what you like. But again, what a sad state of affairs that norms have been dumbed down to such a degree that the ‘F’ word is commonplace in daily conversation. Note: I’ve been known to drop the F-bomb at heated moments (usually about the time my jump serve goes into the net for the 3rd time in a game!!), but in daily conversation? It’s neither respectful nor respected.

Why do people not like you? Perhaps it is why you say. Perhaps… Or perhaps it’s time for a bit of introspection. Perhaps people don’t care for being called an “f___ing racist”. But hey, you know me; I love everybody…

Anonymous said...

"The political system is broken. The public knows that. They know also that this is the most important election in their lifetime. They are looking for leadership that can bring the two parties together and solve critical problems before the country."

Taken from this interesting article in today's WPost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901769_pf.html
Frankly if the Presidentail election IS all about money, while it should be about COMPETENCE at the job and UNITY of the country, i would vote for an independent & maverick Bloomberg-Hagel ticket... I'm so tired of 'rehearsed' politcians who have sold their souls, and fresh faces are great, but will they too buckle under the corruption ladder? As well as be accused of 'lack of experience.' Giuliani, is reprehensible... for several reasons... so, why don't we just get competent, rich (i.e. don't need anyone) politically-principled on vote record people, who aren't afraid of telling the truth, in power?

Another 4 years of a loyal Bushie might break the country.

Mark Ward said...

Dave,

Y'know what's odd? Most of the people I have met lately that are racist are Democrats. Granted, they come from rural areas or are in unions and such but they all seem to like the word "niggrah" alot. Really nice...

I also seem to hear much talk out of liberals mouths lately, regarding Jewish people, that I find to be inherently troubling..particularly in regards to Israel.

JT, the Bloomberg thing is very interesting, I agree. It puts a whole new spin on everything.

Anonymous said...

i just read what just just Dave said before i posted my feedback, you know? i think dave is right, in that it strikes me (from reading all the posts, not just from this article) that what people don't like or are most sensitive about is being crudely labeled, or all lumped into a general negative category.

At the same time, markadelphia is doing the classic 'devil's advocate' debating approach, which provokes (deliberately) the best and most passionate out of people, by simplifying and exaggerating (i'm a journalist...we simplify & exaggerate for a living, at least tv news journalism does...) a particular viewpoint, or stereotypical scenario, to get people to express themselves and choose their cause or side. In the exact same way that a radio or tv talk-show host does this to greater or lesser degree, and markadelphia may not always be diplomatic but he's also never dull.

Refinement of language and peoples' sensitivities are not top priority, while getting to the heart of the issue is. He could put things differently and take peoples' feelings or collective viewpoint more into account, but i don't think he feels he's insulting anyone, because everyone should be secure enough in their beliefs to be able to defend them and also disregard meaningless blather. I think markadelphia thinks he's just provoking honest & open debate, and being fake and untrue to his character and self i also get the impression, is not his style.

Anonymous said...

jt,

"Honest and open debate", by most standards, rarely involves the sort of gross generalizations and judgments so often on display in the posts of Markadelphia, et al.

If you all see value in poking fun at others and pointing out their logical or philosophical shortcomings, have at it. It's too bad, though, because this blog used to be about an actual open and honest debate of the issues. It has since become a forum most commonly used for "Conservatives suck and are wrong..."-type posts of vheights, truth girl, etc. It actually is a pretty good mirror of the political arena today.

Like I said - no offense to those people or anyone else who gets off on such postings. But it should called what it is, and not "honest & open debate." I wouldn't even go so far as to call it "thinking", as posited in the original post.

Anonymous said...

Valid point of view. So, how do you make it more honest and open, crab fan? I don't know or haven't read this blog as long as you obviously have. As someone who perceives a difference, like in 3-5 points (or however many you like) what are the main characteristics (stripped of emotion or politics) of HOW IT WAS, compared to how it is now, being more honest and open before in your view. You don't have to answer this by the way, i'm just curious by nature :) And i'm wondering how many people agree with you. I'm sure you don't just speak for yourself.

Mark Ward said...

Crab Fan,

When was there a time when you thought this blog was about open and honest debate? From day one, I have consistently been ripped being a "Bush hater" so thus my opinions are not valid. John Waxey makes honest and valid points and yet he is a "Bush Hater" so his opinions are not valid. One of the reasons that my language is so explicit is because of the Mt Everest size amount of frustration I have for the abnegation of some conservatives.

I have made several rips on the Democrats and, as expected, not a peep from the conservatives on this blog about my colorful language, gross generalizations, and judgements. I have no illusions about where they are up to and find it hard to defend them but somehow that seems to slide by nice and easy....and everything is OK on that regard. It's only when I rip the neocons that..then...well, what a dick I am!!

I don't know what affiliation JT is...Democrat of Republican...but he's/she's right...this country can't take another 4 years of a loyal Bushie. The one dimensional pursuit of a failed foreign policy carried out with the greatest amount of incompetence I have ever seen or read about in US History is almost as frightening as some of the conservatives who post here, ridiculing me, for being blinded by hatred.

I'd laugh about it all if I wasn't so sick to my stomach.

Anonymous said...

No, Markadelphia, you are a dick (your words) for ripping on both conservatives and democrats alike. You are right on one front, though. I was incorrect when I said that the blog used to be about open and honest debate. It probably never has been. I guess I just think fondly back to the days when more eloquent, reasoned conservatives lent their voices as counter arguments. The rational though of crabby, pl, and the like has been replaced by the rougher edge of the right wing. just dave admirably carries on the fight, although I'm not sure why. The new shooter rld has picked up the torch nicely, but we'll see if he lasts. Aside from JW, whose opinions I've always respected, no matter how incorrect I think they might be, it's tough to find a rational sounding board on this blog these days.

JW - with all due respect, debating issues such as immigration do not necessarily have to include issues such as racism. If you don't bring racism to the table, and rld doesn't bring racism to the table, why must it end up at the table? Just because x% of the voting population are too ignorant to rise above racism doesn't mean that rational individuals who influence policy need to wield the racism rhetoric. Ideally, and this may just be fanciful thinking, politicans and rational thinkers alike drown out the noise such as "conservatives think..." and "liberals think..." and focus on the issue itself, which is separate and distinct from racism.

Like I said, I'm not criticizing those who choose to spend time pondering the banality of Bushies or the vacuousness of liberals. Just wanted to point out the inaccuracy of the "honest and open debate" label. In short, I bring nothing to the table.

Mark Ward said...

CF, let me put this another way to see if you can understand where I am coming from...before Bush, conservatives were irritating but not worth all the fuss I have made over them on this blog. I politely disagreed and more or less moved on. I didn't really see many detrimental effects to their policies. To put it simply, they were much nicer and less delusional.

During and after Bush, they are, actually worth all of the fuss simply because of the fact that they have created the biggest cluster fuck our nation has ever seen.

I suppose it's possible that some president in the future could be worse but, thus far, nothing even comes close to the level of suckage they have accomplished. Whether it's out and out support of Bush or a passing acceptance, it still doesn't matter--somehow or another, they are complicit. The fact that you label John Waxey's opinions as "incorrect" basically proves that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Now, I know people say the same things about me but if you have been reading this blog then you know there was a time when I believed many of the things you do--sadly, the actions, results and consequences of Bush's actions have made me see how insanely wrong I was to even midly agree with such an incompetent. Also sadly, my being a "Bush hater" means that none of what I said could possibly be true.

As the band Journey said,

"Don't Stop Believin"....which was the original point of my post.

Anonymous said...

I find this comment a little ironic and strange, because the technique is used a lot in media -- the idea that 'i don't give a hoot and the people who do are really sad' but i'm going to spend this talk show discussing it anyway:

'Like I said, I'm not criticizing those who choose to spend time pondering the banality of Bushies or the vacuousness of liberals' But that's not true, because you are criticising the readers and posters of this blog, but for what? As far as i can see, for not agreeing with you or having more posters who see things from your perspective.

70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, Mr Bush's popularity rating (forget the president as an individual, as a person he might be great company and not as silly as he talks, but he stands for his Administration's domestic & foreign policies over the last almost 7 years)has never been so low at 29% in the nation. So, the fact that the majority of Americans are very concerned about the direction the country is moving in, makes opionions such as the ones posted on this blog, absolutely healthily countered by alternative opinions, not fringe or lunatic but mainstream.

I thought the whole point of blogs was to freely and colourfully express genuine views about genuine issues(obviously within respectful boundaries, and that's different if you & others feel those boundaries have been breached, but as markadelphia pointed out, it doesn't seem like you have a problem with disrespect towards one party, the Democrats, who i don't support because i think they're in general, corrupt and weak-willed) so -- if you're expecting this to be the Washington Post Chicago Tribune or LA Times, AP or Reuters News service, which delivers latest developments or sound bytes without a lot of colour, i think that's a unique and unfair way to size up a blog.

you're RIGHT, it's admirable that alternative views are healthily expressed, but WHY aouldn't they be? (as you suggest with just dave's soldiering on.. or not knowing how long rld will last.) It seems that you want most of the feedbacks voiced on this blog to mirror or be more in line with your own, otherwise, you see it as an entire waste of time.

Agreeing to disagree isn't a problem, i honestly think that that's the least of everyone's worries. But not wanting to acknowledge that there is frustration across the board and there are clearly argued and backed-up alternative perspecives to your own on key not banal issues, seems to be an act of somewhat denial. We all do it, so i don't mean that in a negative way, it's just funny how you wrap it up in detachment and noncholance, like everybody else doesn't get it or is wrong (fine :) who knows) bored or a dick, if they don't see things your way.

Mark Ward said...

Amen.

Anonymous said...

RLD LASTED A LONG TIME WITH YOUR MOM LAST NIGHT!!!!

Anonymous said...

jt,

I'm not interested in your opinion of what a blog should or should not be. I also am not criticizing those who choose to continue posting on this blog. More power to you if you like doing it. I was making the simple point that there is a difference between open and honest debate and what occurs on this blog, as Markadelphia himself acknowledges.

You presume too much (actually a common affliction of many who have thrived on this blog, including the administrator) with your conclusion that I'm a person who needs others to agree with me. For an illustration of the issue I'm referencing, look no further than Markadelphia's response to my last point. After stating that I disagree with many of JW's positions, I am chastised that I "can't see the forest for the trees." That's one very simple example of the ongoing issue.

A broader generalization of that point is that at various points in the past people who have posted conservative points of view have been consistently countered with terms such as racist, ignorant, intolerant, blinded, etc. Counter-arguments to conservative points of view have included such gems as the President is a murderer, makes decisions based solely on money and power, and has planted child porn on people's machines.

A "debate on this blog" often takes the form:
Lib Poster - We need higher taxes for education.
Cons Poster - No we don't.
Lib Poster - x% of the people think we do.
Cons Poster - Maybe we just need to use existing money more intelligently.
Lib Poster - You're just a Bush lover only interested in helping the rich get richer.

A crude example indeed, but one that is consistent with a multitude of threads on issues such as Iraq, the election, and greed.

For those of us who wish to engage in actual debates on issues, exchanges such as the one above simply aren't compelling.

I appreciate the effort that you must have put into forming such a detailed judgment of what kind of person I am and what I must be thinking. Contrary to how you have inaccurately judged and labeled me, however, I neither need people to agree with me nor do I care in what manner they choose to spend their time debating issues. Again, as I stated above, I was simply addressing the inaccuracy of the "open and honest debate" characterization.

Poopman - my mom's dead.

Anonymous said...

Crab fan

didn't want to reply, because yours was very eloquent.

but a few thoughts.

i stand by what i say, i'm not in your time zone so no effort was required to put response in writing, no judgement of character was meant just observations based on the feedback, and the fact that you can't even conceive as being accurate the actuality (all of which seem pretty factual, if dramatically put) of posts that you call gems, i've seen tens of hours of senate & congressional committee footage of covert and overt ops counterquestioning, that would make anyone think they were inhabiting the twilight zone, not modern-day (deja-vu) politics, reveals a judgemental inclination on your part. It's FALSE. It's a gross generalisation. Full stop.

It's just weird to me (and i know you don't care about my opinion so this is for a wider audience) that some people don't even blink at the extremely gross and editorialised opinionated generalisations of anchors and commentators on 'right-wing' tv (hate labels, i don't believe in 'right' or 'left' -- we are human and mixed) presenting spin as facts, yet they're quick to label any counter-claim or argument, as gross generalisations or fiction.

May your mom be watching you from Heaven and be very proud of you for standing up for what you believe in (absolutely no disrespect or irony meant, and again, i know my opinion is meaningless to you.)

Anonymous said...

Why am I here? Good question. I was introduced to this blog by Mark himself. (At a party where he alienated himself from even those of the same political persuasion w/ a bit of overzealous commentary. I might have done the same…too close to call really.) And I keep coming back because 1) I’m addicted to politics and debate, 2) I enjoy being right (been waiting for that pun, haven’t you!) and 3) I’m a true believer and a whacky kind of missionary for the GOP. I’m convinced this is the greatest, most free nation the world has seen and that people can and will change their minds and that I can help them down that path. Opposite of Crab-Fan’s motives, I do want (need?) people to agree with me. And sure, one could argue that people here are too far gone and I should find a blog w/ more reasonable people but since I know some of the posters here (kind of), it adds a certain element of oh, I-don’t-know-what. And Mark’s going to make a fine Conservative one day!

But with this thread… I’m glad the topic has changed from the original blog to everyone discussing honest & open debate & JT’s reference to “respectful” debate which is what I was alluding to (in this post anyway) and what is sorely lacking. Language is too frequently butchered here. I agree w/ Mark & JT in that this isn’t a professional publication so we don’t have to be all prim and proper…but how can anyone have reasoned debate w/ a lead in which characterizes groups of people as National Socialists or “f___ racists”. Now I know (hope?) Mark doesn’t believe many of the things he says but says them out of the spirit of promoting debate. Sure, he flirts with the ridiculous and occasionally even inflates it when egged on by some of the less intellectually able (You listening Eddie??) but I hope this is simply to stir the pot and get vigorous discussion going. I think this because when questioned on it, he invariably comes back to earth and agrees with me on significant points. Now, if the discussion started on earth and we didn’t have to wade thru the mire, I’m convinced the country would be a happier place and we’d see that we’re all a lot closer in opinions than it would appear. …Well, probably not some of the communist posters here or that bomb-thrower ‘Everyday People’, but the rest have hope.

Anonymous said...

If you are to believe posters on this blog, my mother raised a bigoted, sexist, intolerant prick who cares only about making himself and those around him richer, and who is unwilling to accept or acknowledge other points of view. It's probably that knowledge that killed her! Also probably damned her to Hell, so I can't be certain she's in Heaven.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your last post, but I feel compelled to clarify one point that I think perhaps you misunderstood. I never said I don't care about your opinion. Or the opinion of everybody on this blog, for that matter. I simply don't happen to care about your opinion for what a blog should or should not be.

Again, your characterization of me as somebody who can't even conceive as being accurate the actuality of posts that you call gems is terrible inaccurate. I don't know what you were reading, but it must have been something different than what I wrote! (And, by the way, thank you for helping to prove my point.)

Anonymous said...

Just Dave

you have a flare for writing, as do you other reaganites, i will NOT call you 'Conservatives' because that implies the rest of us are loose and / or wild in morals (not so bad if it was confined to free & lateral thinking,) so i for one would be sad to see you not hold the torch for the have your cake and eat it crowd, on this politically incorrect blog.

Crab fan, i read this and thought of you :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070621/hl_nm/brain_feelings_dc;_ylt=AuML.Gewf8Qe4UbQA0BGER6s0NUE

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Putting feelings into words makes sadness and anger less intense, U.S. brain researchers said on Wednesday, in a finding that explains why talking to a therapist -- or even a sympathetic bartender -- often makes people feel better.

NO, that doesn't mean i PRESUME you need to see a shrink -- since your powers of analysis seem just fine, it means, even if we disagree we can put our feelings into words, right?

So, if we don't solve anything, Markadelphia's blog may still be therapeutic.

Anonymous said...

JT

Agree 100%. Although attempting to "debate" with some people on this blog has been known to offset the therapuetic benefits.

Everything in moderation, I suppose.