This mind-blowing comment by the one-hit wonder “bubbabru” struck me as uniquely appropriate as we head into next week’s elections. I apparently set him off by my response to a commenter expressing wonderment at the defenses being offered by supporters of an animal abusing and crooked veterinarian. She wrote, ” I can’t even figure out the kind of mindset that requires pooh-poohing such overwhelming evidence of someone who is, at the very least, a depraved and wicked person.” I responded,
“Why do people still claim Michael Jackson was pure as the driven snow? Why do people still say Nixon was hounded from office, or that Clinton was a victim? Why does anyone say that JFK was a great man? Why is anyone fooled by Hillary? Why do people still insist that Obama is a brilliant, honest, skilled leader? Why do people still think the Rosenbergs were innocent? It’s self-delusion, because people fight to hold on to their illusions, and resent those who try to point out the horrible truth, especially when it makes them feel like dupes.“
This relatively bi-partisan list of delusions unwittingly triggered the vomiting up of the Angry Left talking points, lies and mythology that follow. Is this what the “base” of a major party is like? (I assume that there is a polar version, equally unhinged, fact-resistant and hateful, for Republicans.) If so, one can only diagnose being part of a base as akin to being a member of a cult. For any responsible politician to intentionally nurture and try to profit from this kind of disability is not only antidemocratic, it approaches evil. How many American are mired in the hyper-partisan hate fantasies illustrated by this Comment of the Day? Can they be saved?
I worry about the answers to those questions, and a third: how can we stop this crippling contagion from spreading? Here is the Comment of the Day. Res ipsa loquitur:
Why do fools still think Iraqi’s flew planes into the twin towers? What idiots still believe Iraq had WMD’s. Why did we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people just because George W. wanted to? Why did the tea baggers insist of the first day of office for Obama that they were NOT going to allow him to get anything accomplished and spent the next 6 years being the party of no? Why is it that republican’s are the only group of people that think gay people need repairing when the rest of the world has joined the current century and supporting the fact that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? Why do baggers think women should make less than men? Why do Republican’s celebrate American’s killing innocent children in foreign lands as “collateral damage” but go ballistic when a woman terminates a pregnancy early due to her health? Why do Republican’s see the people running Abu Ghraib as heroes? What sort of old fool would select a Sarah Palin idiot to be in line to run this country? And lastly, who in the hell do you think actually believes in the year 2014 that ALL this non stop Obamabashing has anything at ALL to do with anything at ALL except the color of his skin?
Yet how typical is it that someone would use this hideous event (one that might draw us ALL together from all parties) to remind us how separated we are. We will never be able to work for any COMMON cause because some people see only BLACK and can’t see beyond it.
Ethics Alarms 
I’d say that some people are so indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking- some virtually from the cradle- and that that form of thinking is so re-enforced by the news and entertainment media plus peer and teacher pressure throughout their mentally malleable juvenile period that they require a big shock of experience to ever get over it. Remember Lenin’s maxim regarding education, too. The Left does… and their present day minions in all Western nations (including America) are heard to repeat it among themselves in careless moments. When indoctrination supersedes education and critical thinking, almost any pattern of illogic or depravity is possible.
I have not noticed far right-wingers coming on this site to spew right-wing talking points.
Well, don’t forget “Ronbo”…
Actually, I’m a conservative, and if I can find any of the far right wing talking points, I’d be happy to spew them. Although that ding-bat from chimpmania or whatever that site was (and probably still is) did a pretty good job for the few days he lasted.
@Michael, Re: “far right-wingers coming on this site”
As if they are migratory animals.
Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the overall general readership of this site may have a mindset that leads to a preponderance of opinions that you just don’t agree with–or should I say that you would call “right wing?”
What?
**Is this what the “base” of a major party is like? (I assume that there is a polar version, equally unhinged, fact-resistant and hateful, for Republicans.) If so, one can only diagnose being part of a base as akin to being a member of a cult.**
Exactly. Only the base you refer to is generally called a “fringe.”
The base of each party — limited to two for the sake of reasonable discourse — is by turns frightened, confused, insecure, defensive and mightily disturbed. It does not like being polarized; it is not comfortable being at war with its neighbors.
It knows — knows — that “the other side” has (some; sometimes) reasonable arguments and worthwhile goals. It thought it was allowable to lean to the right or to left … not that it had to maintain a rigid posture under all circumstances, even if it meant its own injury.
It thinks it’s going mentally deaf, if not crazy, because it is either hearing the same one-sided message over and over again, no matter what the medium, or hearing only silence in reply to its cries for answers or aid.
So, yeah. The thing about not wanting to be a member of a cult anymore, especially if you hadn’t realized you were and it was, is that, (a) You have to have enough intellect, education, and resources to re-educate yourself. If you came out of a family and school system that never taught you (specifically, deliberately taught you) to think and analyze and conclude for yourself . . . . If you were not able to locate and evaluate the trustworthiness of sources of information which is, to put it mildly, a most difficult task; . . . . If you believed you knew everything inportant you needed to know and simply had to follow the old signposts (In other words, if you labeled your education Finished — at any point. Ever.) . . . . You will vote for the elephant or the donkey every time. Or forget to vote at all.
(b) You need to have the courage to go through a painful self-re-education, taking responsibility for poor or even downright wrong choices. And actions. This also means (if only in your own mind and in some cases) that you will be betraying the memories of respected loved ones, teachers, families, friends, companions-at-arms so to speak.
(c) You must be ready to risk facing not ostracism — that would enable you to stand tall and say, see! I was correct; they won’t listen to reason — but rather a soft pillow of impenetrable indifference which absorbs your facts and logic with a sad smile, pats you gently on the head and urges you quietly to go back to sleep–you’ll feel better in the morning. Social intercourse will go on as usual, except that some of your (former) fellow cult members will look at you funny if you mention any political candidate or controversial item, and immediately change the subject.
(d) Then you must be resigned to fighting your own mind every day to keep it humming in place with new hypotheses and re-elucidated perceptions, even as it becomes harder as you age.
(e) Last (and most frustrating), you have to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, hum a ragtime tune and count slowly to a billion and one after a member of the Other Cult — or anyone else — gets the idea that you’ve gone and joined them.
Thanks soooo much, Jack.
I’m reminded rather strongly of SNL’s most notable 2012 election skit (mirrored at http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/23/snl-mocks-undecided-voters/ , among other places. Ignore the textual reference to a certain asshole).
I uh…. I dont get it…
I think my brain just died trying to understand the comment. Do people really reason and rationalize like this? How does one confuse themselves so much that they can ignore fact for fiction?
I wonder what it will take to fix the last twenty years of polarization. I don’t want to know what it will take to fix the education system. That is a frightening question.
It reminds me of a line from Billy Madison which was once cited in an actual legal opinion: “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
It seems to sum out this comment of the day as well.
Is this the first time you’ve marked an idiotic comment of the day? Most of them have been interesting or insightful.
I believe it is the second or third. I think of this as a companion piece to the Mediate comments post of a couple weeks ago, and I would put it in the “Interesting” category. I was amazed at the sheer consistency of the factual disconnect and bias. Republicans think the Abu Ghraib hillbillies were heroes? The rest of the world embraces gay marriage? There is no rational basis to criticize Barack Obama, just racism? And the “bagger” slur—I hope Anderson Cooper regrets that one to his very soul—a gay man inflicting a gay slang term as a slur on a grass roots conservative group–Nice. So professional. So objective.
I should also note that your comment on the idiotic comment was Comment of the Day worthy, really superb, and I might yet post it as such. Comments of the Day on Comments of the Day get kind of confusing.
You should attribute it to the person who uttered it in the movie… or possible the judge Leif Clark who cited it in a legal footnote in 2006, which is where I first heard of it.
It doesn’t feel COTD worthy to me, because it was mostly just a quote, no matter how fitting. I actually felt slightly dumber after slogging through the whole comment, and had to actively fight the urge to just skip over it all. Then I had to fight the secondary urge to fisk it.
Ugh…I’m sorry! I got Phlinn and PENN mixed up. I love your cooment, but the one I was referring to as COTD-worthy was Penn’s long one here.
heh… no worries. That makes a lot more sense now. 🙂
That’s a high compliment, Jack, thanks.
And I second Phlinn’s “no worries” — people get my name mixed up with others’ all the time.
[smiley faces annoy me; I know you get it but just in case someone else is reading . . .]
Because of course Republicans become so much more friendly when the topic turns to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Joe Biden….
It’s moments like this when I’m reminded that half the world population has a below average IQ.
Did you mean “below median IQ”?
I notice a difference in tone, content, and quantity between comments made heaping on Democrats and those made heaping on Republicans. Certainly, the most virulent of Right Wingers will sound as addled and foolish as the comment in question, but I seem to notice more of them from the Left “fringe”, implying the Left fringe is much closer to the Left mainstream than the Right Fringe is to the Right mainstream.
Tex, my hypothesis, such as it is, is that the Left has, in their own minds, moved the Center far to the left. Thus, ‘Moderate Republicans’ are seen, by them, as vile, uncaring, and unworthy of winning elections. Conservatives are seen as raving lunatics, and the ACTUAL Far Right are seen as Hyper-religious (Bible-thumping), gun-toting reactionaries. The actual Fringe Right are nothing less than psychopathic, cold-blooded and -eyed killers, fit only for extermination and burial on non-hallowed groung.
Same thing really, given how IQ tends to be distributed.
Also, I was sarcastically referring to the claim that criticism of Obama is solely due to his race, and not because, well, he’s a fricking Democrat, and Republicans by definition aren’t supposed to automatically agree with them.
Ah! I completely misread the target of your comment then! My mistake, it makes sense in that context now.
Just to clarify, the median IQ is 100, which by some strange coincidence is also referred to as the average IQ, or the “mean”. Various classifications above and below the mean are determined by the “Standard Deviations” which are 15 points. Thus “average” or “Normal” IQ ranges from an IQ of roughly 85 to roughly 115. Below 85 is “Borderline”, above 115 is (and I hope you both sitting down) “Bright Normal”.
‘Vomited’ is right, the comment reads like a weeks’ worth of FB political posts, regurgitated.
Sorry, I can’t comment on the content because I was too distracted about the fact that this person does not seem to have any idea how to create plural nouns. Can’t take it. My brain hurts.