Stupidity we're up against

[billv]

This is the kind of stupidity we're up against:

http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2007/05/i_dont_care.html#comment-70873494

[lucky]

This is the kind of stupidity we're up against:

http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2007/05/i_dont_care.html#comment-70873494

Totally expected and probably be seeing a lot of this stuff. Get used to it. This is an uphill battle that is just starting.

[billv]

Totally expected and probably be seeing a lot of this stuff. Get used to it. This is an uphill battle that is just starting.

It's just frustrating when it's impossible to argue logically with people. The dense can be difficult.

[lucky]

It's just frustrating when it's impossible to argue logically with people. The dense can be difficult.


It is and understand. Bill, I have been on the internet for many years and have seen this many times. Sometimes it is best not to argue but move on and discuss with someone else that is more open minded. A few years ago I was more close minded and so sure of things that anyone that tried to say different was an idiot to me. I was not as crude as him but still the same.

If I can change then others can. Just got to discuss things with the ones that are more apt to listen. If they get as crude as him and start resorting to name calling then it is best to go away.

Also some may not change right away. If they at least discuss things and you still can't make headway then it was not fruitless. They will remember what was discussed and may change as I did.

[X_805]

That blog entry is extremely disappointing. Radical name-calling without any logical argument. It kind of saddens me that some people choose not to think and only respond to acts of terrorism with emotion. That is what the terrorists want.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Neocons typically use ad hominem attacks and non sequitors. I heard one say that the moment we pull out of Iraq will be the moment terrorist attacks happen en masse across the country.

I kid you not.

[zMtLlC]

It's nothing but a maze of contradictions and illogicalities. Has anyone on here read The Authoritarians online? It's a really good book about these sort of people.

[Shmuel Spade]

I think his outbursts are a sign of desperation. A signal that he's almost over the edge trying to rationalize his cognitive dissonance, and that with a little time left to himself he'll come around. Right now he has to save face, "what am I gonna say to all those libs I've been bashing for years?!" But that happens to all neo-cons that get turned around.

I put in my 2 cents on his page.

[billv]

Thanks for the responses over there.

[jimmyjamsslo]

'Ray' utilizes sheer sophistry both in that blogpost and in his original article. I'm used to this annoying tactic from dealing with fundamentalist religionists when I was younger. I learned to not even enter discussion with people who use this tactic in any domain...
Then he resorts to lots of generalization and misdirection. Political legerdemain. In the first article he calls for reasonable introspection and look at his expletive-laden response in the blog. That's 'sanity'? Definitely a blowhard worth ignoring.

[Phillip Skains]

I think it's great. This shows just how much impact we are having. The tables are turning when the actual blog sounds like some angry comment one might leave on a blog, and the replies to it are well written, calm, and completely logical. By being sore losers, these guys are actually helping us.

[billv]

lol, interesting observation

[IrrigatedPancake]

Fighting against them probably just gives an excuse to ignore reality. There must be a better way to wake up people that are in that deep.

[billv]

I don't think people like that would bother me so much if they could use logic, facts, etc. to back up their arguments. Then at least I could respect such a position. However, his position seems to be that of Chicken Little, "The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling" with nothing to back it up.

[Marc Scott Emery]

All of Dr. Paul's critics are irrational, have you noticed that? Whether its xenophobia (Muslims are out to destroy us & we need Rudy), or 'electability', or even the ravings of fired employees, whatever the criticism, its always contentless.

These critics are nervous because the people bypassed them and found Dr. Paul without Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell's imprimateur. The detractors from the libertarian ranks are jealous as well as threatened. Dr. Paul's worldview is popular! His army is growing and we're militant. If we can take it to the streets, this Ron Paul Revolution, then there is great potential for a nationwide mass movement to build around Dr. Paul. His campaign of plain spoken idealism has the great possibility of cleansing and purifying the Republican Party, and making it a great Party of liberty and constitutionally faithful government.

[tnvoter]

All of Dr. Paul's critics are irrational, have you noticed that? Whether its xenophobia (Muslims are out to destroy us & we need Rudy), or 'electability', or even the ravings of fired employees, whatever the criticism, its always contentless.

These critics are nervous because the people bypassed them and found Dr. Paul without Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell's imprimateur. The detractors from the libertarian ranks are jealous as well as threatened. Dr. Paul's worldview is popular! His army is growing and we're militant. If we can take it to the streets, this Ron Paul Revolution, then there is great potential for a nationwide mass movement to build around Dr. Paul. His campaign of plain spoken idealism has the great possibility of cleansing and purifying the Republican Party, and making it a great Party of liberty and constitutionally faithful government.


Prexactly.

No one I've seen bash Ron Paul - - has actually used any kind of facts to back up any of their opinions. Showing they either 1) haven't done any research 2) don't really care 3) are not conservative at all 4) all of the above

I was the same way until I actually looked at what Ron Paul stood for, and his honest voting record. I "woke up" to a president I had voted for twice, who hadn't followed through on his promises for less government, less spending, and a secure border. I was one of the 30% approving the presidents job for the most part - and his support for the amnesty issue confirmed my previous error in judgement and hope.

I'm not falling for broken promises from flip flopping politicians again (that includes fred thompson) aka Rudy McRompson, or Billary, or Obama or any of them.

Ron Paul in '08, "LIVE FREE OR DIE"

[RonPaul4President]

Stupidity we're up against
Oops! sorry I thought this was a thread about Hannity and Colmes. *tip-toes out of thread*

[peruvianRP]

I posted this. this is another point of view.

So if Radical Muslims want to attack and Kill non-muslims..would not be easier for them to attack Chile, Peru?
their economy is better but they dont have a good military force. I have live In Peru and freedom is as good as here but not the economy. So why radical muslims don't attak this countries?

and give me good answers and dont just say shit like "because AMERICA is the BEST" bullshit oK?

[UCFGavin]

I wouldn't be worried about him....hes most likely doing it for attention.

[RonPaul4President]

That guy is a complete ass. What is it about people like him and the two I mentioned above which are of the same mindset. You give them facts and they throw it back in your face as conspiracy. I say they can't handle the truth so they reroute it to their brain's toilet and spew the results out their mouths.

[NMCB3]

I notice that if you leave a comment contrary to his opinion he deletes it, but if you agree with him and call dissenters names he leaves it up.

I directly answered his supposedly "unanswerable question" That being; "If Muslims terrorism is blow back for US policy, then why are they killing more innocent Muslims than Americans?"

I pointed out that "no one said that US policy is the cause of all terrorism committed by Muslims as your question implies." That all anyone said was that its a contributing factor. Then I proceeded to go into how Muslims have been killing each other for centuries, thats what they do, and its nothing new. I then told him that by us overthrowing their governments supporting dictators, sanctions, etc. We have turned some of their wrath upon ourselves, and that to deny this obvious fact was irrational at best. He deleted all but my first sentence and replied;

"Your deconstructionist tactic is noted and at least got left here for that one silly point to be used as an example of deconstructionist arguments. If you can't win the point, desperately try to change the point: deconstruction 101. the rest is just talking points, didn't answer the question...partially deleted...C+ for effort."

First off his premise is Post hoc , ie that all Muslim terrorism is blow back for US policy. He is implying that all terrorism is caused by the US, which is false. From a false premise (we are responsible for all terrorism) he then asks why they are killing each other. After all if we are the bad guys, why are they blowing themselves up?
The whole premise is false, therefore the question that follows it is meaningless. Obviously he doesn`t have much faith in his own arguments if he wont leave counterpoints posted on the board. :)

[zMtLlC]

This guy just seems like some 12 year old who thinks he's cool. What self-respecting adult would consistently use that much profanity in that kind of setting?

[zMtLlC]

"If Muslims terrorism is blowback for US policy, then why are they killing more innocent Muslims than Americans?"

Is this even true? I've never heard that.

[ronpaulitician]

I posted:


"If Muslims terrorism is blowback for US policy, then why are they killing more innocent Muslims than Americans?"

Who said Muslim terrorism is blowback for US policy? Some attacks against US interests are blowback for US policy, 9/11 being the most prominent among them.

If we hadn't been involved in the Middle East over the past few decades, Bin Laden wouldn't have hated us as much as he does now.

Is the goal of the Islamic fundamentalists to make Islam the world's religion? It definitely is. Read bin Laden's letter to American (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4552895-110490,00.html), where at the very top of his "to do" list for us, is "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." However, that same letter has, at the top of his "Why are we attacking you?" list, "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us."

What is the best strategy in reducing the number of Islamic fundamentalists?

That is the question to be asked.

Some believe the answer is to go after them. They believe that our current presence in Iraq aids this battle, and that we are luring the Islamic fundamentalists into Iraq in order to kill them. Others believe that since it is our presence in the Middle East that has fostered most of the hatred against us, our presence in Iraq is increasing the number of Islamic fundamentalists, and we're simply not killing them fast enough to keep up.

[Bryan]

"If Muslims terrorism is blowback for US policy, then why are they killing more innocent Muslims than Americans?"

Is this even true? I've never heard that.
Define "innocent".

[zMtLlC]

You: "Just shut the hell up! I can not tell you how many *beep* are responding to my reaming of Ron Paul and the liberals for blaming 9/11 on us."
Me: Dr. Paul never claimed that we were to be blamed for 9/11, but that our interventionist foreign policy has contributed to their hatred of us. How well do you think they could recruit if they just did it based on our tolerance of women and "secular" society? Whether or not the head guys want to destroy non-Muslims, our foreign policy has certainly been a great recruitment point for them. Really, which would you be more willing to blow yourself up for: our freedoms and religion, or our overthrowing of the governments you elected, supporting of Israel, and occupation of your holy land?

Coward accusations: Nowhere did you justify this claim that simply because we acknowledge the facts above that we're "cowards." No, I would call you, along with Rudy and the rest of the people who think they're attacking us because of our freedoms or some global effort to convert everyone to Islam, the cowards since you're so afraid to listen to any kind of reality outside of what you hear from the President and all of your pundits.

You: "3. al Qaeda, Islamic radicals would be attacking you and me no matter what we did because they want to turn the entire planet Muslim so that THEY will gain theocratic authoritarian power. How freaking hard is that to understand you cowardly worms?"
Me: Again with the unsubstantiated claim about cowardice. I basically answered this above: their head people may have that as an ultimate goal, but our foreign policy is certainly a great way to recruit the would-be moderate Muslims to their cause.

You: "4. If they hate us because of our foreign policy, why are they now bombing innocent muslims all over the world? Because they don't give a rats ass about colonialism, interventionism, or empirialism except that they want the power you stupid *bleep*!"
Me: Again, this seems to contradict #3. If their goal is a complete Muslim world, then why would they be killing Muslims? You seem to torpedo your own argument here. Why are they attacking other Muslims? Possibly because they support us, possibly for other reasons. Like someone said above, we're not claiming that US foreign policy is the cause of all Islamic terrorism, that's a bit of a strawman.

You: "5. Stop asking me "why are they only attacking us"? Are you *bleeping* *bleep*? Can you not read a *bleepity bleep* newspaper? they are attacking pretty much every nation on the planet INCLUDING CANADA you *bleeeeeeeeeeeeeep*."
Me: I kind of answered this above too, I think. I do read the newspaper pretty regularly, and have never seen an incident of them attacking Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, or any place such as that for their freedoms. Even if they did, that goes back to the point that we're not claiming that our foreign policy is the cause of ALL Islamic terrorism. I would think, though, that if they wanted to convert the entire world to Islam they would attack the places I talked about above since they have more of a non-Muslim population than we do.

You: "If Muslims terrorism is blowback for US policy, then why are they killing more innocent Muslims than Americans?"
Me: Again, you're refuting your own argument here. Why would they kill Muslims if their goal was to convert the entire world to Islam? This is also a bit of a strawman, since we didn't claim that all Muslim terrorism was caused by US foreign policy. A lot of it is possibly caused by the Sunni-Shiite fight also.

I posted this here in case he deletes it.



Define "innocent".
Let's just say Muslims. Has Bin Laden killed more Muslims than Americans?

[NMCB3]

Let's just say Muslims. Has Bin Laden killed more Muslims than Americans?I think lowbrows like this blogger define any type of insurgency as terrorism. In other words to him all the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorists" Even though they may be fighting for various reasons. People with his mentality tend to look at the world in overly simplistic terms.

[zMtLlC]

Didn't answer the question, I cant tell if you are a masquerading leftest or an Islamist...doesnt matter...deleted

That's how he responded to that long post, by deleting it and saying it didn't answer the question. This guy's an idiot.

[NMCB3]

That's how he responded to that long post, by deleting it and saying it didn't answer the question. This guy's an idiot.Yes, to neoconservatives anyone who questions foreign policy is a America hating leftest islamist terrorist sympathizing coward. I have been called these names and countless others because I dared to question the Federal governments ultimate authority. The problem with neoconservatives is that they cannot distinguish between their country (America) and the federal government. Hence to them, if you criticize government policy you are criticizing America and you are leftist scum. Its called rabid nationalism. :)

[SAVEamerica]

The only way to get through to people like this is to prove your point without making it obvious to them that they are actually wrong. You can't do it because it offends them and after that they get all emotional and reject all logic and reason because their thinking is clouded by anger. It's a very hard thing to to do.

[winston_blade]

I didn't know Ray Robinson ran a comedy blog.

[billv]

Yes, to neoconservatives anyone who questions foreign policy is a America hating leftest islamist terrorist sympathizing coward. I have been called these names and countless others because I dared to question the Federal governments ultimate authority. The problem with neoconservatives is that they cannot distinguish between their country (America) and the federal government. Hence to them, if you criticize government policy you are criticizing America and you are leftist scum. Its called rabid nationalism. :)

Yes, it really is quite scary.