Couldn't Pass This Up
Unlike most people that read only the news that fits around their beliefs I read both the left and right wing propoganda news. I stumbled upon this gem of an article on a republican website. Here's why the author's wrong.
Point: First: Agree to oil drilling in Alaska so that our money will no longer be given to Islamic oil producing countries that are supporting terrorists and making nuclear bombs they boast will be used against us.
Counterpoint: Experts say there is only six months worth of oil in Alaska (based on current US consumption). Venezuela’s president offered to sell the US barrels of oil for $50 a piece, which would drop prices to two dollars a gallon. Venezuela has 5x the amount of oil as the Saudis, but Bush is in bed w/ the Saudis and turned down the offer.
Point: Second: Quit demanding those ersatz "civil liberties" that stop our government's ability to listen in on telephone calls from Al Qaeda to sleeper cells located here planning our destruction.
Counterpoint: Nice use of vocabulary (ersatz). If the government wants to spy on its citizens then it should obtain a search warrant like the Constitution says to do. (Remember the ol’ 4th amendment that says no illegal search and seizure?) Why put quotes around civil liberties? Are the laws in our constitution trivial? What gives the Bush administration the right to ignore our laws?
Point: For me, the above would not constitute sacrifice since I believe that terrorists have no U.S. civil rights, and in time of war, we must spy on the enemy. But for liberals, this would be a great sacrifice on their behalf for the war effort.
Counterpoint: Spying on people without a warrant makes it far too easy to abuse the “privilege” and spy on political adversaries (much like a fascist country, Cuba?) Plus, as mentioned, it’s illegal (not a sacrifice). In short, GET A SEARCH WARRANT.
Point: For me, the aforementioned would not constitute sacrifice since I believe that even during peace- time we should drill in U.S. regions with abundant oil. After all, that's why God put it there -- to be used. Oil is not there for beauty's sake. But for liberals, it would constitute a sacrifice helpful to the war effort.
Counterpoint: For me, for me, is that all conservatives think about? Thought I’d make a completely irrelevant attack toward conservatives since that’s what you keep doing toward liberals in your editorial. As I aforementioned, we have no abundant regions of oil. We have six months worth in Alaska, and less elsewhere.
Do you remember the story of Adam and Eve where Eve eats the apple that was placed there for enticement? Maybe that’s what God did with oil, seeing as the use of it has been causing global warming and thus the slow destruction of our planet which "He" created for us.
Seems about here you run out of ideas for arguments (which, by the way, is when you’re supposed to end your essay) and start babbling a bunch bullshit. It’s kind of like listening to a senile person talk. Thought I’d still try to sort out some of your gibberish though.
Point: But liberals will not desist from their gods, even in face of war. The "environment" and full citizen- rights for even Afghan terrorists are not to be compromised. Political positions can't be sacrificed, for they are what makes a left liberal a liberal. Without these beliefs, liberals would loose their sense of self. It is their very personhood.
Counterpoint: That’s awfully nice of you; you didn’t call us liberals “godless,” a word conservatives like to attribute to liberals. Thank you, appreciate it. Seeing as the environment is what gives us and the all living creatures on our planet the ability to continue life, I deem it important enough to consider protecting, you don’t? Now you’re telling me that liberal’s political positions can’t be changed? I’ll analyze that. We’re told that Kerry is a flip-flopper (he changes his political position) and that Bush is better because he doesn’t change his position despite information stacked against the opinion. On top of that when Congress votes on a bill what do you see on CSPAN? All the republicans unilaterally vote one way whereas the democrats differ on their votes instead of upholding the party’s political positions. Did you pull that last sentence out of your ass?
Point: I know of the true sacrifices of young American soldiers around the world fighting jihadism and that of senior officers and their families. I'll bet that hardly any of those serving are left wing ideologues.
Counterpoint: Let’s see… the only place our troops are fighting wars are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our troops in Afghanistan are fighting the Taliban (whom we put in power to begin with) and the war in Iraq was started over weapons of mass destruction (which they didn’t have). So basically you know of the sacrifices that our young soldiers have made… either because of the U.S’s past mistakes or for no reason at all. ‘Atta boy.
Point: Not to mention the excruciating sacrifice all of us daily make when listening to the never ending rants and carping against America on radio and TV by liberals who seem unable to shut up. Talk about noise pollution!
Counterpoint: Okay, a completely unrelated attack toward liberals. You’re absolutely right about all the liberals on TV if by liberals you mean people who use logic and facts to form an opinion. Other than those people there is only FOX “news.”
Point: When liberals talk of "sacrifice" what they mean is what they always mean and want -- all the time: Higher taxes. Redistribution of wealth. It's all a ruse, just another way to coerce the American people to institute left wing policies. So don't be snookered.
Counterpoint: Let me explain the economic policies of the left and right wing (I think both are wrong, btw). Republicans want to tax less and spend more (aka Bush’s plan) and democrats want to tax more and spend more. In the long term the former plan would cause bankruptcy (look at all the companies Bush ran into the ground) and the latter makes more sense. Ideally the best plan is to tax moderately and spend less then you take in (see: Clinton Administration). Uh oh, me, a liberal, not sticking to the liberal’s political position on economics. How strange. Democrats want to redistribute the wealth to the lower classes where as Republicans (especially Bush who has given the upper economic class the most tax cuts) support the trickle down theory which is supposed to help the poor. From the rising unemployment rate (which Bush continues to redefine to hide it) and the slowing economy are good indicators of how well the trickle-down effect works.
Point: In typical liberal fashion, liberals are always out front moralizing to we "unaanointed" plebians about the sacrifices we must make for the "common good" of which they are always exempt. Our chidren must be bused, while their children go to toney private schools. Our values must be sacrificed so as to institute their vision of how society should look and behave.
Counterpoint: I like this paragraph, replace liberal with conservative and you have a very evident truth.
Point: We, the United States, must "understand" terrorists and criminals, and the average Joe should have his money, that which he earned, redistributed to those constituencies liberals feel are worthy of the fruits of his hard work. Your money is not to be spent by you directly for your children but to causes liberals deem more important.
Counterpoint: You know what hate (what the KKK runs on) stems from? Fear caused my misunderstanding. We hate Muslims because they attacked us. But if you understand Muslims as a whole you’ll see that they disagree with the extremists actions (attacking innocents) more so than they disagree with our actions (invading countries for no apparent reason).
I like to call redistributing wealth community service or “helping each other.” Just in case you don’t belong to a church that’s something they like to advocate. Quit your bitching and cut back on materialistic wants and you’ll be fine.
Point: Islamic demonstrators holding up posters here and in Europe calling for Death to Westerners and announcing a soon-to-come Holocaust against Christians and Jews are defended as Free Speechers, and woe to the "unenlightened" among us who finds unacceptable such public calls for our death by the newly arrived living in our countries. But speech decrying homosexual marriage or warning of Islamic imperialism is labeled hate speech and "dangerous" to society.
The "common good" of which they now speak, their latest political buzz phrase, is not about doing what is necessary physically to protect the American people from jihadist threats, rather a phony, high sounding ideal for renewed social engineering, i.e., taking away your liberties and religious beliefs, unless Islamic ones. For the "religion of peace", we must show, they tell us, the utmost respect. Witness the reverence with which they've greeted the Iranian letter to President Bush teaching us what Jesus would have done and that now is the time for all in the world to ready themselves for the return of "the Muslim Prophet".
Counterpoint: There’s nothing to respond to there because once you peel away the bullshit, outright lies, and a feeble attempt to create eloquent sentences there’s no real point being made. Beyond that, Christians do the same thing but thinly veil it.
Point: The Left never changes its goal, and no matter how much we surrender, they will not be satisfied short of a European socialism, with themselves filling the top posts.
Counterpoint: Again with the LEFT not changing it’s goal. Talk about hypocritical. And what’s wrong with socialism? National healthcare and education systems far better than America’s? Damn socialism, damn it to hell. Conservatives are welcome to join the ranks of socialism but I doubt they’d want to be taken off their high horses.
Point: Every new situation is fodder for simply sneaking in their agenda. It will always be so, for they do not like the America we love. In fact, truth be told, they don't like our values. Worse, they don't like us. Perhaps that's why they don't sacrifice for us. After all, our French is so bad.
Counterpoint: Since when does disagreeing with the current policies of the Bush and his administration constitute hating or even disliking America and it’s people? And what the hell is with the french comment? I dislike the French for the same reason I dislike high profile republicans: arrogance.
Point: First: Agree to oil drilling in Alaska so that our money will no longer be given to Islamic oil producing countries that are supporting terrorists and making nuclear bombs they boast will be used against us.
Counterpoint: Experts say there is only six months worth of oil in Alaska (based on current US consumption). Venezuela’s president offered to sell the US barrels of oil for $50 a piece, which would drop prices to two dollars a gallon. Venezuela has 5x the amount of oil as the Saudis, but Bush is in bed w/ the Saudis and turned down the offer.
Point: Second: Quit demanding those ersatz "civil liberties" that stop our government's ability to listen in on telephone calls from Al Qaeda to sleeper cells located here planning our destruction.
Counterpoint: Nice use of vocabulary (ersatz). If the government wants to spy on its citizens then it should obtain a search warrant like the Constitution says to do. (Remember the ol’ 4th amendment that says no illegal search and seizure?) Why put quotes around civil liberties? Are the laws in our constitution trivial? What gives the Bush administration the right to ignore our laws?
Point: For me, the above would not constitute sacrifice since I believe that terrorists have no U.S. civil rights, and in time of war, we must spy on the enemy. But for liberals, this would be a great sacrifice on their behalf for the war effort.
Counterpoint: Spying on people without a warrant makes it far too easy to abuse the “privilege” and spy on political adversaries (much like a fascist country, Cuba?) Plus, as mentioned, it’s illegal (not a sacrifice). In short, GET A SEARCH WARRANT.
Point: For me, the aforementioned would not constitute sacrifice since I believe that even during peace- time we should drill in U.S. regions with abundant oil. After all, that's why God put it there -- to be used. Oil is not there for beauty's sake. But for liberals, it would constitute a sacrifice helpful to the war effort.
Counterpoint: For me, for me, is that all conservatives think about? Thought I’d make a completely irrelevant attack toward conservatives since that’s what you keep doing toward liberals in your editorial. As I aforementioned, we have no abundant regions of oil. We have six months worth in Alaska, and less elsewhere.
Do you remember the story of Adam and Eve where Eve eats the apple that was placed there for enticement? Maybe that’s what God did with oil, seeing as the use of it has been causing global warming and thus the slow destruction of our planet which "He" created for us.
Seems about here you run out of ideas for arguments (which, by the way, is when you’re supposed to end your essay) and start babbling a bunch bullshit. It’s kind of like listening to a senile person talk. Thought I’d still try to sort out some of your gibberish though.
Point: But liberals will not desist from their gods, even in face of war. The "environment" and full citizen- rights for even Afghan terrorists are not to be compromised. Political positions can't be sacrificed, for they are what makes a left liberal a liberal. Without these beliefs, liberals would loose their sense of self. It is their very personhood.
Counterpoint: That’s awfully nice of you; you didn’t call us liberals “godless,” a word conservatives like to attribute to liberals. Thank you, appreciate it. Seeing as the environment is what gives us and the all living creatures on our planet the ability to continue life, I deem it important enough to consider protecting, you don’t? Now you’re telling me that liberal’s political positions can’t be changed? I’ll analyze that. We’re told that Kerry is a flip-flopper (he changes his political position) and that Bush is better because he doesn’t change his position despite information stacked against the opinion. On top of that when Congress votes on a bill what do you see on CSPAN? All the republicans unilaterally vote one way whereas the democrats differ on their votes instead of upholding the party’s political positions. Did you pull that last sentence out of your ass?
Point: I know of the true sacrifices of young American soldiers around the world fighting jihadism and that of senior officers and their families. I'll bet that hardly any of those serving are left wing ideologues.
Counterpoint: Let’s see… the only place our troops are fighting wars are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our troops in Afghanistan are fighting the Taliban (whom we put in power to begin with) and the war in Iraq was started over weapons of mass destruction (which they didn’t have). So basically you know of the sacrifices that our young soldiers have made… either because of the U.S’s past mistakes or for no reason at all. ‘Atta boy.
Point: Not to mention the excruciating sacrifice all of us daily make when listening to the never ending rants and carping against America on radio and TV by liberals who seem unable to shut up. Talk about noise pollution!
Counterpoint: Okay, a completely unrelated attack toward liberals. You’re absolutely right about all the liberals on TV if by liberals you mean people who use logic and facts to form an opinion. Other than those people there is only FOX “news.”
Point: When liberals talk of "sacrifice" what they mean is what they always mean and want -- all the time: Higher taxes. Redistribution of wealth. It's all a ruse, just another way to coerce the American people to institute left wing policies. So don't be snookered.
Counterpoint: Let me explain the economic policies of the left and right wing (I think both are wrong, btw). Republicans want to tax less and spend more (aka Bush’s plan) and democrats want to tax more and spend more. In the long term the former plan would cause bankruptcy (look at all the companies Bush ran into the ground) and the latter makes more sense. Ideally the best plan is to tax moderately and spend less then you take in (see: Clinton Administration). Uh oh, me, a liberal, not sticking to the liberal’s political position on economics. How strange. Democrats want to redistribute the wealth to the lower classes where as Republicans (especially Bush who has given the upper economic class the most tax cuts) support the trickle down theory which is supposed to help the poor. From the rising unemployment rate (which Bush continues to redefine to hide it) and the slowing economy are good indicators of how well the trickle-down effect works.
Point: In typical liberal fashion, liberals are always out front moralizing to we "unaanointed" plebians about the sacrifices we must make for the "common good" of which they are always exempt. Our chidren must be bused, while their children go to toney private schools. Our values must be sacrificed so as to institute their vision of how society should look and behave.
Counterpoint: I like this paragraph, replace liberal with conservative and you have a very evident truth.
Point: We, the United States, must "understand" terrorists and criminals, and the average Joe should have his money, that which he earned, redistributed to those constituencies liberals feel are worthy of the fruits of his hard work. Your money is not to be spent by you directly for your children but to causes liberals deem more important.
Counterpoint: You know what hate (what the KKK runs on) stems from? Fear caused my misunderstanding. We hate Muslims because they attacked us. But if you understand Muslims as a whole you’ll see that they disagree with the extremists actions (attacking innocents) more so than they disagree with our actions (invading countries for no apparent reason).
I like to call redistributing wealth community service or “helping each other.” Just in case you don’t belong to a church that’s something they like to advocate. Quit your bitching and cut back on materialistic wants and you’ll be fine.
Point: Islamic demonstrators holding up posters here and in Europe calling for Death to Westerners and announcing a soon-to-come Holocaust against Christians and Jews are defended as Free Speechers, and woe to the "unenlightened" among us who finds unacceptable such public calls for our death by the newly arrived living in our countries. But speech decrying homosexual marriage or warning of Islamic imperialism is labeled hate speech and "dangerous" to society.
The "common good" of which they now speak, their latest political buzz phrase, is not about doing what is necessary physically to protect the American people from jihadist threats, rather a phony, high sounding ideal for renewed social engineering, i.e., taking away your liberties and religious beliefs, unless Islamic ones. For the "religion of peace", we must show, they tell us, the utmost respect. Witness the reverence with which they've greeted the Iranian letter to President Bush teaching us what Jesus would have done and that now is the time for all in the world to ready themselves for the return of "the Muslim Prophet".
Counterpoint: There’s nothing to respond to there because once you peel away the bullshit, outright lies, and a feeble attempt to create eloquent sentences there’s no real point being made. Beyond that, Christians do the same thing but thinly veil it.
Point: The Left never changes its goal, and no matter how much we surrender, they will not be satisfied short of a European socialism, with themselves filling the top posts.
Counterpoint: Again with the LEFT not changing it’s goal. Talk about hypocritical. And what’s wrong with socialism? National healthcare and education systems far better than America’s? Damn socialism, damn it to hell. Conservatives are welcome to join the ranks of socialism but I doubt they’d want to be taken off their high horses.
Point: Every new situation is fodder for simply sneaking in their agenda. It will always be so, for they do not like the America we love. In fact, truth be told, they don't like our values. Worse, they don't like us. Perhaps that's why they don't sacrifice for us. After all, our French is so bad.
Counterpoint: Since when does disagreeing with the current policies of the Bush and his administration constitute hating or even disliking America and it’s people? And what the hell is with the french comment? I dislike the French for the same reason I dislike high profile republicans: arrogance.
posted by tah2002 at 8:54 PM
0 comments
