The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

Of course it is reasonable to assume some kook came up with it, but I don't think most, regardless of their political outlook, are smart (or devious) enough to look at a bill, say "wow! this could be twisted to say we are going to have death panels". It typically comes from a single source and spreads. Someone has to come up with the idea first.

I also do not know if I would call them stupid. The political pundits all have their own agendas as well, whether Beck or Olberman or Hannity or....the Cajun bald guy....drawing a blank for some reason, so if there is a possible interpretation, they might choose to run with it. I would suspect they also bring up budgets and cost overruns and problems with funding existing programs and whatever else. That's why I read Thomas Sowell and Wlater Williams and, to the dismay of some here, the Heritage Foundation website, because I find them to be quite reasonable as well as scholarly.

Morally reprehensible? Perhaps. Politics in general is morally reprehensible. There are not many politicians or pundits or journalists that I don't find to be morally reprehensible. I will admit that I would rather the conservative ideas that I prefer be touted rather than liberal ideas that I don't be misrepresented.

[SacTown Chronic]

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

Terrible. Funny, but terrible.

And submitted to quotes.