It's all too true! I wish I could laugh at it but it's all too true!

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Looks like a cartoon can say even more...

It takes two to dance. Loud mouth neo-conservatives and chicken shit pseudo-liberals are the only ones who make political appearances on T.V. Proud liberals exist only on the internet, and nice conservatives are nowhere to be found. I've had my fill of pseudo-liberals allowing the neocons to frame the debate.

Horkus wrote "It takes two to dance" ... but this ain't no dance!

Winter, what the cartoon characterizes is not just the loud mouth neocon. Most political debates on T.V. always has the liberal representative, in order to give a fair appearance. But these "liberals" who make the airwaves to defend liberal agendas are always willing to "shut up" for the Bill O'Reillyies of the world. If they're going to cut the mic, let them. But for God's sake don't let frame the debates and don't let them talk over you. The pseudo-liberals are well documented in the program OUTFOXED. It's well scripted, and it's a formula many other news organizations are following. It makes me sick, but it's all too true.

The cartoon depicts the ancient art of arrogant self-righteousness.

I have contemplated the underlying mechanisms of this social disease in order to attach it to the individual's behavior.

In a high level sense it is attached to a world view. But that is composed of many separate components.

My theory is that in the US under the current political climate, this behavior is a form of being in the closet. It is essentially fear based.

The animator of this behavior is deeply afraid to be or appear to be wrong or attached to a position that is wrong or appears to be wrong ... in the eyes of those he looks to for mores.

The views of this individual are not taken after a digest of the facts ... instead a world view is projected, then all facts are forced into that world view.

Then a forcing of a square peg into a round hole (fact distortion), or outright fact rejection commences.

The fundamental problem then, in abstract terms, or in symbolic logic terms, is to be blindly faithful to or staunchly adhere to a premise.

As you who use or study logic from time to time know, once you have attached analysis to a false premise then the deductive flow and reasoning linked to that premise can not lead to a valid conclusion.

The healthy and sane approach is to allow a premise to exist only as long as it matches ALL relevant and demonstrable facts, but to change the premise once it fails the fact test.

It is the premise component that must morph, not the fact component.

The proper formula is to throw out ailing premises rather than throwing out good and relevant facts.

In the case in the cartoon, torture is so anathema to the neocon's world view ("my people would never do that cause we are righteous!") that he will avoid any fact, redefine any definition, or distort any evidence to preserve the world view, the premise. It is essentially desperation.

He is a very, very timid and unstable individual deep down inside, even tho he thinks he looks solid.

Or, they just outright ban you, as happened to me at Free Republic last night.

I went on to talk about the US Episcopal Church being asked to step down from one of the Anglican Communion committees due to the Gene Robinson appointment. They didn't like what I had to say. But since they couldn't refute it factually, they simply banned me.

In only 13 minutes.

Wonderful analysis, Dredd. So then, when the neocrazies start with their dialogue, should "true" patriots be saying: I know you are afraid, I know this is difficult to acknowledge, I know you are fearful...or, how should one seize the downhill momentum of the neocrazies and shift them off their tracks, in mid-sentence preferrably, back to reality? Thanks, Dredd.

Teddy #9 If what you say is accurate, essentially you were attaching yourself to a fact and when they threw the fact out your attachment to the fact they were rejecting drew you with it. Don't take it personally, they would reject anyone attached to that fact.

Peggy #10 Try to see, before entering a discussion that is going to waste your time and take you away from us here for that amount of time, if the person is diseased like the one the cartoon portrays.

If so, sad to say, it is better to walk away. But sometimes you might be the first to inoculate the person and they may begin to heal.

Human interaction of this type is an art form more so than it is a science I suppose, and so you have to use your intuition and the like and decide if it is a good time to expose the person to a fact scenario they are not going to like.

Perhaps you can find ways to make it easier on the individual. Personally I have had mixed results in my attempts to do this.

Teddy's experience #9 is one I have experienced too. But there are times when you know it had a good effect too.

Posted again - seems more appropriate here.
From “How to Destroy a Democracy (or ruin a republic)” from the Rush Limbaugh Web Site:

http://rushonline.com/vi...iberalschangeamerica.htm

Note: My comments in parenthesis
__________________

How Liberals Are Changing America [How to Destroy a Democracy (or ruin a republic)]

1) Destroy confidence in any old laws, judicial systems, constitutions, and citizen rights, by trivializing them and consistently ignoring them. It will also help if the leaders break oaths, dodge the draft.

(Many top members of our current administration are alleged to have dodged the draft in some way. There are reports of the rule of law currently being ignored).

2) Prove to the countries citizens that their leaders are not to be expected to obey laws like they are. That their leaders are above the law. This will instill in their minds the fact that government is all-powerful and that it can rightfully get away with anything. It will also discourage any resistance to the government's pollicies. (spelling?)

(If you are not for us, you are against us, and don't worry about the illegal detainees and the closed meetings on energy policy development).

3) Deny any personal wrong doings over and over despite proof to the contrary. Say anything, promise anything, and do anything. Remember that leaders can do no wrong and it is best to instill this in the minds of the people as soon as possible.

(This the premise of the current administration – No WMDs? Then tell the world that Saddam was evil and needed to be deposed anyway).

4) (For the next issue Rush airs abortion here – see Web Site).

5) Destroy the concept of voting. Implement a substitute that can be manipulated and is open to interpretation. Something like "polls" or "citizen roundtables" should work fine.

(Voting irregularities favoring one party over the other are already being investigated in Ohio, Florida, and others).

6) (See Website for this - Rush – I have no concrete idea what you are saying here – “improve poll results”?).

7) Pick some popular topics like cigarette smoking, gun control, safety restraints, and environmental conservation that sound good, play them up, and use them to slowly pass restrictive laws and tax codes. Each of these laws and codes should take away just a few small freedoms. People will eventually become accustom to loosing a little freedom "for their own good" and the federal government can then parley this into eventual total freedom elimination.

(Bush Administration is currently advancing programs limiting abortion, gay marriage pornography, etc).

Very rarely will face-to-face confrontation result in conversion. People are stubborn and proud, especially when they are running from facts. Opportunity has to be allowed for face-saving: leaving factual materials scattered about the deluded one's living space and trusting that, in private, this person will peruse and consider. Of course, this will not work if the individual is stupid or dishonest to the core.

Does this look like *Mission Accomplished* to you?

A metaphore

When I was a kid I worked as a lifeguard, and over the course of several years saved a number of people. Usually the people were not aware they had been saved (you stick your sheppards crook out and pull them to the edge). On those occasions when it was obvious (say when I had to jump in the water) I never once, not once, got thanked, and occasionally got yelled at. This did not mean they didn't deserve saving, or that they weren't grateful. It meant that they were embarrassed to need help from somebody else.

Moral: When you help somebody don't expect thanks. Do it anyway, but don't don't be surprised if they lash out at you in misdirected embarrassment. And to tie this into talking with neocons, just because they act bullheaded doesn't mean they aren't listening.

Well, it's been my expierence that -most- neo-cons -are- currupt and rotten to the core. Rules that guide the masses aren't to be applied to the "chosen ones".. They know full well that what they are saying is total crap, but they stick to it (and even use the tactics portrayed in the cartoon on purpose) to achieve their own goals. "Converting" someone that is "misguided" shouldn't be such a tough chore, the problem (as I see it) is -most- of those types are on a mission..

For #12.. some more supporting points for your list ..
1) Destroying confidence in old laws, judicial systems, constitution ...
-----For a good example, see the transcript from the Iraqi Resolution commitee where the Chairman said "The Constitution is outdated" when the discussion about making sure Congress 'legally' delcared war on Iraq.. the concensus was, it's too much bother.. war is too serious to "upheave society" about, just let the President have the authority in a resolution (which is un-constitutional and illegal, they don't have the ability to defer war powers).
2) Leaders not obeying laws.. There are 4 petitions out there from "We The People Foundation" (givemeliberty.org) drafted in a legal manner asking the Government about 4 issues (the war, taxes, the Federal Reserve, and something else). The Government is refusing to answer the First Amendment protected "Right to petition for redress of greivences". Add to that the fact that the IRS continually illegally steals property from citizens and does it at gun-point even though there are no actual laws allowing them to do it (they need the help of the Federal courts and "real executive office types, cops"). Add to that the fact that recently, the courts have allowed the Government (IRS) to bring people to court, then the defendants were not allowed to present a case (not allowed to present one piece of evidence in their defence).. and the Judge told the Jury "don't worry about what law he's accused of breaking, I know what law he broke. I just need you to say 'guilty' so we can get this over with" (paraphrased). Our leaders (and official offices) no longer are required to 'prove' their case, simply dragging you into court is good enough for conviction (this also ties into point 1 above).
3) Bush told Putin that in America, we don't try to sush the press (or those that protest the government), yet we DO seemingly "seed" press confrences (removing 'free press' by not actually dealing with the press) and expose State secrets against those that speak out or prove misdeads (like Pamela or whatever her name is.. when her husband proved the contract for neuclear materials was a fake).
5) For the 'irregularities'.. I was talking with a co-worker yesterday about the 4500 Bush votes from a district with only 683 voters.. after going over the details of screwy computer stuff (I'm a Software Engineer, he's a System Architect) and mentioning that it's being investigated, he said "it won't matter, they won't change anything", then added "and there are probably districts with 8,000 votes for Kerry, who cares!". His getting angry about it is just like what was being touched upon above. Not wanting to admit the system is broke, so swing it back to "my favor" before shutting down the conversation..

The real problem, as I see it, is -most- Americans don't understand what "logic" is (in an acedemic sense) and don't understand that a false premise negates the entire argument. Nor do they have the ability to see how conversations (or information being presented in a very flawed manner) should be ignored at a certain point. That's the very reason these neocrazies -can- survive... they confuse and dumbfound the public. Walking away from the conversation when it's "private" or "one on one" is fine, but when you have these people on TV deceiving and lying and otherwise using false arguments to make a point, that's when you are destroying the fabric and premise of a Democracy. Democracies can only function 'properly' when the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth are used in descision making. Neocrazies have very little use for truth.. well, the whole truth anyway.. picking snipits up here and there, then wrapping it in a huge lie gives them the ability to make a falsehood at least 'look' reasonable (to those easily baffled... and since I saw an episode of Street Smarts that was dedicated to ONE question.. how many states in the US.. and 90% of the time it was a wrong answer.. I've lost a LOT of faith in Americans. One 'wrong' answer was from a retired school teacher, wonderful)..

Oh, in keeping with what Bush said about Democricies.. protecting minorities.. how does that apply to Homosexuals? Or, more to the point, how can that hypocritical piece of crap stand there and tell some -other- government head "what a Democracy is" when he's actively trying to discriminate against various minorities here?

Savantster #17, that is Bush's modus operandi. He expects everyone to do as he says and not has he does.

Grrr! That's "as he does"!

Savantster #17 The law, in a democracy, protects everyone. Both majority and minority. There is no distinction.

Anyone can be tortured ... majority or minority ... so the law says torture no one.

The Gannon thing has shown me that the powers that be do not use full-blown logic. The neocons take a position somewhat like the guy in the cartoon.

Some of the democratic senators run from it because they have a world view that is liberal toward sexual preferences and practices. Those they look to for mores expect just that.

This posture of some of the democrats is way off because the issue is an issue of equal application of law - not sexual preference.

As a heterosexual I have the right to have the laws that apply to me to be equally applied to gays and lesbians.

So it should be applied to Gannon like it would be to a heterosexual female. If she is a prostitute at the time she is a white house reporter, and is given passes to the brief room, and knows the press secretary and goes to the white house xmas parties and rubs elbows and potentially other things with those there ... there is a potential for blackmail.

So it should be applied to Gannon like it would be to a lesbian female. If she is a lesbian prostitute at the time she is a white house reporter, and is given passes to the brief room, and knows the press secretary and goes to the white house xmas parties and rubs elbows and potentially other things with those there ... there is a potential for blackmail.

So it should be applied to Gannon like it would be to a gay male. If he is a gay prostitute at the time he is a white house reporter, and is given passes to the brief room, and knows the press secretary and goes to the white house xmas parties and rubs elbows and potentially other things with those there ... there is a potential for blackmail.

It is not a function or issue attached to whether or not one's political views are liberal toward the issue of sexual preference, it is an issue about how such things can cause government to do bad things under the pressure of blackmail and the like.

Note that the New Jersey governor had to resign to avoid the potential of blackmail ... which could have led him to compromise his oath of office under the pressure to do things contrary to the public interest as a result of having had sexual relations that were inapposite to his marriage, his reputation, and his job, in the eyes of those he looked to for mores.

Dredd #20 I agree with you completely. I'm not sure what you were getting at, but what I was getting at was the audacity of Bush to try and explain to Putin what a Democracy is when Bush is trying to pass laws that reduce the rights of minorities (as opposed to protecting them, as he says he should be doing since this is a Democracy). I'm talking about the ban on gay marriage here, not Gannon..

The comment I made about Gannon was more that we don't have a free press in this country when the people who are allowed to question the administration are put there -by- the administration with specific intent to keep the questions away from "serious" topics (lobbing soft-ball questions, is how it's commonly put). I also read someplace that various people were being fired from various meida outlets (seemingly under pressure from threats from governement offices/officials), yet Bush said that for a free press, the government can't control the media (which clearly happens here through various means). To add to that, I added the Pamela thingy where those who strike out against the Administration are -also- made examples of, up to and including having their lives put in danger by the governement..

HOW TO TALK LIKE A CONSERVATIVE (when you are an ambassador to Canada):

The U.S. viceroy to Canada, Paul Celluci, is quoted as saying,

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."

Click below for CBC video links:

Real Media

Quicktime

Web Page

Yes, exactly, Horkus. What you describe happens 95% or maybe even 99% of the time. If they ever have a real liberal on, they also have 2 or 3 or 4 loudmouths there to gang up on him. In these cases they pretend it's a panel discussion, but it's actually an ambush. In either case it still ain't no dance. If I had to put a D-word on it I'd say it's a Disgrace!

You see what I mean? We agree, really. When I said "this ain't no dance", I was thinking: "A dance is harmless and fun. This is neither."

Savantster #21. For sure we agree.

Welcome back, Teddy!!! Haven't seen from you in way too long!

For those who weren't around when Teddy was a regular poster here, he was a winner (perhaps on more than one occassion?) of the too-infrequently given BRAD BLOG Intellectually Honest Conservative Award.

He's one of the *very* rare now (rarer than ever) Conservatives who actually understands the concept and stands by it. Decidely not like the Neo-Cons depicted in the cartoon above, and the majority of those in this country who now *think* they are actually Conservatives. Because Bush (who also isn't one) told them they were.

His fine blog can be read here, and we recommend it heartily for a solid and honest view from the *real* Right! Though, sadly, his opinions have become as irrelevant as anybody who doesn't tow the Bush the line these days.

Don't be such a stranger, Teddy! Great to see again from you! We miss ya!

Hi, Teddy,

I visited your Blog, and Brad is right. How nice to have you with us!

DeLay again.

Hi Teddy!
Nice to meet'cha.