HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 14, 2003 Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have warned, repeatedly, against taking the bait. As Joe Mariani accurately observed in "Liberals 'Rules' For Arguing," trying to debate a liberal is like arguing with your mailbox. You might as well save your breath. Obviously, Ann and Laura are exponentially more intelligent than I am. And a whole lot more attractive. This is Scott Jones' original e mail, in its entirety, followed by my rebuttals: SJ: I have been enjoying your little 'lessons' for young Mr. Stensrud in these pages. Both of you have presented interesting and fairly well informed arguments. LG: "Fairly well informed" is the pinnacle of a liberal's compliment to a conservative, so thank you. If you mean "fairly well informed," as in watching Fox News and reading all I can about politics and history, then thank you again. SJ: Unfortunately, your last article ("To Matt Stensrud") descended into the usual kind of conservative bluster that seems to be running rampant through the Republican Party these days. LG: You mean: "nothing is more rewarding to human being than knowing he is earning his way, contributing to society, and has been paid for a job well done." So it's better if a human being doesn't earn his way, or contribute to society? I can see where that makes more sense. SJ: I am speaking, of course, of the same kind of smug "We Know What's Best For You" attitude that seems to be George Bush and company's stock and trade. LG: You're right; we are smug and we don't know what's best for people. Opposing home schooling, school choice and vouchers, in order to force children to attend failing schools, because the NEA and teachers unions are major contributors to the Democratic party, is knowing what's best for the country. SJ: I was particularly amused by your repeated admonitions to Mr. Stensrud to "Get his facts straight." LG: Is that Liberalese for "you have an obligation, as an America first, then as a politico, to read every article/news item and history book, to find out where your party stood then, and where it stands today. Then read everything you can about Republicans."? ("To Matthew Stensrud") SJ: Of course, it was obvious that what you were actually saying was that Mr. Stensrud should "Get YOUR facts straight" and then, of course, accept them blindly. LG: I could use "see above," or "RESEARCH. Don't follow any sociopolitical belief system blindly." ("TMS") Either one is fine. You pick. SJ: Just because you rhetorically slam down your fist and demand that he agree with you because you disagree with his assertions doesn't make you correct, nor does it add any additional validity to your arguments. LG: Didn't I already respond to this, twice? SJ: It only demonstrates, once again, the very narrow and self-serving view of reality that you and your fellow conservative Republicans adhere to that: Poor People are just uneducated, lazy leeches on society. LG: Internal Revenue Service Revenue Ruling. "This report points out that studies of unemployed persons aided under the public assistance programs indicate that in general these persons lack sufficient education and work skills to compete in the labor market." http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1971/revrul71- 425.htm SJ: That Democrats have systematically ruined this nation with all of their misguided social programs and humanistic ideology LG: The ACLU supports: Legalized Child Pornography, Legalized Drugs, Tax Exemptions for Satanists, Legalized Prostitution, Abortion on Demand, Mandatory Sex Education, Ideological Tests for Court Appointees, Automatic Entitled Probation, Public Demonstrations by Nazis and Communists, Legalized Polygamy, Busing Opposes: Teaching "Monogamous Heterosexual Intercourse within Marriage" in Public Schools, Legalized Optional School Prayer, Sobriety Checkpoints, Tax Exemptions for Churches, Religious Displays in Public, Medical Safety Reporting, Parental Consent Laws, School Vouchers and Home Schooling, Government Ethics Committees, Prison Terms for Criminal Offenses, Public Demonstrations for Direct Action by Pro-lifers http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/aclu/Policy.ht ml SJ: That Republicans, specifically Conservative Republicans, are the ONLY ones that really care about this country. That anyone who disagrees with a Republican President or his self-serving policies is ANTI-AMERICAN and a socialistic supporter of terrorism LG: If you have a better alternative to ridding the world of Islamic terrorists, and brutal dictatorships, to make it a better place for all us to live in, I'll listen. SJ: That George Bush's Cabinet just coincidentally happens to be made of Big Oil executives and that their own business history has nothing to do with directing this countries current aggressive foreign policy in regard to unfriendly regimes that are "swimming in oil" LG: A major Republican backer is Big Oil. But what makes the world go? It's not fuel cells, or solar panels. We could Flinstones-it, since you liberals hate oil so much. SJ: That the rich are suffering under an unfair tax burden and that the rest of us need to "pull our own weight" because these poor, beleaguered rich people have suffered long enough LG: "According to IRS data," writes Daniel J. Mitchell, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, "the top one percent of income earners pay nearly 29 percent of the income tax burden, the top 10 percent pay more than 59 percent, and the top 20 percent pay more than 74 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than five percent of income taxes." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/fmp/other/missing1 .html "So is it fair for a wealthy person, who has worked 70-80 hour weeks for years to have the wealth they have today, to pay their taxes, plus most of the taxes for someone who decided to skip college, not hold down a full time job, live paycheck to paycheck, and are generally unmotivated?" ("Letter to a Young Democrat") SJ: Now, as to your generous offer to Mr. Stensrud to provide him with the facts for his research. Isn't that a nice little circular argument? Should Mr. Stensrud (or any other non- conservative person) offer you HIS facts and sources so that YOU can become properly educated about all the dubious achievements inflicted upon the US over the past years. LG: Do you mean the greatest terrorist attack in history - 15 bloodthirsty maniacs murdering 3,000 innocent Americans - or conservatism? SJ: Shall we explore the devastating effects on the economy and social security created during the Reagan Years? LG: Reaganomics: "Economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, low social services spending, and high military spending. Contributed to low intersts rates, low inflation, and large deficits." http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi? 4052 Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics and President of the National Bureau of Economic Research: "Ironically, the Reagan Social Security reforms produced the current large Social Security surpluses and the Reagan tax policies stimulated the growth and current tax revenues that together with general spending restraint in the 1990s provided the potential financing for the Clinton (and now Bush) investment-based Social Security options." http://www.nber.org/feldstein/amecpol90.html SJ: Shall we discuss the severe damage to international relations that our current administration has wrought on the US, or the geometrically increased level of threat to American's overseas that our current policies have engendered? LG: So barbaric Muslim fundamentalists, whose life mission is to die while trying to kill people, would hate us less if we stopped attacking them? SJ: Shall we discuss the VERY dubious information used to convince the Congress and the UN that military action was required in Iraq? And don't throw up that Iraq is just such a big country and that we have to give our inspectors time. LG: Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike December 16, 1998 CLINTON: Good evening: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons..." President Clinton's full speech is here: http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/IR/docs/ClintonI raq.htm SJ: That doesn't wash Mr. Grant, not when Colin Powell spend many hours displaying photographic proof of WMD's and processing plants, but suddenly, when we have free run of the country, we can't seem to find those sites? LG: Secretary Powell went to the U.N. on February 6, 2003. The war begin March 19, 2003. That gave Saddam over a month to hide and destroy weapons, not counting the endless months leading up to Secretary Powell going to the U.N., not counting the five years Saddam had to coordinate a concealment plan when he kicked the inspectors out in 1998. SJ: I agree that healthy debate is of great value and that we could all use a good deal more of it these days. LG: We agree on something. I'm so relieved. SJ: Unfortunately, there is precious little 'debate' or even 'discussion' being offered by the Conservative Powers that be, or their supporters. Rather the 'debate' comes in the form of Don Rumsfeld squinting out self assured platitudes of smug, self righteous dismissals, or of George Bush leaning rakishly over his podium smirking that "We KNOW that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction" and that "There is No place for terrorist to hide." LG: Your facts are really compelling. Based on your extensive, thoughtful research, I may change my mind. SJ: Oh yes, one other point, the Iranian People ran the Shah out of Iran; just as the Soviet/Eastern Block inhabitants tore down the Berlin Wall because their system could no longer economically support a military that was bleeding them dry. Reagan happened to be in office at the time, that's it. LG: Rafal Geremek, a famed Polish journalist: "In my country, also Ronald Reagan is perceived as a hero, because he knew how to deal with the Soviets: He didn't care about pacifists; he put the Fatherland of the International Proletariat in military technological competition that it couldn't sustain. Without President Reagan, communism might have not fallen in 1989 in Central Europe, but many years later." http://www.post- gazette.com/forum/20011103edraf1103p3.asp SJ: Now if you have read this far then I applaud you for your willingness to hear a counter- argument (and if you wish, I have plenty more FACTs that I can share). LG: I thank you for making this the easiest article I've ever written. SJ: The funny thing about FACTS Mr. Grant, Yours, Mine and Mr. Stensrud's, they are all just that, FACTS. It is how one chooses to interpret, accept or dismiss those facts that determines one's ideology and one's own version of reality. Unfortunately, we all happen to be living in a time when there are some radically opposed versions of reality that are being propagated, and that kind of situation has historically lead to volatile and sometimes violent change. We are in for a bumpy ride Mr. Grant. LG: We certainly will be if Bill and Hillary - "Billary" - return to the White House. ------------ Visit LannyGrant.com or email Lanny Grant: lannygrant@aol.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
