Monday, September 13, 2010

"Thankfully, Not Insane"

What happens when a real libertarian travels to one of these faux-conservative Tea Party events in the South? Since few of my conservative friends ever actually make it to one of these events, I'll let Pistolette tell ya.

I mean I could say all that, but I'm just another biased, kool-aid drinking member of teh Kenyan anti-colonialist brigade. Or something.

.

9 comments:

patsbrother said...

Point of Clarification: You don't BUY prostitutes. You rent them.

DADvocate said...

Also, whether something is illegal or legal is, or should be, inconsequential to a Christian. There are and have been lots of legal activities that Christians have opposed, shunned and died in opposition to over the centuries.

You need to quit reading posts from third rate intellects. Or, at least stop claiming they're meaningful and insightful.

DADvocate said...

I don’t know how they did it with a straight face, but a few hundred seemingly very Christian conservatives stood and applauded for a politician that bought a prostitute. And don’t give me that “but Clinton did it…” crap. Shagging political groupies is not illegal, but (currently) buying people for sex IS illegal. So not only did he break the law, but most every rule a Christian can hold dear. And yet they clapped for him, seemingly unaware of the hypocritical irony.

So, you side yourself with a guy who wants Christians to be intolerant and condemning while you want Christians to be tolerant and accepting of gay marriage, etc. The hypocrisy is all yours and the guy's you link to.

Jesus taught we should be careful how we judge others and that we would be judged by the same rules only harsher. Examples are abundant in the New Testament. Pistolette believe Christians should condemn forever a man who visited a prostitute while Jesus hung out with a prostitute.

Pistolette builds a straw man based on lies and false assumptions and then attacks it. Hardly an act of insightfulness but of pre-determined conclusion and you're practicing inferred justification which you once condemned.

You need to quit linking to opinions by third rate intellects and open you mind rather than simply looking for ways to condemn which is your motivation. You're not truly interested in any honest look at Tea Partiers or any other line of conservative thought.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

"Also, whether something is illegal or legal is, or should be, inconsequential to a Christian."

Perhaps in some instances, but when that illegality is directly related to adultery; when that individual bears false witness to cover up his behavior; when the individual runs politically on a family values platform and markets himself as a traditional Christian; when that individual dares throw stones at others for their moral failings, well, at that point, Christians may want to concern themselves. He is attempting to speak for them, after all.

And forgiveness usually requires an authentic act of confession or contrition on the part of the individual asking for it. Jesus may have spent time hanging out with prostitutes, but I think he took a different track when it came to charlatans and hypocrites.

This is far from inferred justification, and if Pistolette is a "third rate intellect," I guess that puts me down on levels six or seven.

Regarding Vitter, if he was a Democratic Senator, the right wing would right now be spreading stories of not only his marital indiscretions, but his allegedly preferred behaviors during those discretions and the strange circumstances surrounding the death of the DC Madam. But they'd be careful to note that they didn't have any "direct evidence," they'd "just be asking questions."

And regarding the Christian themes of Tea Parties: if an organization sells itself as an anti-establishment advocate of personal freedoms and limited government, but behaves more like an evangelical Christian church while blindly backing the ethically troubled establishment candidate, don't act surprised when someone questions the political credibility of the organization.

DADvocate said...

bears false witness to cover up his behavior;

Did he bear false witness against his neighbor? Be sure you get that commandment right.

You ignore that the criticism leveled by Pistolette was at the people applauding, who in her estimation should have been condemning.

Regarding Vitter, if he was a Democratic Senator, the right wing would right now be spreading stories of not only his marital indiscretions...

LOL - you're hitting all the logical fallacies on this one. Tu quoque.

if an organization sells itself as an anti-establishment advocate of personal freedoms and limited government,

Applying your definition doesn't make it so. You're still practicing your good ole inferred justification, limiting the definition of what the Tea Party is, not even an organization, to the straw man you build in order to tear it down.

Your only goal is to attack Vitter and any supporters. Limiting yourself to rational, logical argument matters not. It's us against them and values don't matter.

BTW - this guy, who has attended two tea party rallies, believes prostitution should be legal. And, last I checked adultery was legal.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

at the people applauding, who in her estimation should have been condemning.

The folks applauding have done a great deal of condemning all on their own. It is not a straw man to point out that what a group says and what a group does are inconsistent.

Regarding my "logical fallacies," I lived through the Clinton years and know how right wingers behave when it comes to marital infidelity, bearing false witness and "asking questions" about someone's apparent suicide.

I've also heard more than my share of right wing estimations of how the media would react "if a Republican official" did something a Democratic official "was getting away with."

Am I wrong? Did I imagine the right wing hits (and dark insinuations of foul play) against Clinton back in the 90's? Do I imagine that the "Democrats getting away with something" point isn't used in the long continuation of the "liberal media" narrative?

I fail to see how pointing out those salient facts are logical fallacies, inferred justifications or tu quoque.

My goal is to expose ideological inconsistency. I don't like people who say whatever it takes to get elected. It is one of the Big Reasons I don't like Vitter (or any politician who campaigns on family values without displaying them).

It is one of the Big Reasons I find distasteful those individuals who say family values matter to their vote, and then vote for individuals like Vitter.

DADvocate said...

I fail to see how pointing out those salient facts...

First off, they're not facts. They are you're inferences. Speaking of ideological inconsistency, you're damning them for damning Clinton but not damning Vitter. Where's your consistency?

I've also heard more than my share of right wing estimations of how the media would react "if a Republican official" did something a Democratic official "was getting away with."

And that has nothing to do with this case.

The cornerstone of Christianity if forgiveness. That's why Christ came to Earth, so that men's sins may be forgiven. Yet, when these conservative Christians act in a manner that conveys forgiveness, you attack them. Perhaps they should have stoned Vitter and the woman to death.

You criticize unfairly because you disagree with their politics. You start with the premise, "How can I criticize them?" Not, "Let's take a clear, unbiased look."

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

"They are you're inferences."

So I inferred everything Rush Limbaugh and the right wing said about Clinton? I inferred what all those Republicans said during the 90's? I dreamed up his impeachment? Really? Because I remember that quite vividly.

I'm not damning, I'm criticizing them for their inconsistency. And they are being inconsistent. I am using this as an explanation as to why I do not think they are credible or sincere in their stated motives or political views.

It may be Christian to forgive, but the act of forgiveness requires an act of confession and contrition. He insincerely plays the family values card to get elected, and his behavior is excused by these Christians because he is a Republican. In my experience, these supporters and his allies nationwide hold Democratic office holders to very different standards.

It is not inconsistent to point that out.

Because if the "family values" crowd will support a candidate who displays nothing but lip service to family values, I do not trust the "fiscal conservative" or "personal freedoms" part of their support, either.

It is not inconsistent to point that out, either.

"And that has nothing to do with this case."

It does if a group of individuals is willing to condemn Clinton for his behavior while giving Vitter a pass for his. If he wants to visit prostitutes, it ain't none of my business. If he wants to rile up the base by appealing to family values and culture war topics, it does become my business, as he makes real policy that affects my life and gets to do so by appealing to falsehoods.

I'm not criticizing unfairly, I'm criticizing specific things. I've nearly itemized my policy complaints about Vitter in the past. Rubber stamping nearly every aspect of the Bush agenda; prolific government expansion and spending; attempts to keep the oil industry from being regulated.

He is as established a politician as they come, saying whatever it takes to get in office and stay there despite any reality of voting record or personal life. And the "anti-establishment" Tea Party is going to support him, not for any real economic plan or social conservativity, but because he has a "R" beside his name.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

BUT WAIT! I don't have to make any inferences about how the right treated Clinton back in the day, GOP Senatorial candidates do it for me.

Like I said, if Vitter was a Democratic official, this is exactly what would be happening to him.