The Day After

Is still good. Moonbats whining and screaming, etc.

I repeat from my previous post; if you run around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, murderer, etc., you ain't gonna get through to them. Correction: you will get through to them what contempt you hold them in for not being 'smart' enough to agree with you, and that does not make converts or polite conversation.

I know people I like, who I won't get into some conversations with, because we just cannot connect on them; they cannot understand how I can think the way I do, and vice versa. I know people who think violence is always wrong, no matter what. If your wife/mother/daughter/girlfriend is attacked by a rapist, she should not use violence to protect herself, because that makes her morally as wrong as the rapist. I cannot believe a rational human being can actually believe such a thing, that self-defense is as morally wrong as rape, but they do.

I know people who believe that the only reason anyone would own any firearm is because they intend to commit murder, probably on a minority-group member. To me that is so idiotic I'm not sure how to respond, but they do believe it.

I know people who think that if we don't take the opinion of the U.N. and the rest of the world into account, we have no right to take any action that *might* affect another country. And if other countries won't let you act, doesn't matter why because we should go by what they think. Point out that country B won't let you act because they have a business deal with the country causing you a problem, doesn't matter; you can't act without their approval! I think that's idiocy (see France/Germany/Russia and their Oil For Food Scam deals with Saddam) because you are trusting your safety to places that don't care if you live or die. But they think that's the only 'intelligent' way to act internationally.

I could deal with the arguments, but their attitude that I'm just not intelligent enough, not caring enough, not evolved enough, just makes me shut down. They just don't really give a crap about facts if they interfere with their feelings; in some cases if the facts show their idea wrong, well, that just shouldn't be, and that should be enough to change everything.

With some- not all, some- what makes it worse is that the U.S. is always wrong; it's always our fault, we should do everything differently, we should change, we should...etc. And I'm tired of it. I could more easily change lead to gold than get one of those people to admit that we didn't cause it/whatever 'it' is in this case/, or we didn't make it ok for some bunch of thugs to murder people.

A lot of those folks are very bothered by the idea of 'conservative Christians', or 'conservative/Orthodox Jews' carrying their beliefs into the political arena, but have no problem with their own, because they're different, they're right; some will object that theirs are not 'religeous' viewpoints, just 'right' beliefs. Doesn't matter they hold to them with the fervor of an Inquisitor strapping someone into a rack, no, they are just rational people with the 'right' beliefs. And if you disagree, you're back into the hater/bigot category.

This has gotten a bit out of my original intention, but it still covers some of this crap.

I think Bush has made some bad mistakes, both in things done and things not done; but when someone blows up into the 'Bushitler, chimp, raving drunk', crap, they're not dealing with facts, they're shoving a lot of emotion, mostly hate related into my face, and I walk away. It's not that I can't argue with them, it's that it doesn't matter what I say; anything that disagrees with their emotions on this is bad and wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Connected with this, after Bush was confirmed winner in 2000, a woman playing at an open-mike night at a local place made some commentary about how it hurt that 'her vote didn't count'. She's a lawyer, and says something like that. How do you argue with that?