Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
As I flipped this off, it occured to me just how similar the Left and Right are in this country. Both are just crowds of that certain type of asshole who thinks he knows better about how you ought to live your life. I grew up thinking the Left was live and let live and the Right was an insecure pack of controlling lunatics. The more you look, they're just different stripes of powermad fellow travelers.

I agree with this part.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yesss. And the Right are those permadrunk, Nascar loving, tobacco chewing, wife beating Jesus junkies. The swine throw the New Yorker aside at the doctor's office in search of People and US... I assume the art on the cover confuses them. No velvet Elvis there. Harrumph, harrumph.

Nooooo. The Right is wide-wale cords with little whales embroidered on them and tassel loafers with no socks. They live for Sunday morning not for church, but for the bloodys and mimosas they drink by the bucket at the Club.

Every year at Christmas, they might slip the white-coated, darker-skinned help a little envelope, or maybe a bag with some clothes their children have outgrown because "it's so darn hard to dress the little ones properly."

They lock the doors of their BMWs or Mercedes when they drive through the sketchier part of town and they wonder why the city doesn't hire more police to keep those people in line.

They read the Wall Street Journal or National Review and grouse about how we need to do something about those damned Arabs and thank God Bush is sending over more troops. As long as their kids don't have to go.

They talk about lowering taxes to level the playing field. For some reason they seem to think they need to be protected from the competition for resources presented by the guy in the lobby who mops the floor or the driver who takes them home at night.

They have no spine, no sense of fair play, and no appreciation for the fact that they are one of the lucky few. Most of all, they firmly believe above all else that they have a God-given right to have been blessed and fuck all those who weren't.

And naturally, they never engage in hyperbole. Like their counterparts on the Left.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I'm merely offering them as the most easily recognized academics at the more extreme end of the continuum of what is "Left." I looked for some exaamples of the fat middle of the continuum, but soccer moms who think universal health insurance sounds like a "really good thing," lawyers who've been brainwashed into the notion laws and ragulations can cure all and people who still think their Political Geography professor who privately called Israel "Occupied Palestine" had great points are woefully underpublished. So I cited some of the authors with prominence on many of their bookshelves instead.

Simply put, if you believe in Hillary's platform right now (save her hawkish foreign policy intended to trick some moderate voters), you're on the Left.

I asked you who "the Left" is because we were talking about "the Left's" failure to denounce Iraqi mistreatment of British troops. I asked you because it's hard for me to understand why anyone would think that "the Left" -- e.g., a housewife who supports universal healthcare -- supports torture if it's Iran that's doing it. Lurking beneath club's original post and your prior one is this whacky notions that "Leftists" are inclined to be apologists for Shi'ite theocrats. If you're talking about Chomsky or even Nader, then whatever -- I don't know whether that's right, as a factual matter, but I don't care. You're talking about fringe nutbags. But if you're talking about anyone within the mainstream of the Democratic party, then you're full of shit. Because the notion that Democrats have some inclination to side with the current Iranian government in a dispute with the Labor government of England is just completely wrong, and somewhat libelous to boot. As is the implication that Democrats aren't really bothered by torture -- they're just sticking up for Ahmadinajad.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Nooooo. The Right is wide-wale cords with little whales embroidered on them and tassel loafers with no socks. They live for Sunday morning not for church, but for the bloodys and mimosas they drink by the bucket at the Club.

Every year at Christmas, they might slip the white-coated, darker-skinned help a little envelope, or maybe a bag with some clothes their children have outgrown because "it's so darn hard to dress the little ones properly."

They lock the doors of their BMWs or Mercedes when they drive through the sketchier part of town and they wonder why the city doesn't hire more police to keep those people in line.

They read the Wall Street Journal or National Review and grouse about how we need to do something about those damned Arabs and thank God Bush is sending over more troops. As long as their kids don't have to go.

They talk about lowering taxes to level the playing field. For some reason they seem to think they need to be protected from the competition for resources presented by the guy in the lobby who mops the floor or the driver who takes them home at night.

They have no spine, no sense of fair play, and no appreciation for the fact that they are one of the lucky few. Most of all, they firmly believe above all else that they have a God-given right to have been blessed and fuck all those who weren't.

And naturally, they never engage in hyperbole. Like their counterparts on the Left.

Jesus, man... That stereotype's so absurd and dated I have to assume its a joke.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I asked you who "the Left" is because we were talking about "the Left's" failure to denounce Iraqi mistreatment of British troops. I asked you because it's hard for me to understand why anyone would think that "the Left" -- e.g., a housewife who supports universal healthcare -- supports torture if it's Iran that's doing it. Lurking beneath club's original post and your prior one is this whacky notions that "Leftists" are inclined to be apologists for Shi'ite theocrats. If you're talking about Chomsky or even Nader, then whatever -- I don't know whether that's right, as a factual matter, but I don't care. You're talking about fringe nutbags. But if you're talking about anyone within the mainstream of the Democratic party, then you're full of shit. Because the notion that Democrats have some inclination to side with the current Iranian government in a dispute with the Labor government of England is just completely wrong, and somewhat libelous to boot. As is the implication that Democrats aren't really bothered by torture -- they're just sticking up for Ahmadinajad.

My comment was not offered in such a limited context. I was merely trying to form a picture of "The Left."

I actually agree with you. I don't think the center of the Left are apologists for Tehran. But I do think they're disingenuous in their criticism of US foreign policy and interrogation techniques.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think the center of the Left are apologists for Tehran. But I do think they're disingenuous in their criticism of US foreign policy and interrogation techniques.

Who are you talking about, and how are they disingenuous?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who are you talking about, and how are they disingenuous?

I'm talking about the middle of the Democratic party, which has been so rabidly anti-anything-Republican that it registers criticism only against the US, and sits silent when other nations do something odious.

I'm not going to be gamed by you into trying to describe the myriad demographics in this group. It includes to varying degrees every person who bitches about US policy but is silent on issues such this recent Iran thing. The proof of its existence and depth is proven by the millions of anti-US criticisms you'll hear and the lack of anti-Iran criticisms. A person who wants the GOP to go down in flames doesn't want to admit Iran has done something wrong because doing so necessarily gives credence to some of the GOP's positions.

Amazingly, Chomsky and Nader types are even beyond the wild beliefs of this frothing group.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm talking about the middle of the Democratic party, which has been so rabidly anti-anything-Republican that it registers criticism only against the US, and sits silent when other nations do something odious.

I'm not going to be gamed by you into trying to describe the myriad demographics in this group. It includes to varying degrees every person who bitches about US policy but is silent on issues such this recent Iran thing. The proof of its existence and depth is proven by the millions of anti-US criticisms you'll hear and the lack of anti-Iran criticisms. A person who wants the GOP to go down in flames doesn't want to admit Iran has done something wrong because doing so necessarily gives credence to some of the GOP's positions.

Amazingly, Chomsky and Nader types are even beyond the wild beliefs of this frothing group.

2. Ty made a special thread to banish me, yet he lets Adder spew his hate day after day. Fair?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm talking about the middle of the Democratic party, which has been so rabidly anti-anything-Republican that it registers criticism only against the US, and sits silent when other nations do something odious.

I'm not going to be gamed by you into trying to describe the myriad demographics in this group. It includes to varying degrees every person who bitches about US policy but is silent on issues such this recent Iran thing. The proof of its existence and depth is proven by the millions of anti-US criticisms you'll hear and the lack of anti-Iran criticisms. A person who wants the GOP to go down in flames doesn't want to admit Iran has done something wrong because doing so necessarily gives credence to some of the GOP's positions.

Amazingly, Chomsky and Nader types are even beyond the wild beliefs of this frothing group.

This about captures it. I'd also add the international organizations (not to the left, but to the group who, if objective, should be taking the same stance with Iran as it did with Abu Garib and Gitmo).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They have no spine, no sense of fair play, and no appreciation for the fact that they are one of the lucky few.

I understand most of your post was hyperbole, but do you really believe that those who favor lower taxes are lucky to be in their situation? Is that how they got their, as if it was by some random chance?*

*Disregarding, of course, the few who inherited their money - they are certainly lucky in the sense that they won the genetic lottery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It includes to varying degrees every person who bitches about US policy but is silent on issues such this recent Iran thing.

Only an idiot could infer from a Democrat's silence on this recent Iran thing that s/he condones Iranian torture.* I would not have thought that you were such an idiot.

I haven't heard you condemn Robert Mugabe lately, or the military junta that rules Myanmar, or Chinese software piracy, or carcinogens in Pop-Tart branded toaster pastries. To infer from your silence that you support these things is, simply, idiocy. Of the stripe you're staking out.


* Or rather, mistreatment of UK prisoners, since nothing they did comes close to waterboarding, which the conservatives on this board say is not torture.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand most of your post was hyperbole, but do you really believe that those who favor lower taxes are lucky to be in their situation? Is that how they got their, as if it was by some random chance?*

*Disregarding, of course, the few who inherited their money - they are certainly lucky in the sense that they won the genetic lottery.

wonk is like the bizaroo universe Hank, and I love him like my mirror reflection, but this hate the rich on taxes thing has nothing to do with the rich. Wonk doesn't want there to be fewer taxes because then wonk couldn't bill as much for doing tax law. On drunken election night i got a prominent PI lawyer to admit he speil about conservative Judges taking away our rights boiled down to the Mi. Sup Ct was making it easier to SJ out Med mal and Products cases. that's all wonk is on about- his pocketbook.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only an idiot.........

I guess this means you won't banish adder for his attack style.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only an idiot could infer from a Democrat's silence on this recent Iran thing that s/he condones Iranian torture.* I would not have thought that you were such an idiot.

I haven't heard you condemn Robert Mugabe lately, or the military junta that rules Myanmar, or Chinese software piracy, or carcinogens in Pop-Tart branded toaster pastries. To infer from your silence that you support these things is, simply, idiocy. Of the stripe you're staking out.


* Or rather, mistreatment of UK prisoners, since nothing they did comes close to waterboarding, which the conservatives on this board say is not torture.

I disagree with the idiot comment, and I think that hyperbole consciously or not betrays a little bit of frustration dealing with my simple point.

When a Dem rips into the Bush Admin's interrogation policies with a vengeance and claims those policies are of utmost importance - a near sacred matter, then sits silent when Iran engages in similar (though I agree tamer) interrogation policies, I call that person a hypocrite. And a lot of dictionaries would back me up.

Lawyers like you and I know know the best lie is one of omission. When you don't want to deal with a fact that fucks up your case, you avoid it. In this situation, the same voices who shred the US on its interrogation policies are ignoring what Iran has done. Now, in the case of litigation or trial work, being such a hypocrite is just good advocacy. But on this issue, where these same Lefties are claiming moral superiority over what they see as Bush Admin's immoral policies, it's pretty low.

I know a lot of Lefties who only get their backs up when the US does something bad but sit silent at all other times. They have an agenda, and they refuse to see both sides of an issue, just like many of their counterparts on the Right. These people make politics a religion, and avoid anything that detracts from the delusional view they sustain at any cost. Some people are so desperate to believe in something, and feel like they're right that they'll bullshit themselves rather than see the fact that both sides of an issue are wrong, or a lot closer together than makes these "true believers" comfortable. They need something to rail against, and they're defined by what they hate. And there's no hate stronger than that directed to our Fumbler in Chief. Add the fact that many liberals are young and naive (a lot of my liberal friends like to believe in conspiracies of powerful people controlling our world like a puppet show) and you get a very deluded mindset more intent on attacking and winning the debate against an Administration it hates than honestly addressing the facts of an issue. These people only scream when the target of criticism suits their goals.

Regarding your "*" section, that's a different debate alltogether.

[Adder]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They have no spine, no sense of fair play, and no appreciation for the fact that they are one of the lucky few. Most of all, they firmly believe above all else that they have a God-given right to have been blessed and fuck all those who weren't.

It is merely the result of social Darwinism, afterall...