....is thinking about the opposition's arguments.
Makes you think about your own arguments!
I've been reading the comments on an article by a Tea Party opponent who insists all tea-party folks are just racist, because he saw few minorities at the Dallas Tea Party. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/opinion/17blow.html
Most all the commenters who are against the Tea Party people insist that the only issues are President Obama's place of birth and that he is a socialist, Chicago-style politician. Many also applaud Mr. Obama for lowering our taxes and keeping unemployment at bay with his stimulus program.
Most also describe the tea party folks as stupid, delusional, paranoid, uninformed, racist, aging WASP males, vigilante, uncharitable thugs.
Okay, so let's think about this.
First of all, ad hominem ("against the man" or attacking someone on his/her perceived charactertistics instead of engaging him/her on the facts of the argument) is a very weak argument--it just is illogical. Who you are has no bearing on if your positions or arguments are correct.
Just because you only saw a few minority faces in a crowd doesn't necessarily mean that the crowd is racist. Just because you don't like someone's position doesn't mean that he is stupid, uninformed, delusional or paranoid.
And, in fact, when you look at the photos, you see many people of many different ages and different backgrounds. Also, a study by the Main Stream Media showed that tea partiers were in fact more educated than average. Other studies show that conservatives are much more charitable than those of a more liberal political persuasion.
So, what about the other arguments?
Did President Bush spend too much? Yes. But the deficit under him pales in comparison to President Obama's.
Do conservatives oppose the new health care? Yes, but not because it helps people with pre-existing conditions or gives health care to several million people who need health care. Conservatives agree that some health care reforms are needed--we just don't need the US government taking it over! And, besides, the new health care law STILL leaves MILLIONS of people un-insured. That truly is Not Very Nice. Not to those people who still will need health care, nor to the rest of us who will be footing a huge bill--that doesn't solve the problem.
And what about unemployment and the economy? Well, it's not doing so well. Very few jobs in the private sector are being created, and the unemployment rate is hovering at a dismal 10%. And the stimulus money has hardly been spent. Plus what has been spent is mostly on helping out government jobs. So, you really can't blame the stimulus spending for helping or hurting the economy---except for the fact that the stimulus bills have added greatly to our national deficit.
Lowering our taxes? Well, most folks' are soon to increase, and then there's all the medical taxes soon to be upon us, plus that National VAT idea....Well, I just don't think so. (I'm afraid Mr. Obama is not exactly telling the truth on this one)
What about President Obama's birthplace? Well, it really won't make any difference. Next!!
So, is Mr. Obama a socialist? Let's look at the definition: 1. Any of a variety of economic or political theories advocating government ownership and administration of the production and distribution of goods 2. A system of society where there is no private property 3. A system or condition of society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 4. In Marxist theory, a stage between communism and capitalism distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to the work done. (Thanks to Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
Well, I think that according to definitions 1 and 3, Mr. Obama could certainly be said to have socialistic tendencies. He has taken over GM and Chrysler, some banks, and now will control (since health care will be adminstered by the executive branch) many aspects of how our health care is delivered through control of the health insurance industry. And believe me, when he controls what will and what won't be covered by health insurance, cuts half-a-trillion dollars from Medicare by controlling what it will pay for, and forces everyone to have health insurance--that's control.
And have you heard of the proposed new financial regulations? These would allow the President and the Secretary of the Treasury to unilaterally declare a company is going to fail soon, and is too big and too important to fail. The President would then control that company (be able to fire the board of directors, etc.) and the takeover would not be subject to judicial or congressional review. Now that's control! Just like Hugo Chavez, IMHO. These regulations haven't passed yet--just proposed by President Obama.
And governing Chicago-style? Well, just take Rahm Emanuel, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase.........why, I'd say "yes".
Hmmm---I'm not ill-informed and dumb as you might want to think!
No comments:
Post a Comment