A common wingnut reply

[SHRED]

When pointing out the rampant Republican corruption, and it appears I have a Rw'er on the ropes, the standard reply I get is, "They are all corrupt. How do you think they get elected? Some are better at hiding it than others."

I don't go looking to engage these types in conversation but I work around them and once in awhile I get RW emails.

For instance, I just got an email quoting Roy Blunt.
Blunt framed his statement about the Democrats' budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 in dire terms.
I then sent the emailer many links pointing out Blunt's corruption with Delay and Abramoff and that coming from Blunt, all things should be taken with a grain of salt.

To which he replied,
"His closet doors are open, Most politicians nail them shut."

It is a pointless endeavor for sure to try to engage with wingnuts but I was wondering if any of you have had success responding to the "they are all corrupt" fall back position that the RW'ers love to hide behind?

[SpiralHawk]

1. The republicons are the modern-day incarnation of the Know Nothing Party

My brother fits your description to a T. He is uninterested in facts, science, reality, or truth. He worships the ground Commander AWOL walks on, and thinks he is a respected veteran who is out for veterans and the 'common man."

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha. He is hopeless. Watches only Faux News. Thinks he is a political sophisticate. Bwa ha ha ha ha.

[Selatius]

2. If your party claims the moral high ground, you should demand higher standards, yet, you didn't.

Therefore, you lost both houses in the eyes of the public.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Perfect.

Dismiss moral relativism as flawed from beginning to end.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I Get The Same Thing On DU Sometimes

People use the same argument here when defending their favorite presidential candidate's record.

FDR was not corrupt. Truman was not corrupt. Lincoln was not corrupt.

Good people are not corrupt. If we accept corrupt people in high offices, we lose. If we demand honesty, we win.

I am reminded of Ben Franklin's closing address at the Constitutional Convention:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

[MADem]

5. And Ben Franklin was no saint, either!!!!

That guy had a pretty storied private life. He made Rudy look like a monk, fachrissake!

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Guess Again

Rumor seems to go far beyond fact. Or, as Ben wrote:

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

[MADem]

9. He didn't have that illegitimate son by magic.

Even if some say the common law wife he took later was the hapless and left-behind mother of the child. And his poor wife was left behind to see to the business end of things for years on end. They spent no time together to speak of. When she croaked, he didn't waste time at all, but proposed to Madame Helvetius who turned him down.

Definitely no saint.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Well...

The illegitimate son is probably true - but at least he took the kid into his household, a pretty unusual thing. He did spend plenty of time away from his family, but he also spent plenty of time with his family.

[MADem]

15. Yeah, but he also kept a log of everything he spent on the kid, and viewed it as a LOAN

That's in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Little-Revenge-Benjamin-Franklin-His/dp/0316733644

His house in London where he lived is now open to the public, http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART32208.html

He was gone a lot from home: http://www.fi.edu/franklin/birthday/faq.html#08

What countries did Ben travel to, and why?
1724-26 - England, to continue training as a printer
1757-1762 - England, acting as London representative of the Pennsylvania Assembly
1764-66 - England, to Craven Street, London
1767 - To France
1774 - To England
1776-84 - France, acting as a American Commissioner to France, negotiates Treaty of Alliance with France.
Ben was a negotiator of treaties with Prussia and other countries. For England, negotiator of the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain.

He was a fascinating guy, a genius, really, an amazing linguist, an international icon of his day, but like I said, he was no saint. He didn't even bother to come home after his wife had a stroke. And later, she died.

[rasputin1952]

7. Odd thing about Franklin though, he never claimed to be a paragon

of virtue.

His private, as well as public life was called into quesion quite often, esentially he told people, "so what?"

Hamilton was the same way, when asked if he fathered a son out of wedlock, he answered, "yes". The scandal died right then and there. If he had said anything else, he would have set off a firestorm of protestations and all kinds of condemnation. He owned up to it, and there was no fight.

The situation gets hot when there is an attempt to cover something up, and that rarely, if ever works...:)

[MADem]

4. "Well, if they're all corrupt, why the hell didn't you point that fact out seven years ago?

You rode the gravy train all these years, so you're no better than they are...no worse, because you behefitted from their corruption..."

Frankly, though--it ain't worth it. They're nuts. They don't want to be convinced, they just are desperate to SHARE the blame.

The best answer, really, is "Suuuuuuure, asshole. That's what enablers say when their crooked pals get caught. Don't break anything trying to distance yourself from these bums you've been in bed with all this time...I'm not buying your bullshit, pal, so give it up."

[Kokonoe]

8. What I do is tell them

"thats what the right wing media always says when they get caught". It's hard for them to argue against truth.

[Deep13]

11. It is important for conservatives to believe that.

It is important for them to think that government is their enemy and not the solution to any problem.

[baldguy]

12. Yes, they're all corrupt.

But the difference is the scale of the corruption. While Dem will steal the change out of the penny cup at the convenience store register, a 'puke will steal the entire building.

Given that choice, who do you vote for? The one who represents the interests of average people in the majority, or the one represents the interests of the monied minority against those of the majority?

As the old joke goes: "A ________ voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders." Fill in the blank.

[madmom]

13. All politicians lie or are corrupt etc........

but only the repukes get caught.Works for me.

[OHdem10]

16. "Clinton did it" drives me up the wall.

Their great moral compass is that of a 4 year old.

Their explanation Clinton did it, reminds me
of children.

Clinton should feel honored . He is the moral
standard to which Republicans hold themselve.
If Clinton did it is fine and they will follow???
hehehe.

Of course, often they twist circumstances into a
pretzel to say Clinton did something.
The latest--insisting no difference between Clinton's
changing out US Attorneys at the beginning of his
term and Bush firng 8 US Attornerys with no
explanation in the 6th year of his presidency.
Faux News has chewed this pretzel until it is
is unrecognizable.

Clinton did it ---Clinton did it---Clinton did it.

[SemperEadem]

19. by that reason, they should be asked

"So if Clinton torched the White House and pee'd in the Capitol Rotunda, then it's ok for the thugs to torch the White House, the Congress buildings, the Supreme Court Bldg and shoot to kill anyone driving down Constitution Avenue, too?"

Since when did two wrongs make a right?

[MADem]

20. The answer to that is, "Well, Jimmy Carter fucking didn't, and you trash his ass too." NT

[gratuitous]

17. Toss out a few particulars

Go to the Duke Cunningham conviction, and run down a partial list of the loot he took to sell his vote. Then challenge your correspondent to come up with a similar list for any Democrat who's served in the last eight years.

Move on to Jack Abramoff. Run down the list of corruption there, and ask for a similar Democratic list. Note particularly that despite the efforts of some people in the media (okay, Katie Couric) to say that Abramoff was an equal opportunity corruptor, working both sides of the aisle, he never gave a dime to any Democratic official.

If "they are all corrupt," run down a list of GOP corruption (with convictions: Cunningham, Ney, Safavian, Abramoff, etc.) and ask for a similar list (with convictions) of Democratic corruption. When your correspondent fails to respond, ask him again. And again.

[treestar]

18. Some of my experience with wingnuts:

When they are backed into a corner, they change the subject. They keep going until they can deny they said what they originally said:

Wingnut: It is immoral for a society to take other people's money and give it to the poor.
Reasonable person: Is that more immoral than a society having people who are starving while other people own yachts?
WN: People should not have children unless they know they have the money to raise them.
RP: suppose the circumstances change?
WN: They should know whether or not they have a job, are married, etc., before they have children.
RP: What if they do, but circumstances change?
WN: If they are working and they are married and have the money to raise children, they will not need to take other people's money. Other people who earned their money. They can go to charity.
RP: There is not that much charity in the U.S., or we would never have needed to force other people to give their money for a welfare program for the poor. But suppose the couple had jobs when they had children but then circumstances changed? Is it really more immoral for society to let them starve than to take a little bit from the rich so they poor don't starve?
WN: I did not say that.

And they will never admit that they really said that it is a far better thing that the poor starve than that "other people" lose even a cent, when those other people can still be rich/middle class after they pay the taxes for the welfare program.