a hall of ideological mirrors . . .

[carlfense]

Or, rather, it is living in an alternative reality. 63 percent of Republicans in a new poll believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs when we invaded in 2003, despite even George W. Bush's acknowledgment that he didn't. 64 percent also believe that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country, even though we have the long-form birth certificate from Hawaii. This alternate reality is sustained by a 24 hour propaganda network, and hermetically sealed off from any external intervention.

 

We are reaching a democratic crisis of some sorts. One major political party refuses to accept empirical truths. It has become a hall of ideological mirrors.

http://andrewsulliva...s-unhinged.html

 

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

[Yossarian]

Or, rather, it is living in an alternative reality. 63 percent of Republicans in a new poll believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs when we invaded in 2003, despite even George W. Bush's acknowledgment that he didn't. 64 percent also believe that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country, even though we have the long-form birth certificate from Hawaii. This alternate reality is sustained by a 24 hour propaganda network, and hermetically sealed off from any external intervention.

 

We are reaching a democratic crisis of some sorts. One major political party refuses to accept empirical truths. It has become a hall of ideological mirrors.

http://andrewsulliva...s-unhinged.html

 

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that Andrew Sullivan, the first and the last of the "Trig Truthers" is lecturing anyone about the acceptance of empirical truths?

[carlfense]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that Andrew Sullivan, the first and the last of the "Trig Truthers" is lecturing anyone about the acceptance of empirical truths?

I guess if you can't attack the message you can always attack the messenger. Oh wait . . . that's a variation what you always say, right? Hmmm.

[Yossarian]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that Andrew Sullivan, the first and the last of the "Trig Truthers" is lecturing anyone about the acceptance of empirical truths?

I guess if you can't attack the message you can always attack the messenger. Oh wait . . . that's a variation what you always say, right? Hmmm.

 

Deflection is a fine art. You are an artist. Sullivan, on the other hand, is a nutjob.

[carlfense]

A nutjob . . . I guess your rule does not apply to yourself.

 

Fascinating.

[Yossarian]

A nutjob . . . I guess your rule does not apply to yourself.

 

Fascinating.

 

Facinating is the word.

 

Are you calling me a nutjob or are you simply incorrectly using a reflexive pronoun?

[carlfense]

Just noting that you've resorted to name calling instead of addressing the message.

 

I find that fascinating given a number of impassioned posts from a certain Yossarian regarding that issue.

 

Perhaps "hypocritical" is more apt than "fascinating."

[zoogs]

I had to look up what a Trig Truther was.

 

This doesn't really limit itself to one political party though. Broad-spectrum surveys often reveal a shockingly scant grasp of what one might assume to be basic, common knowledge. I suspect people are actually all very knowledgeable, and just like to dick around on these surveys. OK, maybe not, but it does make me wonder. Some of this stuff seems fairly impossible. Forget about 'one political party', when there are all these '64% of Americans believe....[take your pick of absurdities]'.

[JJ Husker]

What percentage of democrats believe Saddam never had wmd's? I'm guessing somewhere north of 64%. Even though he had used them on his own people. I believe 100% that the wmd's were not found at the appointed time. I'm much less certain that means he never had them. If this is an example of "empiracle truth", I guess I have a fairly good reason for not changing partys.

[carlfense]

What percentage of democrats believe Saddam never had wmd's? I'm guessing somewhere north of 64%. Even though he had used them on his own people.

Why would you guess that? I'd hope that you've based this belief on some sort of factual basis or you run the risk of adding a bit of confirmation to the OP. I certainly believe that he had WMDs. Hard to forget about what he did to the Kurds.

 

I believe 100% that the wmd's were not found at the appointed time.

That's good. It'd be difficult to argue otherwise.

 

If this is an example of "empiracle truth", I guess I have a fairly good reason for not changing partys.

So you agree with the empirical truth . . . and you don't dispute that 64% of your party disagrees with you . . . with no evidence to the contrary . . . and you don't see a problem with that?

 

I don't care if anyone switches parties. I'd be more than happy with a return to sanity within the parties themselves.

[JJ Husker]

I just don't see a problem with 63% believing Saddam had wmd's when we invaded. The fact that they weren't found is not empirical evidence that they weren't there. Sorry about the switching parties jab. I have no problems with anyone who thinks the 2 bigs are screwed up. The issue I had with it was it the logic seemed to be based on the democrats storyline. I am not real enamored with the repubs right now but I still feel they are no where near as destructive as the dems.

[Muck]

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

 

So you decided that a single topic upon which one particular group is more likely to be wrong in the direction of what they want to be true is a good basis upon which to decide that the entire group must be somehow different than another group to which you switched?

 

What was your goal with this post?

 

a: To give an excuse for a decision that you had clearly already made.

b: Hope that some like minded individuals would give you a high five.

c: Alert others that you just are not very bright in the greater scheme of things.

 

Cherry picking a singular subject and using it as a broad brush with which to label an entire political party isn't exactly an example of a superior intellect.

[carlfense]

And there, in the last two sentences, is the most eloquent summation of why I switched my voter registration to independent.

 

So you decided that a single topic upon which one particular group is more likely to be wrong in the direction of what they want to be true is a good basis upon which to decide that the entire group must be somehow different than another group to which you switched?

 

What was your goal with this post?

 

a: To give an excuse for a decision that you had clearly already made.

b: Hope that some like minded individuals would give you a high five.

c: Alert others that you just are not very bright in the greater scheme of things.

 

Cherry picking a singular subject and using it as a broad brush with which to label an entire political party isn't exactly an example of a superior intellect.

Not at all. The single topic was not the focus. You might notice that from the two sentences that I directed attention to.

 

a. Why would I need an excuse for my political preferences? Do you need an excuse for your own?

b. Internet high fives? Well . . . ok.

c. Personal attack? Well . . . ok.

 

Finally, I can't recall claiming that I possessed a superior intellect. Thanks, I guess.

 

 

 

 

Strange post, Muck. I expected more.

[carlfense]

I just don't see a problem with 63% believing Saddam had wmd's when we invaded. The fact that they weren't found is not empirical evidence that they weren't there.

I disagree. It is empirical evidence that the WMDs weren't there when we invaded. I think you may be arguing that it's not empirical proof that they weren't there when we invaded . . . which is a decent argument. They certainly are evidence.

 

Sorry about the switching parties jab. I have no problems with anyone who thinks the 2 bigs are screwed up. The issue I had with it was it the logic seemed to be based on the democrats storyline. I am not real enamored with the repubs right now but I still feel they are no where near as destructive as the dems.

No apology necessary. I also can't say that I'm enamored with either party.

[Muck]

Strange post, Muck.

 

Stranger than starting a thread titled 'a hall of idealogical mirrors' and then posting that you left the Republican party because of the results of a single poll? Those two sentences that you seem to be so enamored with are an example of the exact thing you are claiming to be turning away from.

 

Color me unimpressed.

 

I expected more.

 

What exactly did you expect?

 

My time here has been somewhat short but I don't think I've ever given any indication that I won't call people on it when they say something ridiculous.

 

It would be no different if someone had stated they were handing in their Democratic party card because the President, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder & Diane Feinstein are incapable of basic math when they state that 90% of the firearms in Mexico come from the US.