More left-of-center reaction

by thoughtfulconservative

UPDATE: 4-8-08 – The discussion in the comments contends I did not read their posts correctly. So be it. My apologies to them.)

As steveegg suggests, get some popcorn.

The people are stupid. Be sure to read those comments. Oh, yeah, did I mention the people are stupid?

Half of the state belongs to the WMC.

Brain Fraley has more, including the two above.

I guess WEAC’s and Greater Wisconsin’s money wasn’t enough. The last link is truly the pot calling the kettle black coming from xoff.

Republicans are ill-behaved, at best. Yeah like that Walker and Hitler post. Those conservatives sure do slime people. Oh, and they are liars.

Some apparently haven’t seen the out state vote, because they blame everything on talk radio.

There are over 400,000 bad people in Wisconsin.

Via Dad29, quoting Mordecai Lee, there are over 400,000 racists in Wisconsin.

The Left actually won.

Lest you think everyone is whining.

Advertisements

10 Responses to “More left-of-center reaction”

  1. To be clear, there is nothing in my post (I believe) to suggest that people are stupid. I am disappointed in their decision, of course, but my anger and irritation is being directed at those who not only lied outright in their campaign, but dressed it up with a pretty ugly case of hiding their agenda. I thought I made that clear, and I do have to wonder what people are thinking if they read that as my dissing voters, as opposed to the SOBs who deserve it.

  2. Which is why I said to “Be sure to read the comments.”

    I could have worded it differently, of course, like “While some people are smart enough to see through the lies of WEAC and GWC, others are not smart enough to see through the lies of WMC and CFAF.”

    But that’s so long. And you probably wouldn’t like that any better.

  3. Dean,

    I made no such assertion that all Conservatives are liars, and you know it. Are you seriously going to deny that Gableman’s ads were misleading? (I’m assuming that reference is what you were calling attention to.) I think you know better than that, too.

    Also, did you not read that I was, in fact, more depressed about Tom Crean leaving Marquette? Should that not have told you that my remark about misleading ads was meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek? If I was insufficiently clear about that, then I certainly apologize for misleading you.

  4. “Via Dad29, quoting Mordecai Lee, there are over 400,000 racists in Wisconsin.”

    In English, to say that A quoted B is to say that B actually said that.

    Since this “400,000 racists” thing is something that either you, or Dad29, or both made up, it seems rather remarkable to use the word “quoting”. Why not just say “Made up by me and Dad29” instead? Take a little pride in your imagination!

    What Dad29 attributed to Lee as of 9 pm on election night was this: “since there has never been an elected black SCOWI Justice, it means that the electorate is racist. And since Butler was losing, the reason was…..race.”

    The construction of the “400,000” made-up non-quote is bit mathematically mysterious even if we assume Dad29 to be a highly reliable reporter of things he disagrees with when he’s fleetingly heard them on television — in spite of being generally unable to accurately represent views he dislikes when these are written down for him to read and re-read at his leisure.

    In light of the corrections others have submitted to the errors in your post, perhaps the title of the whole thing should just be changed to “Things I’ve Made Up”.

  5. If it is an overstatement to say “X says there are 400K racists…” then is it NOT an overstatement to state that “Racism” drove the election results?

  6. Well, Figulus (or is it just plain Harry), let’s go over them again. Hopefully, you’ll get it this time.

    I did not use quotation marks, so I didn’t say,

    folkbum said, “The people are stupid.”

    And notice, as I pointed out to Jay above, that I added “Be sure to read the comments.”

    Read Jay’s post and his liberal commenters with an open mind (if that’s possible) and see what you think.

    X (perhaps, Y and Z, too) lied and Gableman was elected. This implies to me that those who voted for Gableman, myself included, by the way, were unable to parse the lies from the campaign (I lump the third party ads with both campaigns for the sake of this post) and thus voted for Gableman. To me, that implies the ones who voted for Butler were, at the least, more discerning and therefore smart.

    So I believe the tenor of Jay’s post and the comments as, I read it, was that the people were, at best, not discerning and not smart.

    Perhaps Jay did not mean that, but several people commented similarly around the blogosphere.

    Sam said, I made no such assertion that all Conservatives are liars, and you know it. I’m sure he thinks he didn’t, and maybe he thinks there’s a difference between “mislead” and “lie” but it didn’t take me long to find this definition. Seems like the same thing to me.

    OK, he used Gableman instead of Conservatives. Big deal.

    Ask Sam how he thinks conservatives get elected to office.

    I will admit “quoting” is out of place there. Even without quotation marks it implies Mordecai Lee said that when he didn’t. But here is dad29 quote, “since there has never been an elected black SCOWI Justice, it means that the electorate is racist.”

    What does “the electorate is racist” imply to you?

  7. “Well, Figulus (or is it just plain Harry), let’s go over them again. Hopefully, you’ll get it this time… I will admit “quoting” is out of place there. Even without quotation marks it implies Mordecai Lee said that when he didn’t.”

    Now there’s the least gracious, longest-winded, and most roundabout way of saying, in effect: You were absolutely right about the thing your post was virtually entirely concerned with.

    My final remark, that perhaps your entire post was simply made up out of whole cloth, I will qualify in light of your new rationalizations: Perhaps not the entire post.

  8. Dean,

    Just because I think Gableman ran misleading ads does not imply that I believe that all conservatives are liars. If I did, I would not have voted for Mark Green as my congressional representative, for example. You’re taking my statement that Gableman’s ads were misleading and applying it universally. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely suggest that to be the case. Perhaps I can put it this way, since I spent way too much time studying logic:

    I implied only one proposition: Gableman’s ads were misleading.

    You insist on reading into it this syllogism:

    Gableman is a conservative.
    Gableman ran misleading ads.
    Ergo, all conservatives run misleading ads.

    But you commit a serious error here, because you presume that I ascribing “misleadingness” to be an essential quality of conservatism. I did no such thing. Allow me to present an argument of similar form to yours, but just as wrong:

    My friend has a dog.
    My friend’s dog has three legs.
    Ergo, all dogs have three legs.

    Both arguments are equally wrong because they assume that the quality named in the second proposition (“running misleading ads” and “having three legs”) is universally applicable to all members of the group in question. But obviously they are not.

    Furthermore, I object your implication that I somehow think conservatives are one trick ponies, relying on misleading ads to get elected. At least, that’s the only possible inference to draw from this:

    “Ask Sam how he thinks conservatives get elected to office.”

    That sounds awfully bitter for someone who passes himself of as “thoughtful.” Heck, I don’t think Scott Walker, to name just one conservative, was misleading at all. I didn’t like what he campaigned on (then again, I didn’t like his opponent much either), and I felt he was wrong on several issues, but he wasn’t lying about Lena Taylor in anyway like the Gableman campaign was about Justice Butler (so much so that even Charlie Sykes objected, if I recall). So there you go universalizing my particularities again.

    I don’t mind you taking issue with what I post in my blog. I do mind you doing it in a manner that is, yes, misleading.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: