Quote:

---

The Wrong Side Absolutely Must Not Win


The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies.

Just look at the Other Side’s latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Naturally, the media won’t report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.

I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates’ incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that reveal the Other Side’s true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

Don’t take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

Let’s face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side’s policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don’t even know it.

These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

Besides, it’s clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.

---

Quote:

---

That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime.

---

Quote:

---

The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater.

---

Quote:

---

That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
An "everyone is just as corrupt and bad as everyone else" argument serves the cause of apathy and disengagement, and that, again, serves the authoritarian cause.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And if you vote for LESS evil every time, you get BETTER, you get GOOD, simply by voting against evil or choosing the least evil path."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Interesting. I had not considered the possibility that everyone in politics was getting more evil and corrupt. I assumed that each new politician starts idealistic then slowly turns as evil and corrupt as the previous candidate, because the system demands they compromise their ethics. I think the reason the system keeps getting more evil is that, once corrupted, the politicians just build on the preexisting evil, not that they themselves are more evil than those in the past.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think the reason the system keeps getting more evil is that, once corrupted, the politicians just build on the preexisting evil, not that they themselves are more evil than those in the past.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I dunno guys, this strikes me as a nasty "reality is perception" argument. And that argument is fascistic. And it's misanthropic in that it suggests that people's convictions are purely tribal/partisan. Sure there's some of that at work and we can all go to our respective echo chambers to feel good about being biased.

But I think there are real differences in this election and every election. Will the Republicans winning mean the end of the world as I know it? No. But will it tangibly make things worse for people I care about? If they follow through on their intentions, you betcha!

Also it sets up a really malicious equivalence between Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax returns. Obama submitted his birth certificate long ago but the birthers prefered their conspiracy theory. Romney has simply not submitted the tax returns in question. If he had, and the left doubled down and said they are all lies, then you'd have an our side = their side thing. But as it stands, ya don't. The whole piece is like this.

A "perception is reality" argument always serves the right/authoritarian cause. An "everyone is just as corrupt and bad as everyone else" argument serves the cause of apathy and disengagement, and that, again, serves the authoritarian cause. Y'all may enjoy looking down on your fellow humans, snicker at the ruinous folly of the ditto-head, but the ones looking down on all of us are laughing all the way to the bank.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
but both sides are clearly not the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yeah well, you think Somalia is a pristine example of the greatness that is anarchy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
but both sides are clearly not the same.

---

Hitler and Stalin are clearly not the same. But I would be hard-pressed to vote for either of them.

I'd rather have a third or fourth choice. And I think that is the point of this piece.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm just trying to head off any 'human nature' arguments, b/c our 'human nature' seems quite capable of creating and perpetuating a wide divergence of social structures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish.

---

Quote:

---

Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
either one winning will make a difference to the lives of who live under their possible rule.

---

Quote:

---

The kinds of arguments presented in your original, albeit satirical post, imply they are both the same and that it makes no difference who wins, which just isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure if Hitler were running against Stalin, Jews might vote for Stalin, because he would make a significant difference to their lives under his rule.

---

Quote:

---

Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. - Signy

I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread.- CTS

Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. - Signy

I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. No end to your outright lies, is there?- CTS

---

Quote:

---

The usage of Godwin's Law also has "Henderson's Law" as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to "gratuitous Hitler-comparisons", Godwin's Law has been frivolously thrown at any comparison no matter how accurate or on-point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread.

---

Quote:

---

Ringing any bells now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Technically, CTS wasn't really comparing anything to either Hitler or Stalin. It was more like she took the old "rock and a hard place" adage, and replaced the rock with Hitler and the hard place with Stalin, as the worst case scenario to illustrate the problem between choosing between a lesser or greater evil.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... because you are picking two extreme situations and it grinds discussion to a halt. "Would you vote for Stalin or Hitler?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


In Australia, you have a parliamentary system, correct? I've often thought that having a president is a flawed concept - it becomes a place where military power can be invested. I also like that you have to form coalition governments.

---

Quote:

---

But beyond all that, it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses. How is a society in which you have to navigate a lawless terrain any more free then a society where a government enforces a rule of law? Wouldn’t you say that we are much freer with a government then they are in Sierra Leone or Somalia?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Tell that to the guys in Africa, trying to survive between feuding warlords and crime bosses.

---

There, you have feuding warlords, crime bosses, AND government all competing for power. Just because the state is incompetent (failed to consolidate their monopoly) doesn't mean the state doesn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.

But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of...

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ideologically they are possibly further apart than any other time in history, possibly....

---

Quote:

---

Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine “our guy” on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the “progressive left”, which seems to be little or none at all.

Instead of scrutiny, the usual arguments in favor of another Obama presidency are made: We must stop fanatics; it would be better than the fanatics—he’s the last line of defense from the corporate barbarians—and of course the Supreme Court. It all makes a terrible kind of sense and I agree completely with Garry Wills who described the Republican primaries as “ a revolting combination of con men & fanatics— “the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office.”

True enough.

But yet…

… there are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jon Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed.

All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.

This is not an exercise in bemoaning regrettable policy choices or cheering favorable ones but to ask fundamentally: Who are we? What are we voting for? And what does it mean?

(...Please read the rest of this dialogue.)

---