Saturday, September 21, 2013

American Critical Thinking: Critically Retarded

I recently wrote an article for Yahoo about the house bill that was passed today. For those who don't know, the House sent a bill to the Senate that will fund the government to avoid a shut down, but would simultaneously defund the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, if you will).
 
The gist of my article: this is another game of chicken; the bill is a massive waste of time because it will never, ever pass the senate so long as the ACA provision remains; and the GOP doesn't really give a shit if the government shuts down because it doesn't affect THEIR paychecks.
 
So my suggestion was to take the provision out so that honest, hard-working Americans would not have to pay the price associated with government shut down, and to fight the Obamacare battle another day. I thought that I would receive support, because in my mind I was advocating for REAL solutions, not more ideological grandstanding.
 
Boy was I wrong.
 
Let me share with you some of the comments I received on this article.
 
"Jack Camwell acts as if this is the first time Politicians put themselves ahead of what needs to be done. Why does he not comment on things like ways Congress can cut costs - i.e. their own salaries and extremely large staffs. Fraudulent programs that waste money in their own districts so they can get voters and their businesses make money. Why does the President want to continue to over spend and put us in further debt without a real plan?? Camwell is an Obama supporter and can blame congress and the GOP for everything, and no even mention the President and his plan"
 
"Expect nothing less from an Ohio moonbat.
Not only should Obamascamcare be defunded, it needs to be taken apart piece by piece and buried in a landfill with all the other garbage.
That's a fact Jack"
(My Commentary: That actually made me chuckle a bit)
 
"a true "conservative" doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth, unlike Jack Camwell." 
"Note to Jack Camwell : Just get in line behind the rest of the commie #$%$ and you can lick Obamenajads' sac too !"
 
"yahoo contributor network why not be honest and call it what it is Obama stooge network"
 
 
These comments were particularly confusing to me because so many commenters accused me of being an Obama supporter. I re-read my article. I am fairly certain that I was emphatic about the idea that getting rid of Obamacare is probably a good idea, and that politicians need to sit down and have a real conversation about the potential negative effects of Obamacare. But one guy says that I'm just talking out of both sides of my mouth. Apparently, I'm not a "true conservative." The first comment I have quoted attributes some naiivte to my article that simply is not there.
 
That first comment also goes on to say that I blame the GOP and congress for everything. I find that interesting seeing as how everyone should blame Congress, not the president, for failing to perform its most basic function. The only explanation I can come up with is that most people who read the article only paid attention to the part where I said that this bill is a bad idea, and somehow they extrapolated that I am a supporter of both Obamacare and President Obama. This is because most Americans lack the capacity to critically think.
 
It's no wonder the same asshat politicians keep getting re-elected: there are plenty of morons who cannot think beyond their feelings, and who are dumb enough to continue to cast their votes for the very people cheating them. Somehow, when I say that "repealing Obamacare is a noble goal," these people interpret that as "I love Obamacare and Obama." I'm not bothered that these people disagree with me. What bothers me is that they gleaned an impression that was completely contrary to what I actually said.
 
It's sad, but this is the country we live in.
 
 
 

13 comments:

Duckys here said...

I can critically think and reading some of the articles on the benefits many workers shifted onto the exchanges are going to receive I realize that the reason the fringe right goombahs in the House want so desperately to defund the act is because the real possibility it will succeed and become popular scares the piss out of the Randoid morons.

As far as the Free Republic drones who responded, they oppose it because they've been told told to.

Jersey McJones said...

Yeah, most on the Right these day just have an automatic anti-Obama reflex. They don't care about the nuances, they don't care when Obama is plainly right, they don't care about anything but their intense hatred for the Democratic black man named Obama in the White House.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey:

You are such a predictable leftwing Obama toady. Do you ever get an original or interesting thought"

Yeah, most on the left these days just have an automatic pro-Obama reflex. They don't care about the nuances, they don't care when Obama is plainly wrong, they don't care about anything but their intense hatred for the the "cons" and their unquestioning, unthinking love for the Democratic man named Obama in the White House.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack,

Yeah... *sigh* our nuts are just as nutty as their nuts.

This is why I quit blogging, and only fire off a missive when I get really, really pissed off.

Unthinking Obamaboobs like Jersey are no better than the baboons who attacked you at that forum.

Politics today is two groups of screaming mandrils going at one another with sharpened sticks, coconuts and rocks.

F#@k 'em all

Anonymous said...

Political discourse in the US reminds me of sports fandom. Very few seem to care about the content of a bill or the character of their representative, all that matters is a win for team red or team blue. It is a disgusting example of our cultural decay.

Tony

Jack Camwell said...

Tony,

I knew it was you, haha. It's really good to hear from you after all these years.

Thank you for reading and commenting. You've made a good observation.

I've been slacking on the blog for a while, so I guess now I'll have to make a bigger effort.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I would say the "Republinuts" are worse than the Dems, and this is coming from a Libertarian.

My rationale behind this statement is if you listen to most people in the media, which is majority liberal leaning, you can actually find nuggets of truth buried here and there, and eventually you can sift through the non-sense and the rhetoric and come to some conclusion about their beliefs one way or the other, although a lot of what the dem's do and say is completely misguided in my opinion, at least they are consistent in their support of Fascism. You will never hear the Jersey's of the world complain about something a Fascist administration does, simply because they want that cradle to grave, sheeple, Aryan Nation sort of experience, after all why would they complain about government when it is government intrusion they seek? It's like a sick dating game that a 20 something college girl plays with a gullible man.

With the republinuts, you have no clue what you are going to get, listen to someone like Rush, Hannity or Beck long enough and your brain does a tailspin as they make the most outlandish contradictory claims and somehow try to pass their drivel off as "Conservative." By far one of the worst offenders is Bill O'Reily, who can have entire shows of absolute maniacal baseless statements intertwined with complete closed-mindedness. It's as if he lives in a vacuum, where only he knows things, and these things he knows are the only things certain.

There is nothing conservative about going to war.

There is nothing conservative about restricting Abortion.

There is nothing conservative about attempting to block same-sex marriage (whoops, guess that was Lord Clinton amirite?)

There is nothing conservative about raising defense spending, or debt ceilings, or funding of any sort.

Yet, this is what the republinuts do, they switch the word "Conservative" with the word "Reckless" and they suspend this belief long enough to finish their sentence, then the meanings switch back again so they can say "SEE, I AM CONSERVATIVE!"

Silverfiddle said...

Last Anon:

I partially agree with you. Republicans, and many billing themselves as conservatives are far from it.

I agree with these statements of yours:

There is nothing conservative about going to war.

There is nothing conservative about raising defense spending, or debt ceilings, or funding of any sort.


Amen!

However, I disagree with these:

There is nothing conservative about restricting Abortion.

There is nothing conservative about attempting to block same-sex marriage (whoops, guess that was Lord Clinton amirite?)


Sure there is. Conservatives conserve, which is why their extreme is classified as reactionary. They want to preserve time-honored mores and practices that have stood us well.

Protection of life itself is inherently conservative. Abortion snuffs a life.

Conservatives are not libertarians. They believe society and its governments should step in and circumscribe people's actions or punish their wrong actions for the good of the whole.

My personal Gold Standard for conservatism is Russel Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles.

I with to hell people calling themselves "conservative" today would read them, discuss them, and practice them.

Anonymous said...

I can't agree with you there Silver:

In my view, Conservatives follow the constitution, and the only thing they try to preserve is the Republic, not traditions.

Perfect example- The first truly Republican president-

Abraham Lincoln.

While it is well noted he had conflicted feelings about slavery, he knew it had to end.

Libertarians would seek a minimalist government, whereas a conservative would want enough government intrusion to uphold the republic . It is a slight but distinct point in my view.

The reason "RESTRICTING" abortion is not conservative is there is not an explicit provision providing a guideline at the federal level. I would hope that if true conservatives wished to do so, they would have an amendment to the constitution and not some supreme court ruling being the law of the land.

Same-sex marriage jumps into the same waters, there is no explicit instructions.

Nothing in these issues is germane to the function of the "federal" government, and should largely be a state issue.

Don't confuse conservatism with reactionary, which is a similar, but distinctly different ideology.

Good link though Kurt.

Silverfiddle said...

Based upon Kirk's principles, restricting abortions and gay marriage is indeed conservative.

Blackstone addresses abortion in England's earliest works of jurisprudence, and homosexuality has always been frowned upon and homosexual marriage was never codified into law or even openly countenanced in western civilization.

The reasons may be outdated now due to health advances, etc, but restricting such actions accords with basic conservative principles.

Bear in mind, I am neither damning nor praising these conservative principles, or saying they are better or worse than libertarian ones, but rather setting up a basic definition of conservatism, and agreeing with you that our Republicans and Conservatives by and large do not conform to these principles.

---------

Rereading your comments, it appears your complaint is that conservatives, based upon 'conserving' the constitution and the republic, fall short there as well, and again we agree.

We still disagree about abortion. Outlawing abortions is within the purview of the state and the constitution, since it falls under the 'life, liberty, property' rubric of the Declaration, which provides the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution.

The constitution does not create the right to life--it validates it, and as I said before, Blackstone's Commentaries mentions abortion as a crime.

So, one may disagree, and indeed I do not begrudge you your disagreement on the status of abortion, but this is the legitimate basis upon which conservatives stand against abortion, even under the constitution. It is also the basis upon which one can claim that being anti-abortion is indeed a conservative act, both under traditional principles as enunciated by Kirk, as well as under our republic's constitution.

I readily grant you that this conflicts with the libertarian view. Such is political philosophy.

Silverfiddle said...

Gay marriage:
I agree with you that someone calling themselves a constitutional conservative, using your definition as one who wants to preserve the constitution and our republic, cannot stand in the way of gay marriage. There is no basis in the constitution for restricting it.

Indeed, one could take the same argument I made above about restricting abortions, turn it on it's head, and use it to restrict 'aborting' gay marriages.

Restricting gay marriage violates the liberty and pursuit of happiness of others, and therefore cannot be countenanced by anyone demanding fealty to our constitution, since the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are its philosophical underpinnings.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, well somehow Article 1 section 8, clause 5 turned into congress giving their control of the money supply over to a private corporation, wherein they legally counterfeit all money, give it to other private corporations that loan counterfeit phantom cents, who charge actual money people have to earn with real value to pay back.

Also, if by some stroke of total and utter slapdick these private corporations lose money by trading keystrokes on a computer for actual money some poor bastard had to break his fuckin back for 40 years laying bricks, it's ok... no harm no foul, the phantom mint shall save you.

I find it amazing why the people who want all these entitlements and socialist shit even care about a budget or what anything costs the government who is essentially world without end cheat coding all the money into the system, to the tune of about 90 some trillion now.

No wonder we are the richest country on the planet, our computers say so.

Anonymous said...

Anon: Amen!

I agree with every last word.

I too wonder why we still bother arguing over things like 'budgets' when our 'monetary' system makes it all a fiction anyway.

Why even bother with the government charade?

Perhaps its all kabuki for the hoi polloi anyway...