10/20/2004

Religious Cults vs. The Cult of Liberalism

In a meagar attempt to get a rise outta me, someone close to me compared my zeal for debating liberals to religious zealots knocking on doors attempting to save one soul. It got me thinking.... It really wasn't a fair comparison because unlike the religious zealots, my beliefs are rooted in logic. I'm also not attempting to save anyone (as a Libertarian, we should save ourselves without government intervention :-) ) My goal is to get one liberal to attempt to make a logical argument. Of course, observing a liberal attempting to make a logical argument is amusing to me.

Here's a better comparison worthy of a closer look:
Religious Cults vs. The Cult of Liberalism.

Let's compare. Both prey on the needy. Neither base their beliefs on facts or logic. Both put their faith in an outside source...cult members in their leaders or God (sometimes one-and-the-same), Liberals in "The State." Conservatives, on the other hand, but their faith in themselves (or their others close to them).

The characteristics of a religious cult:
1. Sense of higher purpose
2. Loaded language
3. Creation of an exclusive community
4. Persuasive leadership
5. Revisionist
6. Aura of sacred science

Sounds like the Cult of Liberalism:
1. The need that they should help everyone and understand those that are unhappy and do wrong (forget charitable donations, "The State" is far more efficient). Again one of my premises of my blog is that it's easy to be a liberal, you only have to FEEL...no thought required.
2. Their rhetoric is loaded with negativism and the belief that only "The State" can fix things.
3. The liberals (led by the "intellectual elite") in government know best what is for the people and those not in agreement with their agenda are "idiots."
4. How about the media? They follow lock-step with the liberals. Bill Clinton? He was full of you-know-what, but he was charasmatic.
5. Does RatherGate ring a bell (if it wasn't for the bloggers, he would have gotten away with it)? How about Bill Clinton NOT having anything to do with the global rise of islamic terrorists (through his inaction). How about John Kerry the "War Hero." Never mind that what the media has printed about his actions in Vietnam contridicts him directly in a 2 biographies about him (I won't even get started with the Swift Boat Vets). Or how about the huge economic growth that began during Ronald Reagan's second term (post-tax cuts). Nope, didn't think you ever heard that from a liberal. I could go on and on...
6. Their aura of sacred science consists of things like welfare, affirmative action, the U.N., etc. Don't you

How about the needs of religious cult members and the thoughts behind them?

1. Want to make a difference in life - Feel ineffective
2. A sense of purpose - Feel purposeless
3. A better way of living - Current way of life is unsatisfactory: job, housing, relationships
4. Personal guidance - don't know what to do with themselves and feel there is no-one they can ask who they have confidence in. Looking for someone to tell them what to do.
5. To be of service in ways which are meaningful to them - Feel useless and unnecessary
6. Power and control - Feel powerless; at the mercy of others and circumstances

Hmmm. Notice any similarities with liberals? In the case of liberals it's like this:
1. Want to make a difference in life - The State can make a difference in your life and positively affect all citizens
2. A Sense of Purpose - The State can give citizens a sense of purpose
3. A better way of living - The State can take care of everyone's needs
4. Personal Guidance - The State knows whats best for it's citizens
5. To be of service in ways meaningful to them - Individual liberals believe that in the service of The State, their lives are meaningful
6. Power and Control - The State controls it's citizens thereby protecting them. Individual liberals believe that only they can help the ignorant masses (as opposed to people helping themselves).

If you were to pin a cult member down and get them thinking (which is what deprogrammers do and incidentally what cult members fear), their logic breaks down. A member's family that doesn't believe in the Cult is evil. It's the same with liberals. Conservatives are often described as "stupid", "selfish", "evil", etc. What members of both groups fear the most is the truth. They will do anything and resort to any tactic to avoid the truth. Denial is a huge part of their playbook (ex. I did not have sex with THAT woman).

How are cult members deprogrammed?
"In practice, the vast majority of the time spent during deprogramming sessions is the marshalling of evidence aimed at proving that the "cult" deceived and manipulated the recruit into joining. Once the person accepts this premise, the remainder of the process is relatively easy."

Just as a cult member will resist the truth, so will a liberal. They actively resist any sort of debate and rather than refuting your argument with a solid argument of their own, they usually resort to one of the following tactics or logical fallacies:
1. Ad hominem attacks
2. Appeal to Pity
3. Ad naseum
4. Straw Man
5. Changing topic

It's probably easier to deprogram a member of a religious cult than it is a liberal. Why? My theory is that liberals are more firmly entrenched in their ideology than a cult member. Most cult members are sucked in while adults so their ideology is not as set as a liberal. Everyone in this country is bombarded with liberal ideology from the time they are children via public school education and the media. Those that are free-thinkers, are willing to research things, challenge the ideology, and come to their own conclusions; will abandon liberalism for the pablum it is. Either that or liberals will move out of their parents' basement, get a job, and start paying taxes.

17 Comments:

Blogger eskadoni said...

hmm. maybe your inability to acknowledge, let alone accept notions from the opposing view as at all relevant is what your friend was keying on. or your self-righteousness. you can tell her it's crap, though, because i can't stand the religious fundamentalist/ religious cult culture and rhetoric, yet i read you somewhat regularly without wanting to scratch my eyes out, despite belonging to the group you scorn. Maybe it’s just easier listening to why people think you’re wrong when they don’t throw words like “eternal damnation” around. Though, I must say that you do seem to be moving towards less logical and more feelings based arguments, even conspiracy theory type reporting, I chalk that up to the election. (we are all a little nuts right now). Keep fighting the infidels. Peace.

October 21, 2004 at 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how you would characterize conservatives? There was a study done a few years back that indicated conservatives were scared children who couldn't tolerate uncertainty and lashed out in aggresion at anything that upset their simple minded world. Have you thought about that?

October 21, 2004 at 8:17 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Charles.

You know I love debating with you and as yet, you are the only liberal to distill it down to the essential difference. Your belief that government exists to serve everyone, while my belief is that the government that governs least governs best. There's no real way for either of us to "prove" who's right...but it's fun to try.

As for my post...it was meant to be semi-funny.

October 21, 2004 at 8:27 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Anonymous

And you believe everything you read? What if I commissioned a study on liberals. What if that study determined that they were cowardly, power-hungry, fear-mongers? Would you believe that? I didn't think so.

I think that is a blatent example of a biased study.

Studies can biased...just as bloggers.

October 21, 2004 at 8:31 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Charles

I'm willing to listen to other opinions, but you don't really expect me to give in do you? I'll at least defend my viewpoint which is more than most liberals will do.

Part of the reason I get a kick outta you is that you won't resort to typical liberal tactics and will defend your positions. I still disagree with you, but that's half the fun.

I find that by debating issues it actually exposes weaknesses in my arguments, forces me to think and better defend my arguments.

I enjoy the intellectual excercise.

BTW-I was going to lead into the title like this:
In a post sure to piss off liberals all over the blogosphere...

Maybe that would have made it clearer as semi-humorous. Perhaps I need to work on my levity....

October 21, 2004 at 8:40 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

to be honest, my brain is so fried from all the great baseball going on that i would have missed a joke even if it was accompanied by a well placed laughtrack. i take back any mean thing i said and blame the mlb gods for the manna i have been gorging myself on these last few weeks. it has messed with my very essence. i can't imagine how i'd be if the giants were envolved. and why the hell not: liberals suck! (not all of us, not me of course, but some do. so there you go.) peace.

October 22, 2004 at 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the study I was talking about. I figured since you made a bunch of unsupported assertions about liberals and then discounted my question as derived from a biased study, I would clue you in.

===========

Berkeley study links Reagan, Hitler
Psychological research on conservatives finds them 'less complex'

Posted: July 23, 2003
2:15 p.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In a study that ponders the similarities between former President Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh, four American university researchers say they now have a better understanding of what makes political conservatives tick.

Underlying psychological motivations that mark conservatives are "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," they wrote, according to a press release issued by the University of California at Berkeley.

The researchers also contend left-wing ideologues such as Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro "might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended."

The study was conducted by Associate Professor Jack Glaser and visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park.

Glaser allowed that while conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said, according to the Berkeley news release.

"They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser explained.

The assistant professor of public policy said President George W. Bush's comments during a 2001 trip to Italy provide an example.

The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe, and I believe what I believe is right."

Glaser also noted Bush told a British reporter last year, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

'Elegant and unifying explanation'

The Berkeley news release said the psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books, conference papers, speeches, interviews, judicial opinions and survey studies.

Consistent, common threads were found in 10 "meta-analytic calculations" performed on the material, Glaser said.

Berkeley's Sulloway said the research is the first of its kind, synthesizing vast amount of information to produce an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of "motivated social cognition."

This area of psychological study, the news release explained, "entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs."

Noting most all belief systems develop in part to satisfy psychological needs, the researchers said their conclusions do not "mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Their finding also are not judgmental, they emphasized.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

However, the study showed, according to Glaser, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives.

The conservatives' intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure can be seen, he said, in the current controversy over whether the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq's alleged purchase of nuclear material from Africa.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

The researchers said the "terror management" tendency of conservatism is exemplified in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views.

Likewise, they said, concerns with fear and threat can be linked to another key dimension of conservatism, an endorsement of inequality.

That view is reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the researchers wrote.

A current example of conservatives' tendency to accept inequality, he said, can be seen in their policy positions toward "disadvantaged minorities" such as gays and lesbians.

Stalin a conservative?

A broad range of conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the researchers said, linking Reagan, Hitler, Mussolini and talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

These men were all right-wing conservatives, the study said, because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form.

Glaser conceded the research could be viewed as partisan because it focused on political conservatism, but he argued there is a vast amount of information about conservatism and little about liberalism.

The researchers acknowledged left-wing ideologues such as Stalin, Castro and Nikita Kruschev resisted change in the name of egalitarianism after they established power.

But these men, the study said, might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended.

Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

October 22, 2004 at 1:21 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Of course a report out of the Peoples Republic of Berkeley will attempt to draw comparisons of History's Most Evil Men to conservative icons. Of course liberals like Kennedy, Johnson, Hillary Clinton (Bubba always changed his mind based on polling data) and Carter aren't mentioned.

I was merely making a comparision between religious cults and liberals...somewhat tongue-in-cheek no less.

I do find this interesting though:
"'They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm,' Glaser explained."

The assistant professor of public policy said President George W. Bush's comments during a 2001 trip to Italy provide an example.

The Republican president told assembled world leaders, 'I know what I believe, and I believe what I believe is right.'"

Must mean that conservatives aren't as prone to flip-flopping as liberal icons like Clinton or Kerry.

The Clinton Adminstration allowed 9/11 to happen through his inaction after the '93 bombing, the USS Cole, pulling troops out of Somalia before they could finish their mission, and the failure to take OBL the 3 times he was offered by the Sudan.

I would much rather have a President that would take decisive action than one that would waffle, seek a global test, or check polling data before acting.

October 22, 2004 at 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical of the radical right to attack the messenger. Of course, everyone who disagrees with you is biased, right? Sure. Fox News is credible, right? - but Berkeley (one of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world) isn't credible, right? Sure. Go figure.

And now its Clinton that allowed 9/11 to happen? Sheesh. And you have the balls to say liberals don't think? Take a look at yourself my friend. Bush was told repeatedly that Osama was a big deal - he did nothing. And thats somehow Clinton's fault? Go figure.

And you would rather have a president that takes decisive action huh? Even one that takes the wrong decisive action? Apparently decisive is more important than being right, huh? Everyone told Bush and Co. to hold off - the evidence for WMDs was very, very weak, allies were not convinced, we had Saddam cornered, he was a leader in decline and we could only cause problems by a unilateral attack.

But you admire Bush's decisive action. Congratulations dingleberry.

October 22, 2004 at 7:40 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

all this talk of modern political discourse. how about a rousing look at the merits of neo-confucianism as opposed to the older, classic confucianism? is there any new insight on this all important topic? if you do have any insight, would you defend your position in as crude as a manor as your political views, dinkleberry?

October 22, 2004 at 11:27 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Anonymous

You're pretty funny if you're trying to get a rise outta me. But try not to go Ad Hominem on me...it only weakens any arguments that you may have and it only proves me right. Try to actually support your arguments...with neutral sources..or are you incapable of intelligent debate.

Fox News IS biased to the right...but I consider that fair considering ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN all lean left.

UC-Berkeley may be a respected institution of higher learning, but it most certainly is a liberal university (I'd post links, but you'd discount them anyway...try google for "liberal university", berkeley comes up frequently).

As for Clinton. Clinton has a huge part to play in 9/11 as he emboldened bin Laden (read the one of the first posts in my blog...supporting links included) and the rest of the radical Islamic terrorists.

Secondly, we can debate the Iraq war ad naseaum except for one small thing that liberals seem to forget-- Saddam has always been friendly to terrorists. He paid $25k to each family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. Abu Nidal (Achille Lauro mastermind and killer of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer), Al Zarqawi was in Iraq recovering from wounds suffered when we attacked Afghanistan. But don't say the old tired "NO WMD" line. In my estimation, Saddam's harboring and encouraging terrorists was enough. If you want to criticize how we prosecuted the war, fine...I personally don't think we went in there with enough troops...but that's an entirely differnt matter.

Yes, I'd rather a President make an honest mistake due to intelligence (both the Brits AND Czech intelligence services thought the data was valid) data than a President who through his inaction allows the threat to grow. Finally, Saddam was hardly a leader in decline. He was consolidating his power thanks to the money he was skimming from the Oil-for-Food program from the U.N....or don't you read about that sort of thing.

October 23, 2004 at 1:42 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

LOL. Thanks Charles...I needed the laugh.

October 23, 2004 at 2:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberal

So we can dismiss the Berkely research? Based on what? If not, did you care to respond to it? Did you ask your son to read it? Why or why not?

So the war was justified because Saddam paid money to some families of suicide bombers? You know everyone else in the Mideast does too don't you - including Saudi Arabia. Shall we attack Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia too? Oh and sure, a known terrorist spent some time in Iraq. Well that fact alone is worth the 1100 American lives and the $120 billion, and the loss of American credibility, and the eroding of our relations with our allies, etc., etc.

Did you happen to see Donald Rumsfeld break down at the funeral of a fallen solder a couple weeks back? It was surprising and a little disturbing. It was if it all hit suddenly - he just erupted with emotion. He had to turn away, and tried to turn away from the cameras. I felt genuine pity for him, and anger too. Those arrogant, thoughtless men have cost us all dearly. Shameful.

October 24, 2004 at 9:44 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

I did a rebuttal on your argument. I didn't necessarily dismiss their research, but it was biased in that they only compared Republican Presidents as opposed to Democratic Presidents. You also didn't rebut my statement that UC-Berkeley is a liberal institution.

"Of course a report out of the Peoples Republic of Berkeley will attempt to draw comparisons of History's Most Evil Men to conservative icons. Of course liberals like Kennedy, Johnson, Hillary Clinton (Bubba always changed his mind based on polling data) and Carter aren't mentioned."

Again, you only rebut part of my argument. You present a number of logical fallacies when you state, "So the war was justified because Saddam paid money to some families of suicide bombers? You know everyone else in the Mideast does too don't you - including Saudi Arabia. Shall we attack Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia too? Oh and sure, a known terrorist spent some time in Iraq. Well that fact alone is worth the 1100 American lives and the $120 billion, and the loss of American credibility, and the eroding of our relations with our allies, etc., etc."

First, you dismiss the fact that Abu Nidal and Al-Zaqarwi were both in Iraq. Though circumstantial, it is logical to assume that there were more than those 2 in Iraq (I'm certain that they had followers/supporters with them). Secondly, you present a Straw Man argument when you state, "So and so supports terrorists too, should we attack them" rather than accepting and rebutting my original arugment that Saddam supports terrorism and that he presented a threat. Thirdly, you appeal to pity while mentioning the number of troops and the money spent on the war in Iraq. Finally, you appeal to consequences when you mention the "loss of credibility" and "relations with our allies". Not once do you directly rebut any argument I've made.

In your final paragraph it's clearly an appeal to pity and opinion on your part.

The Clinton Doctrine of diplomacy without action had little affect on discouraging international terrorism. As Frederick the Great (echoed by Kissinger) stated, "Diplomacy without armsis like music without instruments." Clinton pretended terrorism was a legal issue rather than a global ideology perpetrated by fundamentalist Islamic nuts.

You continually attack current policy of the Bush Doctrine (proactive attacks of terror-supporting nations) while failing to address the deeper issues that fighting terror is not a war of understanding terrorists, it's an ideology of free nation vs. an religious oppression.

In addition, you likely supported our actions in Bosnia (in defense of Muslims), while ripping on our freeing of Iraq even though Saddam routinely killed Kurds and Shiite Muslims (estimated at over 1 million, 300k bodies found in mass graves). Even if you dismiss the WMDs, you are incabable of supporting a humanitarian issue.

As for Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia I'll address those in order. Syria may be attacked in the future. Iran is in danger of abandoning the mullahs and fundamentalist Islam as the 60% of their population under 35 is rejecting fundamentalist philosophy. The mullahs are doing everything they can to hold onto power. An overt attack on Iran would do nothing but cement their power. Finally, Saudi Arabia will be handled through diplomacy as fundamentalism is growing there and if the Saudi monarchy falls, it will become another hostile state.

Finally, if you knew any Iraqis (as I do) that are now U.S. Citizens, they would tell you that the majority of the people over in Iraq are supportive of our actions and are against the radicals currently killing their fellow citizens. I spoke with a couple today and they have relatives in Iraq that have told them they are thankful for the U.S. invasion. Unfortunately, it only takes a few to cut off a head or set up a bomb.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

October 24, 2004 at 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberal

You said, "I did a rebuttal on your argument. I didn't necessarily dismiss their research, but it was biased in that they only compared Republican Presidents as opposed to Democratic Presidents. You also didn't rebut my statement that UC-Berkeley is a liberal institution."

Oh dear. Biased because it didn't compare Democrats? I hope you noticed it was a research piece looking to understand conservative minds, world view, etc. It didn't include democrats because it was talking about conservatives. Does that make sense?

Stating that Berkely is a liberal institution is akin to an ad hominum attack, isn't it? Your basically trying to say that because the researcher was employed by Berkely, and becaause Berkeley is considered by some a liberal institution, the authors research is biased. Thats an attack, not on the man, but on his employer - whats the latin for that fallacy? :-)

You did not address the arguements the author put forward and you did not tell me if you gave the article to your son to read. Did you?

Then you write, "First, you dismiss the fact that Abu Nidal and Al-Zaqarwi were both in Iraq."

So was Donald Rumsfeld. Is he a terrorist aided by Saddam too? Zaqarwi's presence in Iraq is not evidence of any relationship between Iraq and 9-11. The 9-11 Report clearlt states their was no working relationship between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists? Ask yourself - Why is it so important you hang on to that fantasy? Seriously - ask yourself that. Saddam was no significant threat to the US or anyone else.

Then you said, "Clinton pretended terrorism was a legal issue rather than a global ideology perpetrated by fundamentalist Islamic nuts. "

And my feeling: The real nuts are the Fundamentalist christians in the US. In my opinion they are as bad as the Islamic nuts. Fundamentalism is a psychological disorder and should be treated as such regardless of what denomination it occurs in.

And talk about religious oppression! Right now, in this country, my tax dollars will not go to support what many scientists are calling potentially miraculous cures. Why? Because the right wing fundamentalist nuts have undu political pressure on our spineless president. While Cheney apparently has the backbone to stand up to the right wing nuts, our president doesn't. So the tax payer supported research that could go to save me or my family from pain, disease, suffering and premature death will not happen.

Religious fundamentalists are killing innocent people - in THIS country, as well as the Middle East.

October 25, 2004 at 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Continuing:

"Even if you dismiss the WMDs, you are incabable of supporting a humanitarian issue."

There were no humanitarian issues in Iraq prior to our invasion. And there would be none if we cared at all to stop them. The last humanitarian crisis was when Bush_1 let it be known that we would support an uprising, and then didn't - causing the brutal death of thousands. If we cared, we wouldn't have done that. Pretending we invaded, pretending we stages trhe first pre-emptive war in US history because Saddam was a bad man just doesn't hold water. Its grasping at straws.

"As for Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia I'll address those in order. Syria may be attacked in the future."

Using what? More of the coalition of the willing? Maaybe wrangle those reluctant third world countries like El salvador to cough up some more troops? Maybe we can draft, back-door or otherwise some more National Guard folks - who cares if they have already served 3 rotations? And when we do attack Syria, won't that just give Iran more impetus to thumb its nose at us? They already know we're stretched too thin to mount any credible threat against their growing nuclear capability. Too bad we alienated our significant allies, huh?

"Iran is in danger of abandoning the mullahs and fundamentalist Islam as the 60% of their population under 35 is rejecting fundamentalist philosophy. The mullahs are doing everything they can to hold onto power. An overt attack on Iran would do nothing but cement their power."

So your saying they will just suddenly crumble? Is that what your typical despot or tyranical theocrat does when he loses popular support? Or are you saying that if the current leadership was stronger we might have to attack them too? What if Iran and Korea enter into a pact that says they will consider an aattack on one to be an attack on both, ala NATO? Then what does the big bad US of A do? Call France? Why don't you ask your son for his opinion...

"Finally, Saudi Arabia will be handled through diplomacy as fundamentalism is growing there and if the Saudi monarchy falls, it will become another hostile state."

Oh, so we just have to ask them to give up power and adopt a Constitution heralding equal rights for all (accept fags, of course)? Do you think that will take care of it?

"Finally, if you knew any Iraqis (as I do) that are now U.S. Citizens, they would tell you that the majority of the people over in Iraq are supportive of our actions..."

Um, check which way US Iraqis are voting this time around....

Thanks for playing.

October 25, 2004 at 8:20 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Anonymous

"Oh dear. Biased because it didn't compare Democrats? I hope you noticed it was a research piece looking to understand conservative minds, world view, etc. It didn't include democrats because it was talking about conservatives. Does that make sense?"

Yes, it does make sense. An objective point-of-view would have included both political parties, not just conservatives.

"Stating that Berkely is a liberal institution is akin to an ad hominum attack, isn't it? Your basically trying to say that because the researcher was employed by Berkely, and becaause Berkeley is considered by some a liberal institution, the authors research is biased. Thats an attack, not on the man, but on his employer - whats the latin for that fallacy? :-)"

No. Since when is calling a liberal institution a liberal institution a ad hominem attack. Berkeley is well-known to be a liberal institution (as I said, do some research on both the city and UC-Berkeley if you doubt this). Furthermore, the target of the report was conservatives...hardly and unbiased report if they didn't consider Democrats. It's so obvious I can't believe you don't see it.

I did say it was an interesting report, however I found it to be biased as it did NOT include ALL leaders, not just conservatives. That's the point!!!

As for my son reading the report, he's a perceptive 10...his first reaction...and I kid you not, was to ask why there weren't any Democrats being compared.

"So was Donald Rumsfeld. Is he a terrorist aided by Saddam too? Zaqarwi's presence in Iraq is not evidence of any relationship between Iraq and 9-11. The 9-11 Report clearlt states their was no working relationship between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists? Ask yourself - Why is it so important you hang on to that fantasy? Seriously - ask yourself that. Saddam was no significant threat to the US or anyone else. "

What does Donald Rumsfeld have to do with anything. Again, you veer off the original argument with illogical arguments. It isn't important that I hang onto any fantasy....just like I don't necessarily believe the Warren Report. The bottom line is that Saddam may not have had a "working relationship" with the terrorists as far as coordinating support, but he was certainly friendly with terrorists and supportive of their causes. Additionally, and I'm surprised you didn't bring this up since it's one of your favorite conspiracies is that Saddam did make plans to have Bush I assassinated. And you claim that he wasn't a threat? Do the Oil-for-Food reports mean anything to you. Our beloved allies France, Germany, and Russia all had money in Iraq and were bought and paid for. Saddam was consolidating his power...it didn't weaken him at all thanks the way the U.N. handled the Oil-for-Food program. You can continue to stick your head in the sand and appeal to pity about the 1100 U.S. dead...but that's still less than the attacks on 9/11.

"And my feeling: The real nuts are the Fundamentalist christians in the US. In my opinion they are as bad as the Islamic nuts. Fundamentalism is a psychological disorder and should be treated as such regardless of what denomination it occurs in."

What does this have to do with Bill Clinton? Again you fail to rebut an argument. Though I won't disagree with you about religion since most wars and genocide are started due to religion.

"So the tax payer supported research that could go to save me or my family from pain, disease, suffering and premature death will not happen."

Blah, blah, blah on the entire stem cell research issue. We could debate this forever but to be honest, I could care less about this issue. I can see both sides of the argument and I have an undecided position...

"Religious fundamentalists are killing innocent people - in THIS country, as well as the Middle East."

Huh? If you're talking about the religious right advocating the murder of abortion doctors, I won't disagree. But it's nothing compared to fundamentalist Islam nuts killing people througout the world for generations. I hate to quote Stalin, but religion is the opiate of the people. It blinds people to thinking rationally. Most of the time, they miss the messages of their own religion.

"There were no humanitarian issues in Iraq prior to our invasion. And there would be none if we cared at all to stop them. The last humanitarian crisis was when Bush_1 let it be known that we would support an uprising, and then didn't - causing the brutal death of thousands. If we cared, we wouldn't have done that. Pretending we invaded, pretending we stages trhe first pre-emptive war in US history because Saddam was a bad man just doesn't hold water. Its grasping at straws."

First, you missed the point. At the very least the war minus the WMDs was a humanitarian issue. We went into Bosnia and Somalia for similar reasons, but I don't see liberals arguing against those wars. As for Bush I abandoning the rebellion after the First Gulf War, it was because of our coalition with the U.N. that required that we stop. I don't disagree that we should have finished the job then and there.

I didn't say Syria was going to happen right away. But the War on Terror is not going to end anytime soon. What makes you possibly think that ANY dipolmacy will work with the terrorists? They are idealogues and no amount of diplomacy will work...only killing them will work.

"So your saying they will just suddenly crumble? Is that what your typical despot or tyranical theocrat does when he loses popular support? Or are you saying that if the current leadership was stronger we might have to attack them too? What if Iran and Korea enter into a pact that says they will consider an aattack on one to be an attack on both, ala NATO? Then what does the big bad US of A do? Call France? Why don't you ask your son for his opinion..."

No, what I was saying is that Iran is in a precarious situation internally. Much like the U.S. is united when attacked from without, the same thing would happen with Iran. Anything that happens in Iran will be covert in terms of support.

"Oh, so we just have to ask them to give up power and adopt a Constitution heralding equal rights for all (accept fags, of course)? Do you think that will take care of it?"

Huh? What does that have to do with this: "Finally, Saudi Arabia will be handled through diplomacy as fundamentalism is growing there and if the Saudi monarchy falls, it will become another hostile state."

Again, you fail to make any sort of logical arguments.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

October 25, 2004 at 9:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home