The Neo-Con exchange
Here's an exchange of e-mails I've had with a neo-con "friend" of my father's. The first reply was his in response to a funny list my dad had forwarded to a short list of people. As you can imagine with e-mail exchanges, you have to start at the bottom (which is the list) and read up. I figured, this would suffice as my ranting for the week. I'm in a very anit-Bush mood. Iv'e formatted it so you can see when the exchanges begin and end.
########## My most recent exchange. I suspect this will be the end.
Gee whiz, I look down at the bottom and I see this written BY YOU to my father: "So tell me as a good Christian and more, you are also in support of the opposition alternative to all that highlighted?" and went on to highlight portions of the e-mail he had sent that don't agree with your agenda. So how is using my father's religion as a weapon against him NOT personal?
I love how you discredit my arguments by simply saying they are rants and instantly *POOF* they are discredited. I do not call you a name. I call your argument narrow minded, pathetic and dismissive. And I then go on to explain why, through a practical example, your rebuttals are exactly those 3 things. If you had a single logical thought behind your argument, then perhaps your arguments wouldn't be dismissive. If you hadn't said that you define people by their organizational allegiances, then perhaps your arguments wouldn't be narrow minded. And it is my opinion that an argument that is both narrow minded and dismissive is pathetic (definition: Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity).
You'll notice above that I defend my argument with a point by point analysis defending it. I could have just as easily followed your lead and said: "Clearly your reply is the typical neo-con rep style: label someone, create a flimsy straw man that fits that label and discredit them with flimsy platitudes and substanceless and unsupported rejection of the argument." But since my style is typically liberal, I much prefer the substance.
############ Neo-Con
Clearly your reply is the the typical liberal dem style: Revert to name-calling when the argument is lost...
The rest of your epistle borders on little more than mindless banter
Just as an aside; it wasn't me that started lobbing these barbs and besides, its never anything personal unless you make it be
A
############# ME
Again, that is narrow minded, pathetic and dismissive. I don't doubt that people make evaluations of me as a person on a day to day basis. But I certainly hope they are not concerned about the fact that I am a Steelers fan and then make a judgment about me based on my level of fandom. I am a Steelers fan and that is that. I AM (capitals intended) Paul Leland Britton IV. The fact that I am a Steelers fan should have absolutely nothing to do with how someone like me as a person. The moment I dismiss someone for being a Browns fan is the moment I let my Steelers' fandom define me. Then and only then can other's allow my fandom to define me.
I do not dismiss you because you are a Republican. I dismiss you because you use my father's religion as a weapon against him. I dismiss you because your arguments are faulty and misguided at best and spiteful and hurtful at worst. I dismiss you because you allow the fact that you are Republican to be and excuse to dismiss others for nothing more than the belief that our government should be held accountable for it's actions by the people.
########### Neo-Com
You confuse define with judge: You are judged by your actions; you are defined by your known belief systems and publicly-know alliances
Who are you kidding? We are judged everyday, all day and here again, by compliance with how one has allowed himself to be defined, not to mention cultural and societal mores and laws
############ Me. The Real Hypocite comment is a ref to some ridiculous article he had sent after my dad sent his list.
That is the most ridiculously narrow minded thing I've ever read: "you come to be defined by your publicly demonstrated alliances with organizations". People that I would consider my friends, people I think are worthy of my respect and admiration, people who I would consider honorable, would define me by my actions. The things I do on a day to day basis. The things I say and follow through on. It is far too easy to dismiss people simply because they are Democrats or French or members of Alanon. Oh, you're a Mormon? Then you must not realize that your a member of a cult and you must believe that you'll only get to heaven by having as many kids as humanly possible and your great-grandparents were polygamists. Wow, that's easy. It's absolutely pathetic and dismissive of you to "JUDGE" (your word, not mine) people based on meetings they may attend or votes they may cast. I obviously know a LOT more about being a Christian than you do because I know it is not MY job to be judging ANYONE. That is His.
Who's the Real Hypocrite now?
####### Neo-Con
I am! And proud to I should add
And what do you know about his religion? But yes, you come to be defined by your publicly demonstrated alliances with organizations that have clearly stated, well-known philosophic standards; that said, you tend to be judged by your level of compliance with them
Sorry...
####### My first reply. We had gone down this road before. He called me a devil at one point. That made me very proud.
It's wonderful to see that you're still are a good, card-carrying rep by continuing to use a person's religious beliefs as a weapon against him, should they vary in even the slightest bit as your own. Interesting that only your interpretation of His word is the only valid one.
###### Neo-Con's first reply. He had highlighted several points that might conflict with my father's Catholic beliefs.
Well Mr. Britton, clearly stated by a good, card-carrying dem
So tell me as a good christian and more, you are also in support of the opposition alternative to all that highlighted? Did you really read this before you sent it on?
The rest of it is pure rubbish
######### THE LIST THAT STARTED IT
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican:
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
########## My most recent exchange. I suspect this will be the end.
Gee whiz, I look down at the bottom and I see this written BY YOU to my father: "So tell me as a good Christian and more, you are also in support of the opposition alternative to all that highlighted?" and went on to highlight portions of the e-mail he had sent that don't agree with your agenda. So how is using my father's religion as a weapon against him NOT personal?
I love how you discredit my arguments by simply saying they are rants and instantly *POOF* they are discredited. I do not call you a name. I call your argument narrow minded, pathetic and dismissive. And I then go on to explain why, through a practical example, your rebuttals are exactly those 3 things. If you had a single logical thought behind your argument, then perhaps your arguments wouldn't be dismissive. If you hadn't said that you define people by their organizational allegiances, then perhaps your arguments wouldn't be narrow minded. And it is my opinion that an argument that is both narrow minded and dismissive is pathetic (definition: Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity).
You'll notice above that I defend my argument with a point by point analysis defending it. I could have just as easily followed your lead and said: "Clearly your reply is the typical neo-con rep style: label someone, create a flimsy straw man that fits that label and discredit them with flimsy platitudes and substanceless and unsupported rejection of the argument." But since my style is typically liberal, I much prefer the substance.
############ Neo-Con
Clearly your reply is the the typical liberal dem style: Revert to name-calling when the argument is lost...
The rest of your epistle borders on little more than mindless banter
Just as an aside; it wasn't me that started lobbing these barbs and besides, its never anything personal unless you make it be
A
############# ME
Again, that is narrow minded, pathetic and dismissive. I don't doubt that people make evaluations of me as a person on a day to day basis. But I certainly hope they are not concerned about the fact that I am a Steelers fan and then make a judgment about me based on my level of fandom. I am a Steelers fan and that is that. I AM (capitals intended) Paul Leland Britton IV. The fact that I am a Steelers fan should have absolutely nothing to do with how someone like me as a person. The moment I dismiss someone for being a Browns fan is the moment I let my Steelers' fandom define me. Then and only then can other's allow my fandom to define me.
I do not dismiss you because you are a Republican. I dismiss you because you use my father's religion as a weapon against him. I dismiss you because your arguments are faulty and misguided at best and spiteful and hurtful at worst. I dismiss you because you allow the fact that you are Republican to be and excuse to dismiss others for nothing more than the belief that our government should be held accountable for it's actions by the people.
########### Neo-Com
You confuse define with judge: You are judged by your actions; you are defined by your known belief systems and publicly-know alliances
Who are you kidding? We are judged everyday, all day and here again, by compliance with how one has allowed himself to be defined, not to mention cultural and societal mores and laws
############ Me. The Real Hypocite comment is a ref to some ridiculous article he had sent after my dad sent his list.
That is the most ridiculously narrow minded thing I've ever read: "you come to be defined by your publicly demonstrated alliances with organizations". People that I would consider my friends, people I think are worthy of my respect and admiration, people who I would consider honorable, would define me by my actions. The things I do on a day to day basis. The things I say and follow through on. It is far too easy to dismiss people simply because they are Democrats or French or members of Alanon. Oh, you're a Mormon? Then you must not realize that your a member of a cult and you must believe that you'll only get to heaven by having as many kids as humanly possible and your great-grandparents were polygamists. Wow, that's easy. It's absolutely pathetic and dismissive of you to "JUDGE" (your word, not mine) people based on meetings they may attend or votes they may cast. I obviously know a LOT more about being a Christian than you do because I know it is not MY job to be judging ANYONE. That is His.
Who's the Real Hypocrite now?
####### Neo-Con
I am! And proud to I should add
And what do you know about his religion? But yes, you come to be defined by your publicly demonstrated alliances with organizations that have clearly stated, well-known philosophic standards; that said, you tend to be judged by your level of compliance with them
Sorry...
####### My first reply. We had gone down this road before. He called me a devil at one point. That made me very proud.
It's wonderful to see that you're still are a good, card-carrying rep by continuing to use a person's religious beliefs as a weapon against him, should they vary in even the slightest bit as your own. Interesting that only your interpretation of His word is the only valid one.
###### Neo-Con's first reply. He had highlighted several points that might conflict with my father's Catholic beliefs.
Well Mr. Britton, clearly stated by a good, card-carrying dem
So tell me as a good christian and more, you are also in support of the opposition alternative to all that highlighted? Did you really read this before you sent it on?
The rest of it is pure rubbish
######### THE LIST THAT STARTED IT
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican:
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
posted by RauluaP at 12:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home