Why is it that the right wingers (and I am including those that call themselves Democrats but are not, in actuality), when confronted with something they said that is wrong, and by wrong, I don't mean something that can be taken ambiguously, but out, and out, wrong, the talking point always ends up being -- "well, we simply disagree on this issue?"
For an example, watching Rachel Maddow last night, and her interview with J.D. Hayworth, she played an audio of him stating that the Massachusetts Supreme court "defined marriage as simply quote the establishment of intimacy" which he followed up with concluding that given that definition one could marry one's horse. Of course Rachel read the opinion of the court and could not find that statement. She even read the ruling covering all the sentences that used the word "intimacy" and there was nothing that came even close to what Mr. Hayworth stated. He continued to say that there was simply a disagreement between them. Rachel pointed out there there was no disagreement, the ruling as it stands is empirical, and Mr. Hayworth's statement was untrue. Again, he states that's fine, they can have a disagreement, and he appreciates that they have a disagreement.
This is why we have such a blurred line between the truth and the lies that have now become part of American culture. It's called a disagreement -- not a lie!
5 comments:
I watched the entire interview this morning and noticed he had the same type of response to all of Maddow's questions.
It's hard for most people to face the fact that they've been wrong or lying, then called out for it. Some more than others. Still others make political careers out of sticking their fingers in their ears, singing, "la-la-la-la I can't hear you"... like this Limbaugh wannabe. That's his schtick.
So when they say Obama is a Communist, we simply agree to disagree?
I really do not have a problem with truly agreeing to disagree on things related to religious beliefs, opinions on ideology and other stuff of that nature. But when empirical data is challenged on the basis of someone just choosing to disagree with it, it's a bit of a tough sell for me. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4, and when someone tries to tell me that it's just my opinion and they disagree with it, I want to pound them into sand.
It's like that old saying I'm about to paraphrase that the nuts have taken over the asylum.
And I don't find it just in politics. We old school lawyers notice the new kids on the block lie like mofos and think they are some kind of hotshots or something. We're old school in my office, and we are astounded at some things these attorneys say to us about what is law and/or legal. I can't tell you how many times my partner has asked an opposing counsel "what law school did you graduate from" because the statement out of that lawyers mouth was so unbelievable!
The ability to lie with impunity has become the norm over the past 10 to 15 years. It drives me bat shit crazy.
Old school journalism would hold people and others accountable, and when something was not true, they reported the lie as an untruth. Today, it's simply well, this is what one side said, this is what the other side said ... you decide, we just report. But, then again, we have a preponderance of media these days to distort factual evidence and report it as fact, hold back from being on the tube people that actually know what they are talking about, and bring on celebrity pundits who lack tremendous credibility but make for good sound bites.
We're simply spoonfed what corporations want us minions to know, and if you are not used to researching for yourself, you are pretty much useless in this society if you base your information about the world and this country on a few news programs and talk radio.
I can't believe this. To add to what I just commented on, I go over to Crooks and Liars and read an interview with Michael Moore concerning his new movie, and here's a quote that stands out: "The mainstream media is a huge distraction, and I have no doubt this is purposely done," he says. "It's a system of enforced ignorance to keep people dumb."
Exactly.
Yeah. If someone's for or against something, usually I don't even care why. Maybe it's just a basic philosophical difference. But more & more there's some totally nutball reason provided for the opinion.
Post a Comment