Political Debates with GOOPrs: Gotta Keep ‘Em “on the Reservation” First!

The image shows how the USA ought to act and WOULD act if only the Repukes had the power.


Over decades people of similar liberal bent have asked me why it’s so difficult to have a rational debate with GOP –ers, or GOOPrs. I always reply in the same way: Because they are (for the most part, ignorant and uninformed), hence create their own pseudo-realities, and don’t even know the most basic rules of logic – which is why they never adhere to them – though they accuse US of this, again because they’re not cognizant of the rules or fallacies themselves!

The recent brouhaha over the attack on the U.S. Libyan Consulate is a perfect example, and the narrative that exploded in the wake of the attacks offers an instructive insight into the sort of regressive mode of thought GOOPrs invoke, as well as the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” which now infects most of them.

First, look at the spectacle of Mitt Romney making a politically expedient attack on the president even as the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was still under attack! Talk about unseemly! But though most reasonable observers construed it as a miscalculation, and many voters did too, what did the Reeps do? They ‘doubled down’ by assassinating Obama’s character. As Rachel Maddow showed last night, all manner of sludge and tommyrot and just plain rot has emptied from their mouths.

Some of the crap they’ve spewed:

- Obama commands no respect from the Arab street ‘cause he’s too “apologetic” and deferential. If only their man Mitt was in there, HE’D have commanded respect and demonstrated “Resolve” and no AY-rab would have dared to so much has flung a single stone at an Embassy. BULL, fucking shit! Romney – who demonstrates little or no foreign policy acumen, would likely have invited even worse reprisals by adopting an aggressive pose.

As Exhibit A look at the “Decider” GeeDubya Bush, who once demonstrated so much ‘resolve’ to his own countrymen that he once opined: “The Constitution is just a piece of paper”. Also: “It would be so much easier if this was a dictatorship!” Indeed! And what transpired during Bush’s reign? Why, more radical attacks than under any other president’s, including 9/11, where as I showed in a previous blog Bush ignored more than 40 presidential briefings on Bin Ladin from January through August, 2001.

- One Rachel showed last night, which shows how fucking deranged the pukes are: that whenever Obama puts his hand over his heart to say the Pledge of Allegiance, he’s “really praying to Allah”. Are you shitting me? How is it these assholes are walking around and not strapped into couches to receive electro-shock therapy?

Oh, another Whacko - Steve Klein, compliments of Salon.com and Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/steve_kleins_anti_muslim_crusade/

It’s also no easier to find a semblance of reason and perspective with the GOOPr “street” or their bloggers, pundits. The volume of crap spewed out boggles the mind, and makes one’s head spin. The search for reasoned, logical counterpoints are essentially no where to be found. For example, one Reepo blogger attacking my blog yesterday on several fallacious and spurious fronts.

He primarly took issue with my assertion that the lying filth and 2-time felon (meth maker) Nakoula who created the 14 minute specious film on Mohammed, had the “right” to free speech, while I compared his form of speech to yelling ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire. The guy actually tried to cite precedent and case law for the ‘Fire’ in the theater comparison when I wasn’t invoking it in that context – but as an ANALOGY! A-N-A-L-O-G-Y.

He referred to my use as a “red herring” but clearly can’t tell the difference between a red herring and a false analogy – which would be the only serious way my rejection of free speech could be justified. But was it a false analogy?

Consider: The film (at 14 minutes, not even a real film but more a PR piece) was produced under false pretenses. It was presented to the actors and crew as a film called ‘Desert Warrior’ and they bought in and played those roles based on that representation. Indeed, the names of the characters (e.g. “George”) bore NO similarity to anything Muslim. Only later did Nakoula alter the basis of the film, trailer and dub in new (Muslim) names for characters not in the original script. He then renamed it, to be a film about Mohammed.

In other words, the film was created in BAD FAITH. But such an entity in the context, which any reasonable person would have to know would create fury in the Muslim world (as much as Terry Jones burning of the Qu’uran) confers no “rights” for use. The reason is that it is known (again by sane and rational people before hand) of the serious harm it will cause, including to the U.S. interests these paper patriots profess to hold dear to their hearts. Indeed, during Jones’ burning of Qu’urans in Florida this was acknowledged by them, since they stopped doing it after several soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and a General pleaded for them to cease and desist.

Hence, the bollocks that the reacting Muslims are “thin skinned” doesn’t hold! If that were valid, then the General who pleaded with Jones & Co. to stop burning the Muslim holy book also had to be “thin skinned”, though he was actually looking out after his soldiers’ welfare, which is what these Reeps claim to be doing.

But let’s get back to the “free speech” analogy, with another example .

If we are at a restaurant and you leave to go to the rest room, and return to drink your diet coke and I later tell you I put strychnine in it, though I didn’t, is that “free speech”? Do I have the right to say that and jibe you to cause much anxiety and consternation. (Even after I tell you I didn’t “really” do it, you may still not be convinced)

This is similar to what Nakoula did. He DIDN’T really create a real film based on the fake script he used to engage a set of actors. He had to lie to them to involve their cooperation. He then altered what THEY had contributed to, in order to engender a product that he knew would cause immense psychological distress and even rage to devout Muslims. Is this just a ruse or excuse to defend the rioters, or killers? Of course not! It’s using an analogy to show the basis for bad faith in two forms of specious speech: telling someone you put strychnine in their drink to elicit a fear-paranoia reaction, or producing a fake film that is laden with anti-Islamic poison. There is no difference, and in each case the speech is not protected, no matter what whacko reepos claim.

However, the most disgusting form of attacks on any argument arrive via the use of baseless, vicious insinuations and claims to question one’s American standards, or sincerity. Thus, arguing that you reject an argument as insincere or “evil” or whatever because the proponent (in this case me) “never served in the military” is both nonsense and irrelevant. It seeks to create the illusion or belief that only military servers are “real citizens” whose arguments merit consideration. But in fact, this is a capital way to dispose of the claimant’s case since we know the valuable trait of critical questioning (which makes a REAL patriot, see e.g. Carl Sagan’s essay, ‘Real Patriots Ask Questions’) is violently discouraged in the military – which values following orders over all else. Hence, military servers are the very group whose arguments must be most scrutinized. (This is also why "military intelligence" is an oxyomoron.)

The other pseudo-claim is that we “libos” – who make such a case as I did in my blog yesterday, “never really worked a day in our lives” or “never raised a family”. What the fuck do those have to do with the price of tea? And how the fuck do YOU know I “never really worked a day in my life”? Because I didn’t sweep floors for 40 years? Because I didn’t work as a cop? As a security guard? As a janitor? Those are choices that were made, perhaps on the basis of limited education or other circumstances, but have nada to do with the issues at hand and to bring up the insinuation that one person is more entitled to his views because he did more manual or other work – say than a teacher- is just plain nuts.

For anyone who’s never taught, I have news for you, it’s one of the hardest jobs you will ever do. And it doesn’t end when you clock out at 3 p.m. or so, because you then have to grade dozens of papers or labs, and also set test questions, as well as develop and set up new labs for the next day! Not real work? Give me a fucking break! But this is the sort of chirp we behold from the Reepos and their lot, because they have no REAL arguments to make to counter our own. They are livid we defend Obama - calling us “Obamanites” and are livid we choose a path that doesn’t support unproductive saber rattling and aggression. So, we are wimps, or “never worked a day in our lives”

As for “never raising a family” that’s also a true red herring, as it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the basis of the arguments I made yesterday. Disagree with me? Fine! Then make your case based on solid argument not on whether I raised a family! Raising a family, while noble to be sure, is not for everyone. Some of us realized early on we were not cut out for the task, so rather than make a choice we’d regret we opted not to have kids. That choice doesn’t make us any less citizens than it does you for making such choice.

One hopes that one of these days, decent and sober arguments, debates can be expected with the other side. But, so long as they keep wandering “off the reservation”, i.e. wallowing in irrelevancies, this will never be the case.