Ah, Facebook

I made a mistake. I made a political point on Facebook.

The discussion started out well, until yet another young liberal firebrand got his hands on the thread. The rhetoric and vitriol on display was... fascinating, disturbing, and more than a little frightening.

It started after a friend posted about his distaste for the treatment of Ron Paul and company at the RNC.  This friend was unable to support Romney in good faith because of it. I asked him which would be worse, Obama or Romney, and got into a position of having to elucidate my opposition to the man.

The names have been redacted to protect the guilty.

Persona A: \Excuse me, but what has Obama done that's so awful? Was it implementing a form of universal health care (which is something, I might add, almost EVERY other developed country has)? Was it allowing gays to serve their country without having to hide who they really are? Or was it finally ending a completely pointless war? If anything Obama's biggest crime is that he hasn't done enough.

 Scribbler: The healthcare bill is a completely awful piece of legislation that needs to be stricken from the books. The fact that everyone else has it is irrelevant. 95% of all medical innovation happens in the US for a reason. Ending DADT was basically a punt. More people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush because of the cripplingly restrictive rules of engagement.

Add to that a massive increase in both debt and deficit, the largest tax increase in US history, the complete suspension of fourth amendment rights (Obama has given himself the power to kill anyone on the 'battlefield' regardless of citizenship in drone strikes. Oh, and by the way, he declared the entire US a battlefield in the 'war on terror') a gunrunning sting that killed hundreds of Mexican civilians and at least one border patrol agent, a lawsuit against a US state for enforcing federal law, a plan to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and a whole host of other things that I have neither the time nor inclination to list at the moment and I'd say there's plenty he's done that's objectionable.

Persona A: Medical innovation that is not available to the population at large is irrelevant. If you're underinsured or uninsured the quality of our healthcare system doesn't matter. For the millions of people who get insurance from the law, either be cause they couldn't afford it before or had preexisting conditions, the law is literally a life saver.

Your feelings towards DADT would be different if you yourself were gay. Try a little empathy.

The massive deficit was in large part caused by: 1. Two unfunded and unnecessary wars; 2. Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit; 3. Bush tax cuts; and 4. TARP, all of which were introduced during the Bush administration.

Taxes have actually been cut during the Obama administration and we are now collecting the lowest amount of taxes since the creation of the income tax.

The majority of fourth amendment violations perpetrated by Obama are continuations of practices introduced during the Bush administration with the introduction of the patriot act. While I agree with you that it's wrong, Obama doesn't deserve all the blame.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, and thus far all investigations to try and prove otherwise have been fruitless.

Your feelings towards DADT would be different if you yourself were gay. Try a little empathy.
The massive deficit was in large part caused by: 1. Two unfunded and unnecessary wars; 2. Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit; 3. Bush tax cuts; and 4. TARP, all of which were introduced during the Bush administration.
Taxes have actually been cut during the Obama administration and we are now collecting the lowest amount of taxes since the creation of the income tax.
The majority of fourth amendment violations perpetrated by Obama are continuations of practices introduced during the Bush administration with the introduction of the patriot act. While I agree with you that it's wrong, Obama doesn't deserve all the blame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, and thus far all investigations to try and prove otherwise have been fruitless.
Any immigration plan that doesn't deal with millions of immigrants that are well integrated into our economy and can't simply be sent home is not a serious proposal to deal with a real problem

Scribbler: Medicine is not a right. I'm well familiar with the economics of the medical field and I can tell you this legislation will cripple care in this country. Gold standard to everyone is not the result. Everyone will just get lousy care, if the

y get it at all.

What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu

Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.

The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.

Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.

There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.

What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu
Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.
The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.
Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.
There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.

Actually, there are plenty of serious proposals that don't involve sweeping amnesty. Do we need immigration reform? Probably. But we have to start by enforcing the laws already on the books, which this administration has consistently blocked. 

‎*after "military isn't someplace you go for self-expression" should be "You are there to serve your country, not serve yourself."

At this point, the discussion was, well, a discussion. Things remained relatively civil. Then Persona B turns up.

Persona B: Scribbler, if you're so familiar with the medical field you would understand why you should slap yourself in the face for speaking like such an idiot. Either way, the legislation doesn't go far enough.

 

Persona A: I agree persona B. Single Payer or Bust!

 

Persona B: Well capitalism naturally leans towards collapse so we're just going to be stuck in the management of a system naturally bound to fail. Either way, David, given the fact that you've not tried to hide the fact that you're a classist bigot, I  wouldn't really be hugely interested in continuing this conversation except to ask you to justify: ". It's a lesser of two evils thing though. What we really need, badly, is a third party." By which, I mean to say, Mitt Romney, as the lesser of two evils.
I would know for certain except you speak in such a garbled, classist, uninformed way that I'm shocked anyone could agree with you thus far.

Persona A: I agree with you B. While Obama isn't perfect (I myself have a lot of problems with him) he certainly beats out Romney, who just wants to continue the cycles of failure that Bush and others before him began. Anyone who still believes in trickle down economics in this day and age isnt fit to run the country. 

Persona B: "95% of all medical innovation happens in the US for a reason." And yet we're leagues behind every other industrialized nation on Earth so far as a quality of care. In addition to this there should not be a field that revolves around making money off of sick people. Obama's crime in that regard was not socializing all of medicine and then taking the CEO's of the health insurance industries and showing them the wall. "the largest tax increase in US history, the complete suspension of fourth amendment rights (Obama has given himself the power to kill anyone on the 'battlefield' regardless of citizenship in drone strikes. Oh, and by the way, he declared the entire US a battlefield in the 'war on terror'" Half true. He changed the definition of enemy combatant to anyone killed in a drone strike, this is, of course, bad. But then again you cannot complain about what Obama has done within the wars while also ignoring the fact that only choice he had regarding Afghanistan was whether or not to invade and he voted, like he voted with Iraq, against such a proposal. History shows as soon as an imperialist army leaves there is genocide. To leave would to cause Rwanda all over again and while it appears you would be perfectly fine with a bunch of dark skinned people killing one another, I am against such a notion. "lawsuit against a US state for enforcing federal law, a plan to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and a whole host of other things that I have neither the time nor inclination to list at the moment" - If you wont or refuse to say them then you don't know them. That's the end of the story. Go into detail or else I'll just have to assume, as if there was no evidence yet, that you're an idiotic jackass.

And civility is straight out the door in an ad hominem blaze of partially informed lunacy. I attempted to return to reasoned discourse, which perhaps was a mistake...

Scribbler: Let's suspend the ad hominem, ok? You have no idea who I am. I am well familiar with the medical system, as well as it's failings. Those failings can, in many cases, be traced back to legislative intervention. Other nations who have tried to institute socialized healthcare have had disastrous results. There shouldn't be a field around making money off of sick people? in that case, you are suggesting slavery. Doctors need to eat too. Also, your comment concerning "taking the CEO's of health insurance industries and showing them the wall" is in extremely poor taste and I find it simply sickening. 

I don't see how you claim to know me as a classist bigot. I don't think I've said anything against anyone except illegal aliens and this administration. I'm all about individual rights, with absolutely no regard to any delineation other than citizenship. 

I don't think we should have gotten involved in either country, nor the four additional countries we've entered into conflicts with under Obama. I tend to think it best for the US to have something of an isolationist foreign policy. As to US imperialism, I don't think that's the right analogy, as for all that we keep getting involved in places we really shouldn't, we aren't seeking to rule. 

I don't get where you get off on implying I'm a racist. I think it better for the US to not get involved in other countries wars, regardless of race of the inhabitants of, especially in the absence of treaty or other agreement. But that doesn't equate with not having a problem with people killing people. 

You speak of capitalism as a system naturally leaning towards collapse. I would counter that economics is a complicated system, far beyond our capability to regulate or run. A laissez-faire approach has it's problems, major ones at that, but it is a system that is functional given a certain initial set of assumptions about what a good outcome is, as well as the nature of what human rights are. So many of the problems with the trickle-down system and modern American capitalism are traceable to governmental intervention and action.

I call the world as I see it, and the world is an imperfect place. But please refrain from attacking me as a person based on my political views. I am not an idiot, nor do I think I am a jackass. You weaken your argument by the logical fallacies and personal attacks. You bring up some good points in places, but you end up coming across as an angry child if you can't divorce your arguments from your emotions. I am happy to discuss these issues, but I will not continue to attempt to reason in the face of such behavior. Prove yourself reasonable and we can reason. Otherwise, you are not worth my time. 

As to the other issues, there are plenty of other people who have summed up the other issues far better than I can, and if you truly want to know about them, I can point you to some good sources. I say I have neither the time nor inclination because quite simply the evidence covers terabytes of data, and facebook comment isn't exactly an ideal venue for such exchanges. 

Oh, I never answered your question as to why Romney is the lesser of two evils. He is a RINO of the first order, weak at best and capricious at worst, and has a record that I find hugely objectionable, but he has good business experience, is possessed of principles, (even though I don't agree with all of them) and has a record that I find less damaging than Obama's. The two parties are largely indistinguishable big governmental types, both of which are far too keen on shoving their particular ideologies down my throat. The particular nature of those ideologies is just icing. A third party isn't so much a third party as it is a legitimate second party.

Persona B: Scribbler, let me please suggest you refrain from acting like every other right winger and thinking that objectivity regarding your political opinion is a thing, that end of the spectrum is not based in any sort of analysis. When you talk about separating emotions from arguments it appears awfully hypocritical as the unrounded beliefs of your own ideology make it quite pleasantly clear that right-wing "theoreticians" have no intention of doing this themselves. Nextly, I don't need to know anything about you aside from your beliefs. On top of that, when you say things like "I am well familiar with the medical system" you are providing no evidence. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, what you put forward without evidence can be disproven without evidence. Therefore, I say, you are absolutely wrong. That's not ad homonym, that's me adopting your poor tactic of debate. So far as medical health and capitalism are concerned, as medical health within a capitalist society is based upon profit seeking it is not within the interests of the doctor to cure anybody. Within socialized medicine there is a *goal*. A fantastic example of this is the revolutionary research regarding breast cancer that is all but unavailable to anyone who doesn't go to a private millionaire clinic. Doctors do perfectly well in socialized healthcare systems as well. In England they make well over 100,000 pounds. The same is also true on average for doctors in Switzerland (who have the same health care system we are adopting), Denmark, and Canada "http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/" On top of all of this, I don't give a fuck whether or not you found what I had to say in bad taste. I agree we should not have gotten involved but to suppose that what we are doing is not imperialistic is foolishly sunny-minded. Our new embassy in Iraq is a 21 building compound on an oil field. And your disregard for the lives of Arabs in the current situation, not in the hypothetical situation where we were never at war, is what makes me call you a racist. It's all fine and dandy to say you're ideological position is one in which the place and time we are in now would never have existed, unfortunately that is just an excuse not to have convictions. " I would counter that economics is a complicated system, far beyond our capability to regulate or run. A laissez-faire approach has it's problems, major ones at that, but it is a system that is functional given a certain initial set of assumptions about what a good outcome is, as well as the nature of what human rights are. So many of the problems with the trickle-down system and modern American capitalism are traceable to governmental intervention and action." You clearly have not done your reading. If you take a look at what happened in, let's take for example, Argentina and Chile, after these policies were adopted, laissez-faire, completely deregulated supply side economics, within a year they had between 320 and 329% inflation.

Scribbler: I have done extensive analysis into economics as well as other complex systems. It's sorta what I do. I am an empiricist. The only emotional aspect to any of this is a desire for people to be accountable for their actions, which, yes, is an unfounded belief. If you can't agree with that, then there's no point in discussion. I am a social liberal of pretty much the utmost degree, by which I mean I believe in the utmost level of personal liberty. So long as it doesn't infringe on other people's fundamental rights, I couldn't care less what people choose to do. 

As to my experience with the medical field, both my parents are doctors, and I have worked for a medical office in the billing department, as well as other administrative duties.. I have seen years of insurance pay slips, and I guarantee I am more familiar with the costs of doing business in the medical field than you. Do you find this acceptable? That infographic you sent me is hilariously bad, and not worth addressing. It completely disregards a huge percentage of the factors involved in medicine. I have spoken to doctors in socialist systems. They pretty much universally hate it. 

As to imperialism, I am not saying we don't have an interest in being the places we are, merely that we don't seek to rule. Mutual benefit, as opposed to direct exploitation. How much do you know about radical Islam? The fundamental roots of WHY these people are killing each other? I know rather a lot. I've read the Koran, and I've read a large body of varied works on the subject (from both sides of the political spectrum.) Quite simply, these people are going to keep killing each other until one side gets enough power on their own to quell the other side. I don't see the point in spending the lives of our soldiers in someone else's fight. I don't care what race they are. I don't want my money and my friends and fellow countrymen being spent on them. Call me a nationalist if you want, but don't call me a racist. 

As to Argentina, you bring up an interesting example. 20 years ago, their government had a platform largely identical to our current administration's, coming into a top 20 economy. Argentina is no longer a top 20 economy, due to their governmental actions. Yes, swinging from socialism to capitalism will change the value distributions at first, but the end result is far more stable and secure. Calling the immediate effects of a change to a system being representative of the net change is fallacious and shortsighted. The system is broken, no doubt, but I don't believe it beyond fixing. A third party has the potential to do just that. 

Your comments about these CEO's are intensely disturbing, and show me in no uncertain terms that you are beyond reasoning with. Anyone willing to kill people to further their ideological agenda is not worthy of any consideration. 

Basically, none of this is intended for you. I know you are incapable of hearing, much less understanding or appreciating, my arguments. To anyone else reading this though, I hope you've found the discussion edifying. 

I am unsubscribing from this post. It's not worth any more of my time or effort. I've made my points known. Anyone who wishes for me to clarify or discuss further can post to my wall or private message. 

Persona B: "I am a social liberal of pretty much the utmost degree, by which I mean I believe in the utmost level of personal liberty. So long as it doesn't infringe on other people's fundamental rights, I couldn't care less what people choose to do." This is an absolutely obnoxious belief that is quite prominent amongst liberals and is really one of the flaws of tolerance. Your inability to see it as an ideological category is absolutely appalling. Regarding your parents working as doctors and your job in a billing department, anecdote does not make evidence, which you, as an empiricist should undeniably understand. Just because you have spoken with doctors in "socialist systems" (you clearly have no understanding of what socialism is) does not make it fact. To paraphrase Husserl, experience is not by itself science. On top of that there is no mutual benefit to our being in Iraq, just a side note. My father is a professor of Theology, I too have read the Qur'an multiple times. Just because I have done this does not mean that I am more scientifically estitute regarding Islam. I would think you'd prefer to characterize yourself as a patriot then, because nationalism has always been characterized by social chauvinism and xenophobia. A third party has no potential. The economic epoch in which we live is coming to an end and it's time as revolutionary is over. "Anyone willing to kill people to further their ideological agenda is not worthy of any consideration." - this is in itself an ideological category.

Welp. That went well.

The real shame in it is that he seems like a not unintelligent kid (He's in high school) just hugely mislead. I have no doubts that he is parroting views he has heard elsewhere, considering how much of it parallels the bushwa of northern academia. There were so many points where he flirted with coherence and sensibility. Some of his counterarguments were actually effective, though that is more an effect of me not arguing the full point.

This combination is a very dangerous one, and one I see far too often. (and worry constantly that I'll fall into myself.) A smart kid gets a mentor, teacher, friend, or someone else who teaches them rationalist modes of thinking. They think that they come to full understandings of the issues they see. Someone, perhaps the same mentor, then feeds them the liberal line with an incomplete data set. They are young and impressionable to soak it up, yet independent and arrogant (coming from a system that constantly tells them they are special and unique) enough to be certain in it. They end up being a self-congratulatory pawn for the liberal establishment, and then they go around making more of themselves. It's possible to reason with them, sometimes. I still try at least. It does get frustrating though.

There are few things so dangerous as someone who is convinced they know the truth.

That is where I take solace. I am willing to reevaluate any of my opinions based on contrary evidence. I have done it publicly, and as often as someone has the preponderance of evidence and logic on their side. It frankly doesn't happen very often.

As I mentioned in my last comment above, I wasn't arguing for the sake of him. there came a point where I realized he was beyond convincing. But I know there are other people who will come to read this thread. I hope I maybe at least put my views out coherently. Perhaps someone along the way will read and consider.