Journal pudge's Journal: Not an Argument 8
Liberals from Barack Obama all the way down to Katrina vanden Heuvel don't seem to realize that "Republicans who bloated the deficit and debt talking about fiscal responsibility is laughable" is not an actual argument. Either that, or they know it is not an argument, and are just being intentionally dishonest.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Republicans are the best examples of fiscal irresponsiblity we've ever seen: it doesn't actually help defend Obama's plans to say so.
And while I am on dishonest arguments, why do the Democrats keep saying that Bush transferred wealth to the rich, when in fact the rich pay more of the tax burden now than when he took office?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to feed the anger and keep the BDS high going.
Let's be honest, Obama saying he doesn't believe in bigger government is like the president of a college fraternity saying that he doesn't believe in binge drinking.
It scores points (Score:2)
The left peddles nothing of the sort. All is relative, and all appeals are to emotion.
Furthermore, all appeals are in the present tense: specifically, there is no valid historical analysis, and the future only exists as a sort of fear-club to wave at people and draw them into the governmental arms.
Would that the approach wasn't such an effective appeal to the worst in the corporate 'us'.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of historical analysis, another thing that's been bugging me is that the left keeps scoffing at the word "socialism." But Obama is a 19th-20th century Western European Socialist. A French Socialist is not about controlling the means of production, it's about controlling the circumstances under which it operates. It's about using the power of government to achieve certain societal outcomes.
And worse of all, it's about the idea that having the best people with the best brains coming up with the be
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in another discussion, I'm looking for the first signs of "buyers remorse" in Obama voters I know, most of whom are incredibly uninformed about the world.
There are of course people, clueless about economic issues, who only voted for Obama as an anti-war statement. But now we find that is the only Bush policy he plans to leave untouched (for now).
On the other hand, I also know a left-wing economist who once said to me something along the lines of "damn you Republicans for engaging in a starve the
Re: (Score:2)
"damn you Republicans for engaging in a starve the beast policy of increased spending and lower taxes!"
I am still not sure how much of that was intentional; that is, how much was spending for the sake of normal reasons (buying votes etc.) and how much was a part of a strategy of trying to bankrupt the system.
I'd say at this point we aren't starving the beast, we are shooting him through the head, hanging him, and castrating him for good measure.
Pretty much.
Last I checked, economies were listed as chaotic systems, about as controllable as the weather.
Oh, please! The Democrats keep telling us tax rates increasing under Clinton CAUSED the good economy of the late 90s, and now you're telling me they DIDN'T? :-)
moof (Score:1)
It's not meant to be an argument -- intelligent, clueful Liberals don't make arguments, they make retorts. Which serves, ingeniously, simultaneously the purposes of fooling the dumdums like the American populace in general, and irritating Conservatives like you.
Re: (Score:2)
I've literally lost count of the number of times I've read/heard "but Bush did too/more/worse" as a reply to any criticism of the Democrats or the Obama Administration. Express concern about government exploding the budget & debt - "but Bush spent billions too." Lather, rinse, repeat for dozens of issues.
It's just about the most childish and illogical/anti-intellectual "argument" possible. Hell, my 7 & 3 year old pretty much already know that "he started it" gets them absolutely nowhere. A lesson a
Re: (Score:1)
Really, what else can they do? When one discovers and comes to grips with the disconcerting reality that their idealogy possesses the peculiar characteristic of not being defensible on intellectual grounds, all that's really left in choices of response strategies is 1) talk over the other person or otherwise drown out/censor rebutting speech, or 2) try to end the discussion as fast as possible, such as via an idiotic and insulting retort. The first strategy is important when a canned, stupid statement hasn'