Wow. followed the generic neo-con respose outline to a T. Is there like a book put out by the republicans that tells you how to argue with someone that has a point?
I've noticed it when arguing with many conservitives. First thing they do is completely ignore anything you have to say, then after a while they will actually respond, but only to say how crazy/wrong/lying you are. Then, after presented with undeniable facts, they will finally accept the conclusion, but will then claim that it doesnt 'mean' anything. This is usually imediately followed by either an attempt to sidetrack the argument, or an analagy that bares absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
So just a little recap of Cableguy's position, just using his posts in this thread
"i smell a politically manipulated rat..."
- A Blatent attempt by Cable to turn this into a partisan issue. Gonja made no referance to administrative policy, made no direct attack on any political party. rather, he was simply investigating the bizzare rituals of elitest groups (made of people from both end of the political spectrum).
"first and foremost, IF this is all true, how does it affect any of us??? because you saw a tape of something doesnt even make it completely true... michael moore showed us all how badly things can be distorted if not in context..."
- This is his attempt to sidetrack the argument. Not discussing the facts of the issue, but rather trying to discredit the mere mention of such an issue. He also tries to parallel the grove video to Michael Moore's F911. Further trying to turn the argument partisan. [just to set the record straight, I see Michael Moore as a blatent propogandist].
"If a group of rich elites gathers at some secret place, to do ritualistic things that dont make sense to you or me, where is the harm?? the named elites most certainly are not nazis, either... look at the things both of them pushed, and compare them to the nazis... not too many similarities, really... freedom of speech, comingled races, an armed citizenry... no, not doing a good job as nazis at all..."
- I love this argument, "At least they arent Nazis"
"believing something you cant prove, such as this ruling elite thing, or that the entire world is run by (name your number) people, or that this or any other President is a puppet to such a group is little different from people literally living in fear of god/allah/yahweh, or any other deity... things are either all predestined, or there is free will... i believe in free will, and that ordinary people can do remarkable things... believe what you want, but until proven wrong, i will continue to believe that people make their own lives, and that decendants arent necessarily guilty of the same sins their ancestors were..."
- Wow, I'm not really sure what he's arguing here. He basically equates the 'ruling elite' to deities, and to question the motives of these people is the same as questioning the motives of God. He also makes a contention that there is no way that there can be secretive elitest groups because..... we have free will???
now after my logical proof of the ruling elite, he has this to say:
"fantastic line of reasoning, baat, but it is still meaningless... you have, however, successfully described human behavior... you described yourself, me, and everyone we both know, though admittedly with a smaller scope of influence... we each carve out what we are willing to from life, and we each look to influence events and others... where i run into problems with this thread is determining what, exactly, is bad about people behaving like people..."
- He has now pretty much abandoned his previous contention that the ruling elite doesnt exist, and now claims that it is a natural progression of human nature.
-And of course, how could I leave out the non-sensical analogy:
" i also heard that somewhere on this very internet, there are a few pictures of a bunch of homeless folks (like minded individuals in similar situations) worshipping a shopping cart under a secret overpass... no one knows for sure what this means, exactly, but it certainly could have far reaching ramifications if true..."
-I believe what he is trying to say with this is that we shouldn't care any more about the lives of people that control the world, than we should about the people that control nothing. As if personal, private, actions made by our leaders should not have any relevance on thier ability to do thier jobs. For example, say, getting a blowjob by thier intern. 8)
But fact of the matter is that a president's personal life holds more barring on thier political career, than thier political career 8). Fact is a VERY small portion of the american voting public is truly informed on major political dealings. There is simply too much going on for the general public to know about all of it. Most people's political information they gather in a half-hour newscast each night. Based on that, most people elect people to political positions based on thier personality, and how they conduct themselves OUTSIDE of the political realm. Now, George W Bush made his way to the whitehouse claiming to be a god-faring christian. Claiming to bring christian morality to the administration. And people voted for him because of this. Now, how do you think his christain flock would react if they knew that he, on his off time, dressed up in a black robe and worshiped a Canaanite God?
