Friday, December 30, 2011

How to argue with right wingers

By now it should be apparent by recent posts here that I am so into other problems (like trying to figure out how to edit or market eBooks) that I simply am not writing a lot of political blogs and not feeling quite as irrationally irate over politics. What will be will be, yada yada yada is kind of my current mantra which will doubtless become less rational as the new year progresses.

But I really liked this article from Salon and consider it worth reading for anyone with right wingers in the family and for all the times I have tried to argue with a rightie and felt like going somewhere I could scream and nobody would hear me or where I could punch pillows for a few hours afterward.

Of course, I am lucky as my friends and family all pretty much see the world as I do; so most of my 'arguments' only happen online-- and frankly can as easily be with left wingers as right wingers which probably means I am an equal opportunity offender. I expect though to become more left wing as this election year progresses. I look at the alternative and it's a no-brainer for me. Anyway if you do have family where you need some good responses or even those emails that often come in uninvited from our rightie friends, read this--

16 comments:

la peregrina said...

LOL! Thank you, for the link. Laughter is definitely the best medicine. :)

Kay Dennison said...

Thanks! I needed that!!!!

Ingineer66 said...

Besides the typos, I find it funny how he conveniently leaves things out of his arguments. Eric Holder has made mistake after mistake and should resign based on how it has worked for just about every other cabinet member of every other administration in the last 50 years.

As for Solyndra, Conservatives are mad about two things. First this administration seems to want to pick winners and losers instead of just using tax dollars to create incentives and tax breaks to promote developing technology.

The second thing is that after numerous meetings at the White House with Solyndra representatives they were given money by Obama after the Bush Administration said they were too risky. And then after all those White House meetings not only did Obama give them the money but for the first time in history they did not make the US Treasury the first creditor if the company goes bankrupt. There is so much corruption in this case it demands a special prosecutor and there are over 100 more deals similar to Solyndra out there.

Rain said...

I suggest you write your own of these for how to argue with a left winger.

As for if there is corruption, skip the right wing talk guys for whether there is. Issa has the control of that committee. If it's there, he'll go for it. If he doesn't, you might want to accept it's typical right wing BS that you are getting about it.

I am by the way not fond of any such grants which includes Halliburton with all the no bids they and their ilk get. But reality is to the winner goes the spoils and you can bet that won't change if Romney gets the power next year...

MerCyn said...

I have a question - When you become a right winger do you lose your sense of humor; or, if you have no sense of humor to begin with do you naturally become a right winger?

Ingineer66 said...

I have a terrific sense of humor. I think most conservatives do. Most all of my conservative friends are more tolerant and find humor in political things than many of my liberal friends.

For instance, I think it is hilarious that Obama ("the peace President") staged an illegal war in Libya and nobody on the left had a problem with it. If he had been a Republican violating the War Powers Act, there would have been protests in DC and CNN and MSNBC would have had shows on a constant loop talking about how horrible it was.

Rain said...

Where do you get your information, ingineer? Obama cheated on solyndra and now our part of Libya was an illegal war because he put our troops into the effort to topple Gaddafi with all the European nations and NATO. I thought as commander in chief this was a choice a president could make which is about like Kosovo. I guess righties only like wars where a lot of our people get killed? Where we fight for ten years and get nothing for it? IF this was an illegal war, why hasn't the right gone after him in Congress? They have the power given they control the House.

I really have to wonder to whom you listen and I know you don't know many liberals although if you mean we should laugh at people being denied equal rights like gays to marriage, or not being able to get medical care because they are poor, etc. then you're right. We don't find that funny. BUT in the case of this link that you found fault with, pretty much it was intended to be funny. Did you get that? And if you guys think political satire is funny, who can you think of that does it from the right? I can think of plenty from the left. Anybody from the right? Anybody at all? Or maybe your idea of humor is what the Romney son said recently about that his father would reveal his tax records when Obama gave out his birth certificate. That was funny? Come to think about it, i can think of a few right wing candidates who decided something was a joke when they got caught with a lie.

Ingineer66 said...

Rain, you are taking my comments way too seriously. But Obama did violate the War Powers Act with the actions in Libya. The Republicans and myself were in favor of toppling Qaddafi so nobody made that big of a deal over it other than the Congressmen that spoke on the news on the day of the deadline for the President to report to Congress on the war. It was news for one day. Like I said if Obama would have been a Republican we would still be hearing about how he violated the law. It is not an opinion or a viewpoint, it is a fact. Just nobody made it a huge deal because he is a Democrat.

Ingineer66 said...

I have a fair number of liberal family members and a few liberal friends.

Rain said...

Give me a break. Like who got impeached? You really think the gentle Republicans have treated Obama so well. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as to say what you did, to me is ridiculous. The gentle sweet Republicans who never attack anybody... You do know you have Fox as a totally rightie station, right? CNN which swings both ways. I heard lots of news media finding fault with Obama on many things. Frankly I think it's that the Republicans just whine more whenever they are attacked on anything they do.........

Ingineer66 said...

OK my last comment on this issue. Are you saying that Obama did not violate the War Powers Act?

Rain said...

The first question for you to answer is was the War Powers Act constitutional and that's the debate. There is a practical aspect beyond that but no president has believed that 1941 act of Congress could actually limit the President's ability to act when necessary and do it quickly.

In the case of Libya, the reason you only find right/left wing fanatics arguing he should not have acted (and yeah they both do exactly that) is that this was an emergency, and everybody using their brains can see that.

There were those people (as there had been with Iraq after the first Gulf War with the Kurds) who were trying to topple a dictator and you do something right away or it would be too late. If we were to go into a war as such, where we committed ground troops, then Congress would have to declare war but would anybody sensible really believe that the president had to wait for them on an emergency basis? This is not because of partisanship. This is by the few people left on the right or the left who can use commonsense. It's not seen a lot.

War Powers Resolution of 1941 Constitutional or not?

Military actions such as we did in Libya which didn't require ground troops, or even like Grenada where there was supposedly an emergency-- Invasion of Grenada-- happen fast. Americans, who don't hate their president anyway, want that person to act fast.

No, he didn't disobey the law as this was not a full out war but if he had had to act immediately as has happened before, I'd hate to think anybody would want him to wait on the Congress we have today who cannot tie their shoelaces without adding on pork or fighting partisan battles for nothing related to the actual issue. As you said everybody wanted Libya to have that rebellion succeed. And if you believe that the left would have condemned Bush for a like action, which required no ground troops, you are listening to too much right wing talk radio. IF today's Congress felt he had broken the law (and I don't mean a few Tea Party Congresspeople), they would have charged him as eager as they are to do that. To me we need a presidency that can act quickly in today's world. We are supposedly electing someone we trust with that 3 AM call. Guess you'd rather it didn't matter? I truthfully believe you wouldn't even ask this if it was Bush or Romney should he win!

Rain said...

One further point that I think everyone knows but is worth repeating with this debate. Bush tricked Congress into getting himself authorized to go to war with Iraq. He claimed he didn't really want to use it but it would give him leverage. Now that doesn't excuse those in Congress who went along with him as they were dupes but we now know that Bush intended war with Iraq from the day he got into office but kept it a secret. He wanted it and he found a reason to do it even though the reason was fraudulent-- WMD. Trickery has gotten the US into a lot of wars Remember the Maine. At least with what Obama did, we didn't put troops on the ground and we mostly provided support for NATO and the rebels. And yet the righties want to find fault with him while mostly only blaming Bush for not exercising their war better...

Ingineer66 said...

It has been the law of the land so I am not going to argue whether it is constitutional. That sounds like it has about as much validity as the people that argue the income tax is illegal.

I am not saying he should not have acted nor am I saying he violated the law by acting. But there are requirements for the President to report to Congress by certain timelines in the War Powers Act and Obama violated those requirements.

Rain said...

Ah yes and the law of the land once allowed states to force blacks to move to the back of a bus, etc. The law of the land might block gay marriage. It doesn't make it Constitutional and if either party should challenge Obama on this, it might be decided whether that Congress overstepped their boundaries. If you read those links, you will see that it's undecided by those who understand the law a lot better than I do. I think in this case, since it didn't evolve into a war, it seemed pointless. Congress did by the way know it was happening. You don't like Obama. Never liked him. Didn't vote for him and won't vote for him next go round. It's logical you'd see it as you do. Possibly the Republicans haven't really wanted to deal with this to limit their own future issues such as Reagan had with Grenada. My feeling is if people want to dislike Obama, there are lots of reasons. Some of them rather pointless as is this one since we are not at war in Libya. One might more question the logic and legality of what Bush did with Iraq, but you won't do that will you? You will just say he didn't execute it wisely rather than he should never have done a 10 year war that the right is still complaining that Obama would end even with Iraq wanting us gone and Bush having set this to be the date we leave. That's partisanship for you.

Rain said...

You are talking following protocol. Congress knew. We all knew; so what you want is the anal dot the t's type of thing that you would never care if 'your' guy did. And you should care if something is Constitutional. Keep in mind that they have been taking away our rights piece by piece. If the courts don't care either, we won't have the nation we grew up with.

You care about this with him purely because of wanting to 'get' him on something. If Congress cares about it, they'll bring charges. If they think they have the legal right and can gain partisan points (which is what you were looking at here), they might. I've seen sillier things pursued like blow jobs for instance... Or not defining sex as intercourse and ending up accused of perjury. What a great use of time.

I may be one who didn't even think we should have helped out with Libya (although less so after seeing the torture chambers), but I wouldn't call it an illegal use of presidential powers. Maybe if we had a responsible Congress, he even would have if he had time. BUT we do not. We have the Senate Republicans led by a man who said his main goal was to see Obama be a one-term president. That sounds so much like a man you'd want to consult given the situation, doesn't it? We have a group in the Congress who only want Obama to fail and they've done all they can in the last three years to make that happen. If Romney does get in and Democrats have power of the House and Senate and they say that's their main purpose, not to fix jobs, not to wisely decide wars, not to do what is best for the people but one purpose-- make Romney a one-term president which means a failure. How will you see that? The kind of obstructionism they have used with the filibuster (a level not ever seen before) and blocking appointment of judges or any of Obama's appointees if they are not tea partiers, that kind of thing is what led to where we are and if it continues, it will be sending us to Third World status on more than health care available to our people. Well I should say it's okay here-- for the chosen ones who have corporate or government jobs. Others, not so much or at such a high rate that it's taking resources they could have used for other things if we had a reasonable group in power who looked at problems and thought about solutions instead of excuses.

Lord, I've about written a blog and will get no credit for it ;)