Hate is a strong word
That which I fail to understand or agree with must be hatred. After all, I’m a reasonable, sane and normal person. At least that’s a rationale, I suppose. KTK, in describing someone who disagrees with him, uses the words: hated, bigotry, wingnuts, hatred, and homophobia. Not words one should use if trying to reach hearts and minds. He referenced both gay marriage and our national Ponzi Scheme err social security.
As someone who supports gay marriage (or rather one who questions why contract management is a government issue other than in a court of law), I know a lot of folks here in East Tennessee who oppose gay marriage. They don’t hate gays. Most of my friends have the Seinfeld variety of gay tolerance (not that there’s anything wrong with that). They don’t oppose gay marriage because they hate gays. They oppose it due to their religious beliefs (though one guy I know opposes it for biological reasons). It’s not hatred really but it is asserting religiosity into government, which is a no-no. After all, the bible says man-on-man love is an abomination (chick stuff is apparently cool, though) but it also says the same thing about shellfish.
Do people hate social security? Probably. I do. I’d rather have my money, thanks. But it’s not a profound, irrational hatred of a safety social net or the elderly. It’s a profound love of free markets and the choice to do what I want with money I earn.
Referring to those that disagree with you as hateful does not win hearts and minds. Period. You’re doing your cause a great disservice with such rhetoric. It’s hateful.
While I’m picking on Leanleft, there have been two recent instances in which Kevin has referred to someone as un-Christian or questioned someone’s Christianity. I find this troubling and a bit odd from someone who gets upset whenever another person refers to anyone with a D after their name as unpatriotic.
January 27th, 2005 at 11:54 am
First, the irony of someone complaigning about others being mean to people while calling social security a ponzi scheme — and thus the people who established it, run it, and defend it are conmen — is damn near overwhelming.
Second
“I find this troubling and a bit odd from someone who gets upset whenever another person refers to anyone with a D after their name as unpatriotic.”
Becasue, yes, criticizing specific actions as un-Christian — particulalrly actions of people who have based quite a bit of their public and political persona on being a Christian — is exactly the same as attacing the notion that any criticism of the President is treason. Your implication seems to be that I am being hypocritical — that I want a blanket condemnation of my enemies but don’t want anyone to criticize my friends. That only applies, of course, if you hadn’t bothered to read the posts in question. Becasue one posts attacks a specific decison and one post attacks a specific campaign tactic. I don’t see how anyone could think that they applied to, well, anything other than the specific cases in question.
January 27th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
The Ponzi scheme comparison was used because it works on the “borrow from peter to pay paul” principle. In other words, I currently pay for some other person’s benefits.
I was not referencing treason. I referenced unpatriotic. Questioning one’s “Christianity” or one’s “Patriotism” is a subjective criticism based on perception.
“exactly the same as attacing the notion that any criticism of the President is treason”
Just looking at the first post in the unpatriotic search reveals that reynolds was referencing a specific incident as well. And, to pick another example, the Gore thing. You say people questioned gore’s patriotism but it wasn’t based on what he said or did. Then you did the same thing somehow tying this big party to Dubya’s christianity.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
You would decidedly be in the minority there, if recent polls are any indication. You would also be mind-numbingly short-sighted, or at the very least completely ignorant of what life for seniors in this country was like before social security existed. (That, or maybe you have the classic libertarian “I’ve taken care of myself, screw everyone else” society.)
Any by your odd definition of a “Ponzi scheme,” wouldn’t Bush’s tax cuts size up as the biggest such scheme in this nation’s history?
January 27th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Oh, and I will agree on one point: The anti-gay-marriage sentiment often isn’t hatred. Usually, it’s just stupidity.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
“Oh, and I will agree on one point: The anti-gay-marriage sentiment often isn’t hatred. Usually, it’s just stupidity.”
Heh. Probably. But if you call someone hateful, any education you attempt is lost on them.
I have taken care of myself and no where did i say screw everyone else.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
“Just looking at the first post in the unpatriotic search reveals that reynolds was referencing a specific incident as well.”
Yeah, a specific incidence of questioning the president. Not to mention the fact that the post layed out what was a pattern of suggesting that the mere presence of cirticism of certian decisions was unpatriotic. And, frnakly, if you are okay with equating dissent with treason, then what the heck is your problem here? If dissent == an incidence of treason is aokay to you, then what’s wrong with saying a specific incidence is unChristian? And whats wrong with pointing out that the pattern of calling dissent reason is also wrong? I don;t see what your complaignt is.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Oh, and I don’t know anyone who uses Ponzi Scheme to mean anything other than a scam. I think you may be using the term in a non-standard fashion 😉
January 27th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Again, I never said nor supported any accusations of treason.
On ponzi, the SEC (who will jail you for such), tend to agree on the peter-paul bit.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I meant “screw everyone else” in a “no matter what benefits I may have received from others/society throughout my lifetime, I have no obligation/responsibility to provied any benefits to others/society” kind of way.
Example: Who cares if those old farts built my [ schools that educated me / highways that get stuff to me and get me from place to place / armed forces that protect me ]with the promise that we would take care of them in their old age? We have that stuff now, they are no longer needed, and I’ve got my own retirement to worry about, so screw ’em!
January 27th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Even given the SEC link, I fail to see how a Ponzi scheme compares to social security, unless you’re suggsting that soc. sec. is a “pyramid.”
Anyway, as I said above, if “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul” is your objection, then since 1980, the GOP have been the undisputed masters of that art. 😉
January 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
As I’ve noted before, the writing on Lean Left has been in a general slide since the start of the election season. KTK in particular seems to have been driven to insanity by Kerry’s loss, as his posts these days are little more than torrents of verbal abuse directed at anyone who disagrees with him on anything.
January 27th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
God Hates Shrimp.com
I love satire, especially when it throws a truth in some idiot’s face.
January 27th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Kevin, not only would you change more minds if you cited facts instead of resorting to calling people names and questioning their motives, but you’d also force yourself to reason a little more thoroughly than you’ve been doing lately.
This was not your finest hour:
For the sake of argument let’s say that every single thing you said in there is true. It would help your cause considerably to substantiate those claims rather than calling people wackjobs and “crazy.” As it is, anyone who isn’t already on your side won’t even listen to your rants.
I can learn something from people I don’t agree with, and I can even be won over to their point of view. That’s not gonna happen with the style of argument you use. And not only are you not winning people over, your arguments are now so free of content or reason that you’re not even serving the readers who visit your site because they agree with you.
One thing that would help tremendously would be to separate people’s religion from their politics. Republicans are not necessarily Christians and Christians are not necessarily Republicans. Not understanding that is why some people point to “Passion of the Christ” as the right-wing equivalent to “Fahrenheit 9/11” even though one movie is about religion and the other is about politics.
January 27th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
“You would also be mind-numbingly short-sighted, or at the very least completely ignorant of what life for seniors in this country was like before social security existed.”
Social security was started in circa 1935. It was to replace the wealth that the seniors had lost during the great depression in pensions.
“As its 1935 report to President Roosevelt indicates, the committee charged with developing Social Security legislation wanted to help all workers prepare for retirement, but it was particularly concerned about helping retired workers who had low incomes: ”
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3213&sequence=3
Of course in my view you have to be mind numbingly short sighted to see the problems,mind numbingly stubbron to not see the inherent injustices, and blind not to see potential solutions for social secuirty
January 27th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Les:
Methinks you’re getting your Kevins confused. They’re rather like Brutal Huggers that way. 😉
Cube:
I see plenty of potential solutions for social security, none of which involve scrapping or overhauling the system. I’m among the 2/3 of Americans who believe that guaranteed benefits are the most important thing social security can provide — something which private accounts cannot.
January 27th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
“As someone who supports gay marriage (or rather one who questions why contract management is a government issue other than in a court of law),…”
Well, your post does lend credence to the saying “Great minds think ALIKE.
“As someone who supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry (more to the point, I support the concept of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether),…
January 27th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
tgirsch wrote: “…maybe you have the classic libertarian “I’ve taken care of myself, screw everyone else” society…”
I’ll allow that a single example does not a generalisation discount, but this one irks me. I’m pretty firmly libertarian and I also worked most of my 30’s (almost a decade) in an alcohol and drug treatment center. Most of those years I was paid about $4/hour. I did it *because* I believe it is *my* job, not government’s, to help my fellow Americans. That, and not your nasty stereotype, is libertarianism in action.
January 27th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Mike:
Sorry to irk you, but that still gets to the heart of the matter: that in classic libertarianism, no one ever has any responsibility to anyone other than themselves. They may choose to help others, but it’s purely a choice, and there’s no requirement of any sort of responsibility to society. Which is fine if you don’t believe in society, but I happen to.
All things come with a price of admission, and society is no exception. Libertarians seem to want to get in for free (or, at best, selectively cancel their membership at any time without obligation).
January 27th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
LeanLefters – I agree with some of the sentiments on this comment thread. You spend a lot of time bashing the opposition rather than refuting their points on your own blog.
Also, Social Security IS a ponzi-scheme in as far as that is how its financed. A proper pension scheme should be financed by your own contributions (or contributions made on your behalf) over the years more or less.
Uncle – There is no contradiction in the unChristian/unPatriotic thing. When the religious right puts forward policies that Jesus Christ probably would have opposed, that is being unChristian. On the other hand, there is nothing unpatriotic about questioning the government. Frankly, its quite patriotic.
January 27th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Manish, you’re changing my argument. It’s akin to me saying “When the left puts forward policies that Captain America probably would have opposed, that is being unpatriotic. On the other hand, there is nothing unchristian about questioning religion.”
I’m saying that questioning someone’s patriotism/christianity is a no-no in general and its measure is quite subjective.
January 27th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Ponzi Scheme: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks
Whether or not you agree that this definition fits Social Security, it is sheer nonsense to refer to tax cuts as a Ponzi scheme. TGirsch, by making that assertion, you dropped another notch on my respect-o-meter. You weren’t too high to begin with.
January 28th, 2005 at 1:20 am
SU..I think the distinction between the two is this…Al Gore is a patriot, but doesn’t necessarily wear it on his sleeve, while Bush does wear his religion on his sleeve. This justifies a greater level of scrutiny of Bush’s religious values.
I agree that unChristian/unPatriotic can be subjective, but then all of blogging is. Having said all this, I finally did read the post that you linked to and have to admit that it isn’t terribly unChristian IMHO.
Thib…tax cuts are a reverse ponzi scheme in that we get a taxcut, but our children will ultimately pay for it.
And for fuck’s sake, nobody gives a shit how much respect you have for them so stop posting stupid shit like that. You’ll notice that nobody else posts such juvenile crap.
January 28th, 2005 at 10:40 am
“Thib…tax cuts are a reverse ponzi scheme in that we get a taxcut, but our children will ultimately pay for it.”
Bull. Now YOU’RE falling down the respect-o-meter. Especially since it bothers you so much to hear it.
Listen up: the money used to pay taxes is not the government’s, and it’s not “our children’s.” Since you’re so mature, Manish, you ought to be able to figure out why tax cuts are therefore not a Ponzi scheme.
January 28th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Thib:
If you had any reading comprehension, you would see that this is precisely my point. We’re not talking about the actual definition of a Ponzi scheme, but rather Uncle’s somewhat unusual one that concentrates solely on the “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul” aspect. Since Bush’s tax cuts did not come with matching spending cuts (indeed, spending has increased dramatically), they fit Uncle’s refined definition quite nicely.
Wow, you have no idea how much sleep I’m going to lose over that. A guy with a history of jumping to conclusions and insulting those who disagrees with him — and who treats almost no one with anything resembling respect — has lost respect for me. Boo-friggin-hoo.
Otherwise, what Manish said.
There’s a brilliant point hidden in there somewhere, I just know it. Too bad you didn’t bother to make it. Besides, we’re not just talking about the money used to pay taxes we’re talking about the money used to pay the government’s bills — you know, the ones W is running up into the stratosphere?
To use your logic, people who run up huge credit card debts aren’t running on borrowed money, because they’re able to make their minimum payments with their own money.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:01 pm
You know, I was planning to let this slide, but I decided I’m not going to let your lies stand unchallenged. I do NOT have a problem with people who disagree with me. I have a problem with YOU, because you’re an asshole.
On the other hand, take XRLQ for example. He disagrees with me all the time, but the difference is: he’s not an asshole, and he’s usually right. I respect that, and I welcome it.