In recent days, against my better judgment perhaps, I have spent a good deal of time perusing the comments section to our posts. And I found that no matter how many facts you offer to counter the assumptions certain critics make about the GOP, Republicans in general and the people protesting the President’s proposed health care overalls at townhalls across the country, they still hold to their narrow view of the GOP.
It’s long since time to call these people what they are: prejudiced. According to Merriam-Webster’s, a prejudice is a
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
All these apply to some of our critics. We say that the protesters are a diverse lot, they define them by the most extreme membes and focus on a supposedly compromised organizer. We say we have legitimate concerns about the president’s health care plan, they tell us we’re astroturfing tools of the insurance lobby. We make arguments against health care, they call us racists, suggest we are Nazi sympathizers or call us “evil-mongers.“*
This is not to say all those who criticize Republican ideas are prejudiced. Many, if not most, are not. It’s not that they criticize us (and our ideas), it’s how they see us. While my junior Senator is clearly prejudiced against Republicans, her senior colleague, with a similar voting record, is not.
If they make judgments about us based on their perceptions rather than the facts, then they are prejudiced. If they manifest an”irrational hostilty” against us because of our affiliation with the GOP or our stand on certain issues, then they are prejudiced.
But, if they hold a different opinion than we do, but do not denigrate us for our difference, then they merely hold a different opinion. Why, I wonder yet again, do so many assume the worst about those who hold a different opinion than they do?
*Like his California colleague, Harry Reid has just insulted many of his own constituents. Given the number of seniors retiring to Nevada and their dispoportionate rate of political participation, I think his Nevada Senate seat may soon fall into Republican hands.
When he was Speaker, did the much-maligned Newt Gingrich ever slime his adveraries? Did Karl Rove even use such terms? Dick Cheney? Let’s go through the rogue’s gallery of prominent Republican politicos and see if any called their adversaries “evil.”
Dem. for 25 years, unaffiliated for the last year. Republicans aren’t the only ones protesting. Though Republicans seem to be the ones they are trying to smear, the fact is, they are smearing members (and ex members) of their own party as well as Independants.
I don’t view it as smearing Republicans, I view it as smearing good middle class AMERICANS-regardless of what their party. Consider the source of the smears should be wearing white wrap around jackets, they make themselves look like the scum that they are. Cuckoos and goonybird leftists and liberals-bottom of the barrel of humanity. Nobody but their own kind listen to them. We all know they don’t have the common sense God gave a dumb goose. Anyone that doesn’t agree with them is supposed to give in. Screw ’em, nothing but loudmouths and no balls
Prejudice is a choice. They used to say about racially prejudiced people, “You can’t reason someone out of what they weren’t reasoned into.”
For the prejudiced lefties we’re talking about, it seems to be about “the narrative”. They *want* to paint conservative views in the worst light possible. It’s how they give themselves permission to bypass all opposition. They aren’t going to un-learn their prejudices. The liberals that can be made more open-minded, are already open-minded. The prejudice of the rest enables them to say and do and be what they want, and that’s what they care about – not truth, facts or logic.
I don’t think your conclusion follows. It’s perfectly OK if they denigrate conservative opponents for holding a different opinion – i.e., for not seeing what lefties think they see. It’s their imperviousness to truth, facts and logic – demonstrated repeatedly with certain commentors on this blog – that we rightly fault them for.
the point your missing is lefties hate ANYONE that does follow in lockstep with them. Repubs are just their favorite target to name.
Don’t try and figure it out GP, your dealing with a mentally unbalanced mind when it comes to leftists and liberals. Even the most intelligent and insightful mental health proffessional have a difficult time figuring out the left. Some people just love to hate and don’t feel alive unless they are spreading misery. That sums up the left
“Why, I wonder yet again, do so many assume the worst about those who hold a different opinion than they do?”
Maybe you should have checked into your comment section earlier. Your comment section has been totally dominated, for years, by people who spew, on a daily basis, all manner of bitter, over-the-top bile against entire categories of people, with the key factor being that they disagree with them.
That is the overwhelming identity of your site, at least in the comment section. The front page is somewhat better, but them who run the front page also nurture and tolerate the comments, so its still on you.
Here is a life lesson for ya. You want to make points like you have in this post – well, NOBODY will take you seriously unless you walk the walk yourself.
And you don’t.
#4: people who spew, on a daily basis, all manner of bitter, over-the-top bile against entire categories of people, with the key factor being that they disagree with them
Example, please.
It seems that you’ve not read some of the comments at dailykos, huffingtonpost, or democraticunderground. Compared to comments on those sites, this is an Oxford Union debate.
Exhibit A, of what I was talking about: Tano.
So Tano, what are you other GayPatriot aliases?
Yes, too many (though not all) of GP’s *leftist* commentors are just like that. Well done.
Oh and Tano – Have you, in fact, been banned?
I have never used any other name than Tano here. I visit from time to time – maybe once a year, if that, to see what is going on. I note that a very high percentage of the comments come from a handful of people – and the names are familiar from the other times I have visited. It is my sense that the comment section seems worse every time I visit. Its as if the same people just have a little ranting club going on, and it just spirals downward.
Its a real shame.
I do not believe you.
The claim is self-contradictory, therefore implausible. How dumb do you think we are? Do you think you’re John Edwards – and we’re Elizabeth, or the Democratic base?
Your comment section has been totally dominated, for years, by people who spew, on a daily basis, all manner of bitter, over-the-top bile against entire categories of people, with the key factor being that they disagree with them.
Could it possibly be that we’re sick and fed up with the liberal BS? Your expectation is that people should just bite on a pillow. That’s why the liberals have been totally shocked that the Proles have been saying “ENOUGH!” lately.
Here’s a life lesson for you. You suck big floppy donkey dick and I’m not ashamed to tell you.
From a heterosexual male conservative… don’t be discouraged. We recognize discrimination and bigotry when we see it. My suggestion is to not make it a fight between the church and gays but to just articulate your position in a positive and common sense manner and all will be all right eventually. I’m Cathollic and remember when eating meat on Friday would send you to Hell. Give the church a chance and people some time to adjust and all will be well.
ILC,
I dont understand what is ‘self-contradictory” about what I said. But I guess it doesnt matter. You cant handle any dissenting voices, so I guess you feel compelled to say something negative. You are entitled to your opinion. Enjoy it.
TGC,
Hmmm. I guess you just felt compelled to show off some of that Oxford Union debate style that SoCal was talking about….
Lame save, Tano.
P.S. I love the nerve of this claim:
I.e., your brrrrravely casting yourself in the role of a ‘dissenting voice’ – when America is currently suffering a reign of one-party rule from people like you who control the Presidency, the Congress, the judiciary, the media, the Federal Reserve, academia and the popular culture, and can’t stand to have any of that control threatened. Have you reported me yet, Tano, to flag@whitehouse.gov? Be sure you do, it’s what your Dear Leader wants. You’re so brave! I admire you so much! LOL 🙂
#15: Yes, ILC, truly, THE NERVE. I don’t know about you, but the very idea of “dissenting voices” or someone disagreeing with me just chills me to the bone. Thank God I’m a gay conservative and that NEVER happens. What a relief!
ILc,
“your brrrrravely casting yourself in the role of a ‘dissenting voice”
I rather clearly am, around here. Thank goodness your influence doesn’t extend much beyond this comment section.
Since when do people like me control the judiciary? Last time I checked there was a conservative majority on the SC, and the last 8 years, (as well as 20 of the last 28) have been spent appointing conservatives to the appeals and district courts.
And the media? Hah. I guess the “media” is liberal if you only look at the liberal parts of the media? The biggest cable network is hard-right propaganda. Y’all totally dominate radio. For every NYT, there is a WSJ, every WaPo, a Moonie Times…
The Fed is led by a Bush appointee, as are most of the local governers.
Academia? Yes, institutions of higher learning are liberal. Ever wonder why?
And no, I havent flagged you. I wouldn’t do that to you – you know, them that are in that database end up in FEMA reeducation camps – at least thats what Glen Beck told me…
Yes, institutions of higher learning are liberal. Ever wonder why?
As the saying goes, those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach.
Especially at the college level. What a paradise — you don’t have to work a huge chunk of the year, it’s against the rules to challenge you, and with tenure, it’s literally impossible to fire you no matter how pathetic you are. Furthermore, if you’re like Barack Obama, your skin color guarantees not only that you will be hired, but that you will never have a performance review.
Exactly. With occasional exceptions, academia is where the world pretentious whiners and non-doers go, to crticize real people with real lives and achievements from a safe distance.
Let me correct that and make it “the social sciences”. (The hard sciences people do real work. And, not surprisingly, are less liberal or more nearly conservative than the social sciences people.)
Whom Obama and Geithner love and are about to re-appoint, because he practices and loudly preaches the insane “easy money” policies that will finance Obama’s insane, incredibly destructive deficits.
Yup. You really scored a hit on me with that one, Tano. LOL
Ah, and Tano has all this time to write, but still can’t face when he’s called out
But that shouldn’t be surprising, since he lies here again and repeats the talking point that Glen Beck is promoting the FEMA camps myth Again, he’s wrong
What’s it like to be wrong so much and not willing to admit it? Oh wait, it’s like being the President.
Oh, he backed off/ Well good for him.
Listen at the two minute mark”
LINK
“The hard sciences people do real work. And, not surprisingly, are less liberal or more nearly conservative than the social sciences people.”
Actually, according to a recent Pew poll LINK the percentage of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats amongst various fields are:
Biology and Medicine 6-31-58
Chemistry 9-37-49
Geosciences 4-25-62
Phsyics/Astronomy 6-35-53
Hey, maybe you are right – maybe the numbers are even lower for the social sciences. But it doesn’t seem like there is much room to go lower.
It isnt really that complicated. Scientists are, by definition, those who are searching for new and better understandings of the real world – not people invested in defending tradition and superstition.
With each word you type into your computer and submit to our blog, Tano, you help make the point of this post, showing how ignorant of and prejudiced to Republicans you are.
So, thank you for helping make my point.
My judgements about the GOP are not “preconceived”. They have been learned over a long lifetime, and are based on very just grounds. The GOP used to be a better party – my original dispute was with conservatives in particular – people who stood in the way of every advance that society has made in my lifetime, including civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, environmental protection, consumer rights. The GOP has embraced the conservatism that was contra to all these things, and married it to an utterly selfish economic ideology which puts the interests of the wealthy over those of the needy – distorting our social fabric with extreme levels of economic disparity.
There is nothing ‘PREjudiced’ about my views of the GOP.
GPW, what’s really funny is Tano being too clueless to understand when an individual he’s targeted for his lame carping isn’t a Republican. (Nor a conservative, for that matter.)
#26: Yuck. Just yuck. Nothing but backward, vile, collectivist garbage. Tano is such an obtuse narcissist that he sees no conflict between his praise for the “advances” of society in his lifetime (the usual laundry list of group rights), and his wholesale endorsement of government oppression against other individuals based solely upon random, undefined, subjective judgments over who is “too wealthy,” or “too successful,” or “selfish,” or “lacking compassion,” or “unsympathetic,” or whatever particular value THEY DECIDE should be more important to people other than themselves.
“An utterly selfish economic ideology”? Only an ignorant leftist devoid of critical thinking skills (Tano) could believe that such an expression has objective meaning and can be defined and subject to regulation. I guess Tano just “knows selfish when he sees it.” “The interests of the wealthy over those of the needy”? These aren’t just Tano’s criticisms of conservatives. These are the problems that are “distorting our social fabric” that he believes government should (and can) fix by law and by force. In Tano’s utopia, instead of the individual having the freedom to decide the parameters of his or her economic pursuits, some leftist authoritarian like Tano will whimsically decide if he or she is being “selfish,” and then take action to CORRECT IT. TANO will decide who is “wealthy” and who is “needy” and then FIX IT. TANO will decide what other people SHOULD value (i.e. “giving to the poor”) and make it happen. Some bureaucratic imbecile like TANO will decide what you NEED and take the rest. Afterall, as Tano wrote, “extreme levels of economic disparity” are “distorting our social fabric.” That’s right. To Tano the mere existence of billionaires and bankrupts within the same society IS A PROBLEM per se. And of course, we already know what his programmer Obama plans to do to FIX IT.
And of course the biggest obscenity is that it’s the bleating sheep galloping behind Obama like Tano who consider themselves the greatest champions and defenders of FREEDOM among us. It’s both pitiful and gross.
‘In Tano’s utopia, instead of the individual having the freedom to decide the parameters of his or her economic pursuits, some leftist authoritarian like Tano will whimsically decide if he or she is being “selfish,” and then take action to CORRECT IT.”
You were starting to get on a roll, but here is where you lost it. Its a very lame rhetorical strategy and really ineffective to boot. Instead of continuing to mount a strong criticism of your opponent, you go off and try to project, often – as here – in a bizarrely over-the-top manner, what that person would do in his ‘utopia”.
Besides being completely silly, what this strategy seems to say is that you cant really find much to criticize in what i actually say, so you must try to take it to a logical absurd extreme and paint a picture of that to criticize. And of course, the logical extreme that you choose is a complete fabrication of yours, and no way is a necessary end point for the points I raise.
Who said anything about government identifying and correcting selfishness? What kind of nonsense is that?
If you were to call me stupid, would I be justified in concluding that you were advocating setting up a government intellegence panel that would judge all Americans for stupidity and act to correct it?
That is the logic that you are using here, and it is nutso.
Who said anything about government identifying and correcting selfishness? What kind of nonsense is that?
Your Barack Obama did, for starters.
What makes that really funny, though, Tano, is how Barack Obama then proceeded to make it clear that Obama Party members can be as “selfish” as they want by his support of Sebelius, Solis, Daschle, Geithner, Pete Stark, and in particular, fellow black racist Charles Rangel.
The Soviet oligarchy strikes again.
#29: “Who said anything about government identifying and correcting selfishness? What kind of nonsense is that? If you were to call me stupid, would I be justified in concluding that you were advocating setting up a government intellegence panel that would judge all Americans for stupidity and act to correct it?”
No, Tano. You would NOT be justified in concluding that by calling you stupid, I would be advocating government intervention to compel a remedy for your stupidity. As a conservative, I believe you have the freedom to be profoundly stupid and I would condemn in the harshest terms any government action designed to force you to be more intelligent. (Talk about ANOTHER failed government program…)
In contrast, you have condemned Republicans (particularly conservatives) for embracing “an utterly selfish economic ideology” and putting “the interests of the wealthy over those of the needy.” These are YOUR words, or to be more precise, the rhetoric of YOUR political party used to describe what you believe is WRONG with our society. And one of the ways in which you intend to FIX IT is with Obamacare. In the “healthcare reform” context, private insurance companies and those of us that are responsible enough to pay for our own health insurance are the ones who are being demonized for our “utterly selfish economic ideology.” The insurance companies are “selfish” because they have the temerity to earn a profit, and I’m “selfish” because I don’t think I should have to pay for the healthcare of anyone other than myself and my loved ones.
Of course, this kind of egregious selfishness is unacceptable to you and the elitist scumbags in your political party. Thus, to CORRECT IT, your party is trying to ram legislation through Congress that will put private insurance companies out of business and FORCE ME (and successive generations to come) to pay for the healthcare of others. You support the U.S. government taking action to economically oppress private health insurance enterprises to the point of extinction (what about the millions of employees who work for those companies, Tano? What about the needs of their families, huh?) You also support the U.S. government taking away the choices that I have with regard to my own healthcare, and you support the government restricting my economic freedom because you think I should have more of my money confiscated because you and other liberals have DECIDED that other people need it more than I do.
It’s not that complicated, Tano. You are an enthusiastic soldier in the crusade to take away the rights of millions and millions of Americans. You are not one of the “good guys.” You are on the side of oppression. That’s why your party is having a tougher time of it than usual getting their way—your party is actively fighting to take away The People’s freedoms.
So, as my prior comment indicated, you ARE a strong supporter of government identifying “selfishness” and correcting it by law and by force (a truly sickening position to hold for which you should be profoundly ashamed). Consequently, you are evil and should be destroyed. I’m serious, someone should drop a house on you.
Sean
Please allow me to make my own arguments. My comments about Republican selfish ideology were in the context of a general description of the parties. I was not referring specifically to precise details of the health care debate. To wit:
“I’m “selfish” because I don’t think I should have to pay for the healthcare of anyone other than myself and my loved ones. ”
No. Actually I dont think so. I think you are just blind to the fact that you are already paying for the healthcare of others – when they show up in the emergency room and get the most expensive possible care, often for a disease that has advanced way beyond the level at which it could have been dealth with easily. Unable to pay for this expensive care, the hospital merely turns around and pads the bills of everyone else -which means you and I pay more in our premiums.
The reforms that are being proposed will greatly lower the instance of such things. Also the young people who freeride without insurance, then we pay for their catastrophic car accident injuries.
So, no. This is not an example of selfishness. Blindness instead.
“You support the U.S. government taking action to economically oppress private health insurance enterprises to the point of extinction”
The private insurance companies will do fine. WHich is why many of them actually support the program. Why do you think that is?
‘You also support the U.S. government taking away the choices that I have with regard to my own healthcare”
Actually no. The opposite is true. You will have more options than you do now.
I hope you havent been suckered into beleiving that phony story that all the private insurance companies will go out of business? Why dont they think so?
And instead of dredging up the totally phony “lewin group” estimate of 120 million people landing in the public plan (the Lewin group is a wholly owned subsidiary of a health corporation) – why not rely on your favorite, the good ol’ CBO which claims that only 12 milllion or so will end up on the public plain – i.e. only a third of today’s uninsured.
“you ARE a strong supporter of government identifying “selfishness” and correcting it ”
You don’t prove your case by merely writing a few paragraphs built upon a mistaken assumption.
, and you support the government restricting my economic freedom
No. Actually I dont think so. I think you are just blind to the fact that you are already paying for the healthcare of others – when they show up in the emergency room and get the most expensive possible care, often for a disease that has advanced way beyond the level at which it could have been dealth with easily. Unable to pay for this expensive care, the hospital merely turns around and pads the bills of everyone else -which means you and I pay more in our premiums.
And Barack Obama once again demonstrates his ignorance.
“Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall,” Elmendorf wrote. “That result may seem counterintuitive.
“For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual,” Elmendorf wrote. “But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. … Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.”
In a health plan model, say you have a thousand people you are paying to cover. You have a disease that occurs at a rate of one person for every thousand every ten years. A claim for that disease will cost you $250,000 dollars to pay, but that can theoretically be prevented by running a $50 test once a year.
In Barack Obama’s world, you mandate the test and raise your premium $50 so that, ten years later when you have the claim, you don’t have to pay out $250k — having spent $500,000 running the test ($50 per test x 1,000 people x 10 years) and costing your participants an unnecessary $250k.
In short, the model of health care that we have now is already maximally efficient; rather than paying more in anticipation of highly-unlikely catastrophic events, it pays for them only when they happen and the cost is actually incurred.
The classic example is the $4,000 car on which you keep full collision coverage with no deductible at $200 per month. When you wreck the car four years later, you’ll get your $4,000 — at the cost of having paid $9,600 in premiums. The cost of the catastrophic event is not worth the preventative premiums, and the same thing applies for the vast majority of medical events.
In short, the rough analogue to what you’re doing is forcing people in Iowa to buy earthquake insurance. It would be cheaper to simply pay the bill when it happens.