Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Silliness
I was alerted to Daryl’s blog by Bob Krumm. It ain’t pretty
Over 2,000 troops are dead in Iraq – a number that Republicans dismiss as “arbitary” – and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. There appears to be no end in sight. Americans are disgruntled, but apparently not enough to do anything about it … and the band played on.
Oh, that the multitudes in this country could get angry enough that they would challenge every nationalist, political, and pseudo-moral myth they were ever raised to believe unquestioningly. If all the sacred cows could be placed on the butcher’s block – so to speak – and everything brought out into the open and questioned. No more appeals to “tradition” as the only way. No more blind obedience to religion or party or pundit. But that would require a free and open public media – something the American people have not had for decades. There’s no point in being educated when all you are really expected to know is how to swipe the barcode over the laser beam and put the item in the bag – “paper or plastic?”
What does all that even mean? The claims that the media is unfree are tiresome. You cannot bemoan that the media is controlled by the government then make a pitch for public media in the same sputter. I had no desire to subscribe to an ideology that requires me to leave my logic at the door.
And what is this bit about paper or plastic? Either is fine – that’s one decision I don’t feel the need to make. A bag is a bag. The further insinuation that no one can acquire an education beyond a grocery clerk is absurd. That’s not an America I live in, and is quite frankly insulting to grocery clerks.
Let’s check on more crack-induced absurdity from “Daryl”
I want to believe in you, America, but you make it impossible. You could be such a wonderful place. You could truly be everything you claim to be, but your pride and insecurity and immaturity always get in the way. The Middle East isn’t jealous of you and your way of life. You’re jealous of them and their valuable oil reserves. They don’t hate you because you’re free – they attack you because America is a nation of arrogant, greedy d*cks who are never satisfied. We’ve got to have everything we’ve got, and everything they’ve got, too – and if we have to invade another country under false pretenses to do it, well, then they shouldn’t have let our oil get under their sand.
Daryl in a pensive state can be found here. Yes, it’s about oil. I won’t ask for any proof this time – I try to stay within the bounds of the possible. But again, none of this makes a lick of sense. This guy is making apologies for a culture that treats women as second class citizens, and whose idea of tolerance is only cutting off one limb after minimal due process and expecting me to feel guilty about me for driving a car. That’s hardly believable, and certainly not convincing.
While I’m at it – I found this exchange on Bob’s comments on this same post to be amusing
Democrats won’t recapture 51% of the vote until they have a nominee who, instead of insulting his country, has faith in it.
You mean like Bill Clinton?
Posted by: S-townMike | November 04, 2005 at 19:07
Response by Bob
S-town, Are you implying that Clinton didn’t have faith in his country? Because he never got 51% of the vote. In fact, he never broke half: 49.23% in 1996, and 43.01% in ‘92. As a matter of fact, the last Democratic president to break 50% was Jimmy Carter 29 years ago. And he did so by a mere .08%. You have to go back over 40 years to LBJ’s win over Goldwater before you find a Democrat who beat 51%. Republicans have done it three times since.
But that’s not the point. Whether Republicans were faking it or were real in their admiration of the American people, Americans knew darn well that McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis didn’t see the inherent strength and character in each one of us.
Until national Democrats renew the love affair with America that they had under the likes of Truman and Kennedy, you won’t see them returned to power by any great margins–if at all.
Posted by: Bob K | November 04, 2005 at 20:41
Debate would be more interesting if the vocal opposition actually had a healthy command of the facts.
November 6th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
I was merely replying to the last part of Bob Krumm’s comment about a Democrat who shows faith in the country rather than insulting it, which was Bob’s primary point. My argument was that Bill Clinton did show faith in the country in his 8 years in office; Bob is trying to impugn all Democrats, including Clinton. Now show me from Nathan’s own “healthy command of the facts” how Clinton failed to show faith in his country.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:32 am
The majority vote was the point tied into Bob’s comment (in case you did not read it when you copied and pasted it).
Bob was spot on in that post – the Democratic leadership is disappointing from a politico’s perspective to say the least. As long as the far left drives the Democratic agenda, it will be difficult to obtain majority consent to govern. The American people like to vote for something, and until the Democrats provide that option, Republicans will continue to win elections, no matter how much they spend and how bad they drop the ball from time to time.
Regards,
NSM
November 7th, 2005 at 11:04 am
That’s quite a code to live by: it doesn’t matter what you stand for, just stand for something and people will follow you. And that’s quite a logic you advance: two ideas connected by Bob’s single sentence are inseparable.
As I corrected Bob in other comments, Democrats have lost for lots of different reasons that he fails to mention in his (and your) overgeneralizations about elections. Saying that it’s because Democrats in general don’t “admire” the American people is not only cynical and divisive; it’s not factual. But since 1988, Republicans have made a mint off of dividing Americans. Neither you nor Bob has shown any evidence beyond election returns to support the claim that Democratic presidential candidates do not admire Americans. Anyone who has ever had a Stats 101 class (or even a basic law school class) knows that same statistics can be pressed into service to support many claims, even claims that contradict one another.
Bob bringing up McGovern, a WWII fighter pilot who served his country both on and off the battlefield, as an example of a Democrat who doesn’t admire Americans is pretty laughable, especially because Bob has used his own military service in the past to castigate those on the left and to set himself on a higher moral plane. I don’t have to cut and paste the irony of that one.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Here’s what I’ve taken from your post
1) dividing Americans = getting more of them to vote for you than the other guy
2) election returns are actually polls, with a margin of error that means nothing
3) statements of fact (i.e. the Democrats have no vision for the country) fall on deaf ears
4) George McGovern is insulated from ideological criticism because of his military service
As for Bob Krumm exploiting his military record to make a political point – he’s never done such a thing. As he is a good friend of mine, I take offense that such a motivation has even been alluded. Especially as it would be wholly unnecessary anyhow. The far left’s ideas are self-castigating. One need not have worn the uniform to properly mark the deficiencies in the socialist model and the historic calamaties of appeasement.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
As for Bob Krumm exploiting his military record to make a political point – he’s never done such a thing. As he is a good friend of mine, I take offense that such a motivation has even been alluded.
You can’t be everywhere all the time.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
[...] For reader edification, here is the latest exchange from a post I published yesterday entitled Silliness 1. S-townMike Says: November 6th, 2005 at 7:21 pm e [...]
November 7th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
What you’ve taken, Counselor, and what I’ve said do not interface.
1) Dividing Americans = playing on people’s prejudices and fears. Only conservatives can take pride in barest majorities that drive wedges between various groups and that set our country adrift. You can talk about vision all you like; but the best American leader provided us an all inclusive vision that didn’t play to particular bases.
2) You’ve twisted my words, JD.
3) “Facts” depend on observable, empirical data. “Bill Clinton got 49.23% of the vote” is a fact. “Bill Clinton had no vision for the country” is a subjective opinion, which even if evidence is mustered to support it can be shown still to be an opinion. But don’t let the idea that you even need unequivocal evidence to prove a fact stop you from confusing opinion and fact.
4) Never said McGovern should be insulated from ideological criticism. I merely questioned Bob K.’s spurious claims that McGovern did not admire the American people. It’s a leap from questioning the wisdom of liberalism to questioning a liberal’s commitments to his country. And it’s hypocrisy on Bob K.’s part to ignore McGovern’s WWII service in order to impugn his patriotism, but use his own military service to set himself apart from liberals.
As for your personal testimonial to Bob Krumm: how is that supposed to lend any credibility to his case from my point of view? MooreThoughts.com has as much authority for me as Enclave does for you. You’re going to have to go much farther to demonstrate to me that your blog is a legitimate source of facts, when opinion and fact seem to co-mingle here. Likewise, you haven’t made your case on behalf of Bob, Counselor.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
“Bob has used his own military service in the past to castigate those on the left and to set himself on a higher moral plane.”
Please cite examples for this charge.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
At the risk of being taunted by Nathan for “copy and paste”: Recall NiT. You remember your comments to Brittney et al., Bob. Don’t play dumb.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
This debate is now getting pretty comical, as we are moving farther and farther afield from Bob’s original debateable claim that Democratic presidential candidates don’t have faith in their country and don’t admire Americans. The fact that neither Bob nor Nathan are backing up that claim shows just how indefensible it really is. Dukakis riding around in a tank was a hoot if not self-destructive, but even that was not nearly the farce that the bait and switch of topics going on in this forum is.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Sigh…first, thinking you for noting that I am an attorney. Second, I really don’t want you ever vouching for MooreThoughs. Third, c’mon Mike – you’ve moved it further afield, not me. Bait and switch worse than Dukakis? That doesn’t even make sense. Bait and switch indicates some sort of rip off. You’re commenting on a blog, not buying a falsely advertised mop at Dollar General.
Additionally, I copied and pasted for the sake of information, and did not miss the point of the paste, unlike some in this thread (i.e. not knowing that Bill Clinton never carried a majority of the vote). For reasons known only to God, things are particularly hard to explain here. I am at a loss, attempting to have a debate with someone who suffers a severe logical disconnect.
Truly, this is like arguing with a 5 year old. Linear thought from this point, please.
Regards,
NSM