Anything to avoid the point – an obtuse lengthy comment
December 4, 2009 – 5:56 amWe would like to thank Damian for his comment on our post “Continuing to Squeal”.
Let’s address his reasonably presented questions and points. Damian’s text is in red in recognition of his political self-identification and italicized.
Our responses are in regular post format.
Damien, We appreciate you reading our materials (or claiming to) and thought your comment deserved a comprehensive reply. Your comment is very illustrative of many common shortcomings of collectivists when they dare to venture into rational debate. By striking a reasonable tone readers might miss some typical canards, oversights, inaccuracies, assumptions and misrepresentations typical of socialist political thought and commentary. Collectivists live in a world of emotion, delusion and revisionist history. Please note how completely Damian fails to address the substance of the post, preferring to imply, assume and misdirect any substantive position in relation to global warming.
I read what you wrote, and felt that I needed to say something. First of all, I want you to know that I’m not angry or outraged as I write this to you. I will say upfront that I am a liberal democrat with socialist leanings and I am a voting American Citizen.
We value our Constitutional Republic and its citizenry and are happy you vote. Part of the greatness of our country is our representative government. Too bad it is so enormously outside the bounds of its original constitutional design isn’t it?
Now that you know where I am coming from, I’d like to respond to a few comments you posted here. The first question that came to mind was who exactly are you trying to reach with your words?
If you mean the post to which you commented, the target audience is people interested in the debate on global warming/global climate change and the false claims that cause is anthropogenic. If you mean the site in general read our “Participate” page (there is a tab at the top of the page).
Are you merely content to preach to the choir by condemning liberals to other conservatives, so that you will never be challenged, or do you have any desire to enlighten other liberals such as myself?
We are fortunate to have various points of view amongst our contributors. A Neo-con (though she might disagree with that appellation), a couple of libertarians (note the small l), a reform party person (whom I call a “perotista”) and a democrat. If you seek enlightenment on the topic to which your comment is attached, I suggest you read the article and the NUMEROUS links embedded in it.
If you only want to complain to people who you do not wish to contradict you or challenge your point, that’s perfectly justifiable. If so, I understand. Now if you are wanting to be constructive and try to persuade those who disagree with you, I congratulate you.
You seem to purposefully avoid any observation or comment on the actual content of the post to which you are commenting. Rather than any generic “complaint”, the post offers very specific detail (see the numerous embedded links). If you don’t find any of the materials persuasive or constructive it would seem you didn’t bother to read any of it. Often, liberals are to busy trying to find ways to be offended to bother with substantive material that is the predominate content of the article.
Most politically active citizens, whether right or left, never think to help fellow citizens who they feel are confused or misguided, by reaching across the barrier and trying to let the others in on the truth that they know they have found, in an attempt to rehabilitate others and let them in on the truth.
Ahh, we do though. If you read the article and comment on ANY of great amount of factual data in the embedded links you would realize this.
This is productive because it is an attempt to bring the country together instead of merely condemning strangers who you have never met, and righting them off.
I don’t know that “bringing the country together” is a goal I have any interest in. Political partisanship has been a part of our country since its inception. I’m no sheep to require all bleat in unison.
This only leads to a wider schism in our Nation, which just polarizes the issues more and turns the country into a divided state.
The only thing that turns the country into a “divided” state are the identity and victim politics of leftists and collectivists. We are all Americans, not hyphenated victim groups.
If we only wish to condemn, tear down, dismiss, mock and insult each other we are no better than savage beasts, in that we become filled with such hate and spite and anger, we lose our human dignities and rely only on our baser instincts.
My what a silly load of tapioca pablum this is. Animals don’t “dismiss” or “mock” each other, they eat each other. With no remorse. Praise God we aren’t animals eh? Ideas and political positions based on falsehoods should be “torn down”. Positions that are in opposition to American Freedom should be mocked, derided and shown to be the foolishness that they are. You might become filled with “hate and spite and anger” but thinking people won’t. People who understand individual liberty aren’t driven by emotion as collectivists are. Yes, that is a general statement but generally true.
But regardless, assuming that you want to be constructive, and help America unite instead of destroying it with quiet rage,
Are you projecting? Are you familiar with the concept of liberal projection?
there are a few things I noticed in reading your posting that would hinder those who disagree with you from really hearing your message.
It appears to have “hindered” you from reading or addressing any of the points in the post except the satirical first paragraph? Afraid a little data might “hinder” your angst, outrage and reasonable sounding generalizations?
First, I don’t understand why you use the child-like nicknames and portmonteau words. For example, you use the name “Obamessiah” instead of President Obama. You understand I’m sure, that no educated or intelligent person would really ever take you seriously by using words like that.
Did you mean portmanteau? Which is it? A “child-like” nickname or a portmanteau word? When you say “no educated or intelligent person” are you claiming to speak for all such? Are you claiming to be one yourself? If you don’t take it seriously, more power to you. To assign such to any/all “ no educated or intelligent person” is laughable and ridiculous and so I’ll assume you are joking.
The minute you resort to Junior High level name calling tactics, even right wing thinkers will totally dismiss anything you have to say, because by name calling you are not showing any sense of maturity or self-restraint.
Isn’t calling someone “child-like” and “Junior High” a form of “name calling”? Pot/Kettle situation I suppose. Assigning a humorous appellation to the man occupying the presidency is hardly uncommon. I spent years commenting on “the Shrub”. This just emphasizes your studied avoidance of the topic of the post to which you commented.
But surely you know that. Unfortunately you continue to use silly and inapropriate slang to prove your point, which not only dismisses it, but makes you look hysterical and out of control.
What is “inappropriate”? By who’s definition? Yours? Oh my! Makes me look hysterical and out of control to you? Well I’m not sure that your opinion is very significant. Except of course to you.
So if you are trying to help befuddled fellow citizens, I would recommend using actual words found in an english dictionary, and attempt, perhaps, to to prove your point with documented evidence,
Generally it is collectivists (socialists, liberals, progressives, democrats) who assume that their fellow Americans are “befuddled” or other negative terms. We esteem our fellow Americans. Even those who hold misguided collectivist political opinions. We make fun of the lefties incessantly because few of them have the wherewithal to address the topical matters we address.
relevant opinions made soberly and not emotion based.
Relevant to whom? Our opinions are relevant and actually address the topics under discussion. The COMPLETE irrelevancy of your comment to the topic matter to which it is attached seems to obviate your point.
Also, are you aware that it is no longer valid to use the word Nippon in a contemporary description?
Who establishes your standard of validity? Why is it no longer valid? It is simply a Japanese term for Japan
(Nip?pon – [nee-pawn; Eng. ni-pon, nip-on] –noun a Japanese name of Japan.)
If you don’t know, it is now since WWII, no longer describing anything in existence, but rather a now defunct historical empire in South East Asia.
Japan isn’t and wasn’t located in Southeast Asia. Japan is hardly defunct nor is its current reigning Emperor (Akihito). I won’t bore you with Japanese (or American) history because you don’t appear interested in discussing factual matters.
Also, I believe you were discussing China when you spoke the word, you do know that Nippon nearly always refers to the island that now is called in english “Japan”.
Is this more evidence that in your excitement to “reasonably” attack the author (rather than the post) that you didn’t. I was referencing the linked picture of Obama bowing over the hand (deeeply) of Japanese Emperor Akihito. You know, the one who is Emperor of a defunct Japan.
That is why in WWII, the soldiers who were rascist called the Japanese “Nips”.
In World War II virtually all Americans called the Japanese “Japs” or “Nips”. As did the U.S. Government in their propaganda. “Jap” was short for Japanese and “Nip” was short for Nipponese. I can recommend some good history books if you’d like. You could talk to someone who actually lived during World War II also. We also called the Germans “krauts” pretty universally. When you are fighting evil murderous regimes they often get called unkind names. Also, as many “progressives” wish, you seem to want to assign your unrealistic 21st century sensibilities and values to a different point in time. Exceedingly fruitless and silly to do.
One last thing, am I to believe that you hold that Mankind is basically good?
I speak only for myself but I believe that all men (that would probably be “humankind” or something to you) are sinful flesh and are only redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Here (as in America) though we accept all faiths and belief systems and work to protect their liberty.
Are you a secular humanist?
Assuredly not! I leave that to (predominantly) liberals and progressive type collectivists
I just wondered, because you didn’t put a context to your claim.
I didn’t claim (or intend to claim) such. I probably could have written that part better to make it clear. It is liberals (generally) who operate on assumptions of “everyone is basically good”. Pardon my lack of clarity.
I agree strongly with you on that, I admit.
Double faux pas on me!!
See the reason why people like you and Ayn Rand and Mussolini and Stalin, all feel that mankind is so good, is that if you were all to except the depravity of Man, you’d all be actually forced to examine your own lives, and for once take responsibility of your actions and mistakes, and for once admit that you were capable of making a mistake.
Now THAT is some high falutin moralizing. WOW!
Let’s see….
Ayn Rand was an Atheist libertarian.
Mussolini was Catholic
Stalin was an Atheist Totalitarian using collectivism as his power vehicle
I’m a personally conservative, politically libertarian (Constitutional Originalist), Christian believer. I admit my mistakes freely and learn from them (see above). See, libertarians (mostly) and conservatives (mostly) believe in personal accountability and personal responsibility and individual liberty.
It is the left (collectivists of all stripes too) that believe that people aren’t responsible for their actions, rather victimized by some onerous other. It is liberals too busy projecting their emotions on to others who fail to examine themselves.
People who value American Freedom, like our contributors hear aren’t always right, just more often correct than any leftist/liberal/progressive collectivist that we generally see, read or here.
Thanks so much commenting Damian. We’d like to invite you contribute again with a specific challenge to actually address the topic to which you comment rather than just attack the author with a faux reasonable tone.
Damian
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.