100 Days of Paranoia

[heckofajobbrownie]

I enjoyed this:

 

It seems that no matter what Obama does as president, wild-eyed conspiracy theorists will generate their own reality.

 

Americans love conspiracy theories. One of America’s favorites at the moment maintains that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. I don't believe it, of course. But there's something so forehead-slappingly strange about the notion that you can't help but wonder how, even after 100 days in office, Obama retains this air of mystery. In October, before the election, the Pew Research Center found that only 51 percent of Americans believed that Obama was a Christian, while 12 percent were convinced that he was a Muslim. The good people at Pew asked the question again in March, and they found that the numbers had barely changed: 48 percent think Obama is a Christian and 11 percent think he's a Muslim. The rest are unsure.

 

It gets better. One of my favorite numbers from that Pew poll is that of voters who approve of Obama's job performance, 7 percent believe that he's a Muslim. They seem to be saying, "Hey man, as long as I get my stimulus, you can worship Allah all day," which is pretty admirable. But does the persistence of the Muslim Obama theory have a more dangerous edge to it? It just might.

 

After 9/11, a small cottage industry sprung up around the celebration of George W. Bush’s greatness, complete with bronze busts and package tours of Crawford, Texas. At the same time, 9/11 Truthers claimed that a secret Zionist cabal was behind the 2001 terror attacks. If anything, Barack Obama has proved an even more electrifying—and even more polarizing—figure than President Bush, despite the fact that he mostly comes across as a sober, professorial executive. We can’t even decide if he’s telling the truth about his religion, let alone the NAFTA superhighway or a secret plan for one world government.

 

When the Department of Homeland Security issued its clumsy report on right-wing domestic extremists, conservatives were furious. Some even argued that dissent was being criminalized. But the truth is that extremists of the right and left really have gone bananas in our history. I worry that we've entered a dark and paranoid moment in our history, and that these first 100 days—for all the craziness and tumult of the economic apocalypse—will be remembered as pleasingly calm.

 

Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ex: Glenn Beck today:

 

"...I believe Barack Obama is like David Copperfield. While we're all watching the right hand — with the swine flu response, the teleprompter, and the flyover — the left hand is busy. But busy doing what?"

 

Yes, Glenn. We're all watching the ...teleprompter.

[Westside Steve]

Ex: Glenn Beck today:

 

"...I believe Barack Obama is like David Copperfield. While we're all watching the right hand — with the swine flu response, the teleprompter, and the flyover — the left hand is busy. But busy doing what?"

 

 

Wow, Heck.

Now that's an outrageous comment.

 

Whew.

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

Another left wing conspiracy theory, sounds like a Salem witch trial.

[heckofajobbrownie]

David Frum:

 

Another Triumph for the Club for Growth

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:49 AM

 

With Arlen Specter’s defection, all that stands between the Democrats and a 60-seat Senate majority are Norman Coleman’s lawyers. I wish them every success – but they have not exactly been on a winning streak to date.

 

Which means that Democrats won’t need to resort to unorthodox tactics to push, say, their healthcare bill through Congress. They’ll have the votes.

 

If the Democrats do succeed in pushing through national health insurance, they really should set aside a little extra money to erect a statue to Pat Toomey. They couldn’t have done it without him!

 

Pat Toomey is of course the former president of the Club for Growth who planned to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Republican primary. Polls showed Toomey well ahead – not because he is so hugely popular in the state, but because the Pennsylvania GOP has shriveled to a small, ideologically intense core. Toomey now looks likely to gain the nomination he has sought – and then to be crushed by Specter or some other Democrat next November.

 

The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.

 

For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

 

Let’s take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party. And until and unless there is an honored place made in the Republican party for people who think like Arlen Specter, we will remain a minority party.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, once again you're missing the point. It's not that it's outrageous; it's that it's laughably silly and paranoid.

 

Which relates back to Reihan's column.

 

Nevermind.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, after the 100th time missing the point, and when virtually all of his sarcasm is red herring and misses the mark completely, it may not be stupid, but it's certainly one of stupid's relatives.

 

As for "He enjoys the confrontaion and sarcasm more than addressing the argument or point." I'd suggest that he enjoys confrontation and sarcasm because he can't address the argument or point. He's forced to go somewhere else, or repeat the same points over and over.

 

But in his defense, at least he doesn't make you wonder how he holds down a job and functions in society at large like some of our other friends in here.

 

[Westside Steve]

Well, after the 100th time missing the point, and when virtually all of his sarcasm is red herring and misses the mark completely, it may not be stupid, but it's certainly one of stupid's relatives.

 

As for "He enjoys the confrontaion and sarcasm more than addressing the argument or point." I'd suggest that he enjoys confrontation and sarcasm because he can't address the argument or point. He's forced to go somewhere else, or repeat the same points over and over.

 

But in his defense, at least he doesn't make you wonder how he holds down a job and functions in society at large like some of our other friends in here.

 

 

Actually you guys earn every bit of sarcasm.

And I repeat the same points because you spew the same rubbish.

Then you avoid the question or toss out red herrings rather than merely answer them.

Because you can't say I'm wrong and it pisses you off.

Shit Heck and your boy Sherman, if anybody here acted in the cultish manner over Bush as you guys do over Obama.....

 

Well I know you know (well maybe not Sherman) and I guess that'll have to do.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why don't you give me an example of me acting "cultish" over Obama.

 

This should be good.

 

And I can't say you're wrong? I do it in just about every post. Because you're wrong quite often, usually specious at best.

[Westside Steve]

Why don't you give me an example of me acting "cultish" over Obama.

 

This should be good.

 

Well to be fair you're only the spiritual leader of the board lefties Heck.

I may not have heard you go into a drooling Shep-like swoon, though you do seem ready to take a bullet for the guy no matter what the subject....

But shall we say the Obama cultism exists and is pretty foolish.

It never seems to exist on the rational side.

 

And I can't say you're wrong? I do it in just about every post. Because you're wrong quite often, usually specious at best.

 

 

OK.

Tell me what I'm wrong about.

List a few actual items.

Hell pick a subject.

For instance if I say even though a team needs a smart quarterback I say Stephen Hawking woudn't be a good choice.

Rather than your usual "You don't know anything!!!!" you could say "Because he's a f*cking paraplegic!!"

 

How's that?

 

(and an Obama supporter has a problem with specious????)

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wait a minute. After months and months of this, which have included numerous examples of you accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid, or being in a cult, or swooning, or believing Obama to be the messiah, you can't come up with a single example of me doing this? Not one?

 

So you're admitting that not only have all these attacks been worthless and ad hominem, but they didn't even correctly describe the hominem, aka me?

 

Wow.

 

I just enjoyed three hours playing with my newborn son. I can't believe I waste more than ten minutes a day on someone like you.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Wait a minute. After months and months of this, which have included numerous examples of you accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid, or being in a cult, or swooning, or believing Obama to be the messiah, you can't come up with a single example of me doing this? Not one?

 

So you're admitting that not only have all these attacks been worthless and ad hominem, but they didn't even correctly describe the hominem, aka me?

 

Wow.

 

I just enjoyed three hours playing with my newborn son. I can't believe I waste more than ten minutes a day on someone like you.

 

Well good for you. Make sure there's no lead paint in the Skinner box.

Actually all I said is that I can't think of a swoon line to cut and paste.

There've been numerous ones by others you've defended but honestly I'm too lazy to go back over months of posts.

You've been away on the Soros kibbutz for a long time.

Are you saying that isn't true? (One in particular I made fun of people who went to an Obama rally anc came back glassy eyed covered with goose bumps.

You launched a series of petty personal attacks in their defense.

I seem to recall a hearty defense of Chris Matthews knob slobbering. You may correct me on that one if it was someone else.

 

Of course that doesn't mean you don't enjoy the popular soft drink, even if there is no video of you with the cup to your lips.

Why?

You seem to be a shill for the president and his party, like Elanor Clift was in the 90s.

So IOW the "attacks" are right on target.

 

 

Also since you say I'm wrong about everything how about that list with specific reasons?

Or should I just say "Wow" ?

 

C'mon Heck.

List the issues I "attack" you on and tell me why I'm off base.

(I know you think you successfully changed the subject)

 

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Come on, Heck.

 

Show ONE EXAMPLE where you have ever criticized Obama for anything.

 

I honestly don't remember if you ever did.

 

You haven't even criticized Nancy Pelosi.

 

Or Harry Reid. Or Sheethead Schumer.

 

Face it, Heck. If Dennis Kucinich was nominated by the Dems,

 

you'd love him and never, never, ever find any fault with him.

 

Face it, Steve has you pegged accurately. Your denial only helps

 

it be obvious.

 

But, it's fun reading.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, this really isn't worth my time. You couldn't come up with a single piece of evidence to back your claim, and instead asked me to perform a search for you. Then you asked me again. Then you accused me of changing the subject!

 

And then you said that the charge of me "swooning" still holds because I thought it was tasteless for you to go after Shep's teenage daughters for having the temerity to be inspired by Obama. (Along with millions of other people.)

 

But here's how it really works in here - somebody posts nonsense about Obama's plans, I correct them, and then you accuse me of swooning, or always defending him. How would you like me to counter claims that Obama is planning on taking everyone's guns, or that his call for more volunteers is really a cover for building his Obamanazi paramilitary force? Can one do that without swooning? I think I can.

 

What if he does something I agree with? Can I support that without drinking Kool-Aid?

 

And if you'd like to look at an example of me saying you're wrong and you're logic is off, you don't need to look any further than our last thread:

 

Yeah, that was tough to find. It was only 48 hours ago.

 

I think I'll close with the example off a page on logical fallacies, then ask you why every one of your posts resembles something like this:

 

Example of Ad Hominem

 

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[heckofajobbrownie]

Example of Ad Hominem

 

Heck: "I believe that cap and trade is the best policy to address global warming."

Steve: "Of course you would say that, that's what Obama wants."

Heck: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Steve: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a Dem, so you have to say that global warming is the end of the world. Further, you are just a lackey to Obama, so I can't believe what you say."

 

This is basically how it goes.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, check that thread I linked to before. See how Tupa and I can agree on some things, and not on others, and remain civil? How some of my points he agrees with, and some of his points I agree with - regardless of ideology?

 

Doesn't he know that I'm in the tank for Obama? Don't I know how he's in the tank for big business?

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"I can't or won't answer Cal's or Steve's questions, so I'll

 

go run and hide behind some change of subject verbage."

[Westside Steve]

I'll make it even easier.

I don't expect you to find fault with Obama.

He's done some things corectly IMO.

 

But:

 

Just list a few positions that I've taken that are way off the mark and give a simple reason.

Not just "well you're stupid so I won't answer."

 

How's that?

Cordial enough?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Steve, this really isn't worth my time. You couldn't come up with a single piece of evidence to back your claim, and instead asked me to perform a search for you. Then you asked me again. Then you accused me of changing the subject!

 

And then you said that the charge of me "swooning" still holds because I thought it was tasteless for you to go after Shep's teenage daughters for having the temerity to be inspired by Obama. (Along with millions of other people.)

 

It goes for them too.

And you if you're one.

 

But here's how it really works in here - somebody posts nonsense about Obama's plans, I correct them, and then you accuse me of swooning, or always defending him. How would you like me to counter claims that Obama is planning on taking everyone's guns, or that his call for more volunteers is really a cover for building his Obamanazi paramilitary force? Can one do that without swooning? I think I can.

 

Uh do I post that stuff?

 

What if he does something I agree with? Can I support that without drinking Kool-Aid?

 

You can. But when it becomes nothing short of the party line....

 

And if you'd like to look at an example of me saying you're wrong and you're logic is off, you don't need to look any further than our last thread:

 

Yeah, that was tough to find. It was only 48 hours ago.

 

I think I'll close with the example off a page on logical fallacies, then ask you why every one of your posts resembles something like this:

 

Example of Ad Hominem

 

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

That's not a good one.

Try this.

You don't like X and despise anything he stands for.

You do like Y so if he does it I'm cool with it.

 

#2

 

Y has a golden hammer."

But:

 

I figure you make a living in some kind of left leaning cabal and have naturally taken to the pack mentality.

Like a UAW guy would think Jap Bikes Suck.

And you like to argue.

 

WSS aka "pot"

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I expect to find fault with Obama, and do. So what?

 

As for your challenge, for one, there were about 10 different things wrong with your views on global warming, everything from what the science said to what cap and trade was. You've also continually described the motives of people concerned with global warming as people who wanted to bring down or slow down capitalism, not address global warming.

 

Your views are generally petty and contrarian and boring. It's not so much that you get essential facts wrong, it's that you rarely offer any. Your arguments are specious and ad hominem, as we've demonstrated.

 

For instance, when someone points out that no, the people concerned with global warming aren't out to bring down the capitalist economy, you'll probably allege that someone, somewhere does believe this, and write something like, "Is this or is it not true?" As if the point was ever relevant.

 

And so we waste our time debating nothing of importance.

 

Or you suggest that we ban leisure travel, and then try and get me to admit that this would remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the current plans - yes or no!

 

Again, completely irrelevant and a waste of time.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, one of us has a job.

[Westside Steve]

I just looked at the gingrich thread you pointed me to and don't see where I'm wrong.

(I just bailed on the thrtead as it started getting too far out)

 

I repeat that no matter what the US does to reduce CO2 no matter how destructive to our economy it won't matter unless all major manufacturing companies are on board.

It's as simple as that.

 

The best you can say is you might think that our sole lowered emissions are enough.

You might say "but I believe Obama can convince them all to come along."

 

But both those arguments are based on hope.

 

WSS

 

(ps that's all before the other reasons I don't think it will work.)

[calfoxwc]

There Heck goes again.

 

I challenge him about criticizing Obama - he doesn't.

 

So, he says he does. But he doesn't.

 

Then, he cries "foul" and says mean things so he can

 

go hide.

 

Heck can make no sense whatsoever, but he thinks he's

 

being profound.

 

It must really suck to be a liberal, Heck.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

As for your challenge, for one, there were about 10 different things wrong with your views on global warming, everything from what the science said to what cap and trade was. You've also continually described the motives of people concerned with global warming as people who wanted to bring down or slow down capitalism, not address global warming.

 

That's just untrue.

You know it the lefties know it.

 

However you have stated that we can use the revenue even if it means a short term downturn correct?

 

 

 

 

Now if you'll excuse me, one of us has a job.

 

Oh well.

One of us has the talent and personality to not really need one.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

IT must be me that has a job between the two of us, Heck. I'll bet I work far longer hours

 

farming than you do, assuming you have a job, too. And I'll bet you don't love your job like I love mine.

[Westside Steve]

Cal you really need to stay out of adult conversation.

Forrest Gump would kick your ass in a debate.

 

 

Yeah Dan.

That elevated the tone......

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Dan, I admire your ability to be mature and thoughtful in your responses.

 

you've done it about twice.