How Do I Even Respond to this Conservative's Response?

[Jason9612]

I was arguing with this real conservative guy, and he said the following to me:

"Wow. Boy, are you smart and informed. I guess I better forget all the facts I know and get down the turnpike and study at your school of brainwashing.

I notice you try to slip that accusation in any chance you get and I get sick of reading it since I know for a fact you are wrong.

Hitting Iraq was required, FACT.

Iraq was a socialist state which means everyone of you don't like it so you resort to the typical liberal talking points.

You have been exposed to the truth but you don't care. It's more fun protesting right? "


Seriously, I don't even know how to respond to this thing. It was one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. I don't even know where to start.

How should I rip this guy apart?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Iraq was a socialist state?

I'd start there. What a moran.

[Coexist]

5. that line made me laugh.

A socialist state. Oh my.

and Hitting Iraq was necessary? FACT???! What in the world.

[Coexist]

7. Ok - ask him/her "tell me why hitting Iraq was necessary."

and "explain to me why you think Iraq was a socialist state? First, define Socialism and explain how that applies to Saddam Hussein's regime."

Put the burden on him/her.

[LostinVA]

12. Socialist? WTF? Give him an intro to political thought book first

[BattyDem]

22. He doesn't have a clue.

I'm still working on, "Hitting Iraq was required. Fact." Um ... required by whom for what? :shrug:

[progdonkey]

28. the Baath Party was a Socialist party...

So, he's not that misguided in saying it was a "socialist" state,

BUT defining Iraq as "socialist" because the Baath Party was socialist is like saying George Bush and the Republicans, who laud the "free market" and competition, actually like there to be competition in business, instead of the corporate welfare that they actually practice.

[AllieB]

33. Like saying the Nazis were Socialist bec. their party was

National Socialist.

[progdonkey]

36. good example, though with one reservation...

I'm not saying the guy's not woefully uninformed about both socialism and Iraq for calling it a "socialist" state, and the Nazis are indeed an example of a nominally "socialist" party that was anything but.

The other responses, however, seemed (to me, at least) to not be calling the guy an idiot because he's misinformed about the actual state of Saddam's Iraq, but because the very idea that someone would identify Iraq as a socialist state is so ludicrous as to define someone as beyond all hope, and I just wanted to point out that the Baath Party was ostensibly based on a Socialist platform, so their incredulity that someone would even think that Iraq was a socialist state or refer to it as such was a bit unfounded IMHO.

For example, if he had been referring to an Eastern Bloc country during the Cold War, he would be just as wrong referring to it as "socialist" in the real sense of actual policies and their effect on the people, but I doubt the other posters would be implying he's nuts for referring to it as a "socialist state."

My one reservation about using the Nazis as an example: the Nazis could never be confused as anything other than fascists (though one guy at school thought they were extremely left wing, but he was a dumb-as-dirt Christian fundie so I wouldn't really count him--nice guy, but stupid as hell), whereas Saddam could be correctly called a Stalinist, ie. the National "Socialists" were actually extreme authoritarian right wingers, whereas the socialist Baath Party were extreme authoritarian (though still) left wingers. So, calling the Baath Party socialist is much closer to the truth than calling the Nazis socialist. (Of course, there's the old dictum that if you go far enough in either direction....)

So, the guy's definitely deserving of derision for being so uninformed, but the level heaped on him seemed to me more than really deserved. (Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go throw up since I just realized I've written two posts defending a freeper for the great "virtue" of being not quite as stupid to me as he is to others. :evilgrin: )

[MADem]

2. Why bother? Tell the fucker to put a twist of lime in his KoolAid, it'll

go down easier.

He's one of the rock-dumb, unmovable twenty percent. Fuggedaboutim!

[Dunvegan]

19. Perhaps it's more that Bush is doing just what he wants done...

...perhaps he likes being a plebian in an Empire.

Perhaps he harbors real feelings of hate for Muslims and foreigners, and Bush is expressing this man's cheerful xenophobia via policy.

Perhaps he likes war just fine, as long as it's a spectator sport not held on American soil, and he loves cheering for the American Christian Non-Brown team.

Perhaps he wants women to be far more controllable, and cheers the fact BushCo. has been giving him that, policies that control the bodies of women.

Perhaps he want's to see illegial aliens treated like HitlerCo. treated the Jews...only Halliburton would be far less "efficient" in thier "detention centers."

Perhaps he'd fit into Germany 1939 very well as a New Reich (World Order) cheerleader, just like his "CiC" (Cheerleader In Chief.)

[PuraVidaDreamin]

3. I'd tell him it's more fun watching him lose his composure

because everyone is waking up while he's stilll
in denial.

[XemaSab]

4. So he's saying that we had to attack Iraq

because they were socialists?

:shrug:

(on edit: tell him that the official reason for attacking Iraq is that they had WMD and they were about to attack us, then move on to questioning why a secular dictator would enter into an alliance with the biggest Islamic wingnuts in the Middle East. Facts have a well-known liberal bias.)

[Nickster]

14. Duh! LMAO....n/t

[400Years]

6. Tell him "Opinions are not facts."

as far as the rest of his bullshit...

[Richardo]

11. Tell him "reality has a decided liberal bias"

Thank you, Mr. Colbert.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. Clearly not a member of the reality based community

It's hard to respond to people who attack facts and replace them with fictions that they think are facts. Of course that explains this whole administration.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Ask him for the FACTs that made hitting Iraq a requirement. I'd like

to know if he still believes in WMDs, Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection, Saddam and 9/11, and the Easter Bunny.

[Ezlivin]

10. Yeah, remember how we bombed the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics?

They had nukes and had them pointed right at us. In fact, one of their dictators got up at the U.N. and pounded the podium with his shoe, saying that they "would bury you." Pretty friggin' belligerent, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and they had nuclear submarines just a few miles off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts loaded with nuclear missiles.

And they propped up all sorts of despots.

Do you remember our USSR bombing campaign?

Gee, I wonder why....

[XemaSab]

16. Right before we bombed Cuba

It's in the history books. Look it up.

[lapfog_1]

35. I guess we should attack all socialists states

starting with China... and Cuba, and Vietnam (once is NOT enough!), and Italy and Greece and and and... Canada (they have socialized medical care!) and, US (we still have SOCIAL security!)

[Dogmudgeon]

13. "If you want to write jokes, call Jay Leno"

Edited to make it clear that I'm quoting, not accusing!

"If you want to talk politics, take your thumb out of your mouth (ass/nose/etc) and make your case like an adult."

Appeals to maturity, masculinity, morality, etc., never fail against puffed-up conservatives.

--p!

[Beaverhausen]

15. Isn't France Socialist? Why aren't we attacking them?

:crazy:

[Mz Pip]

17. If being a socialist state

is justification for waging pre emptive war then we've got our work cut out for us. What about Norway?

I would ask what FACT required war with Iraq? WMDs? Not a fact. Imminent threat? Another piece of fiction.

Tell him to 'educate' you on his FACTS. I'd be curious as to what they are.

The Socratic method is good at times like these. As questions. Demand answers.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[kittenpants]

18. Ask him what "socialist state" we should take out next. n/t

[sojourner]

20. Request data to back up his so-called facts...

re: all the facts he knows...just ask him to share them.

You'll find he can't find real, legitimate facts. He'll throw out more opinions - but you keep asking, "and how is it that we know that? where are the sources of this information because for sure I would like to know what I am missing."

You can also call him on calling opinions facts...."Hitting Iraq was required, FACT" -- um, no that is a statement of opinion. Facts would be the data, the information that supports the opinion.

[Warpy]

21. So, loudmouth, when are we going to invade Sweden?

They're far more socialist than Iraq was, as is every other state in the middle east (including Israel) and nearly all of Europe.

You're being sold another lie about toppling socialism when you've bought so many lies in the past: we're preventing a madman from getting the bomb, we're preventing a madman from selling a stockpile of nerve gas and bio weapons to the terrorist, we're stopping a madman who IS a terrorist, we're bringing democracy, apple pie and motherhood to the poor stupid Iraqis, and now we're toppling socialism?

Man, you guys sure are gullible. There's always another lie they can get you to fall for.

The Nigerian scammers are amateurs. They should just get a list of GOP donors to send their scam letters to.

[MadMaddie]

23. Ask him if he feels safer since 9/11? Does he think that the US

is going to get hit again....especially in light of all of the fuck ups from this administration.....They could have had Zarqoui(I know this is not spelled correctly) and OBL and they chose not to take them out...Why?

Ask him if he is better off than he was on 09/10? He must be paying the same gas prices we are? Does he have health insurance? Are his grocery bills higher? Is he one paycheck away from catastrophe...oh the list could go on and on....

[Brotherjohn]

24. That's the problem with this type. It's a "faith-based" argument.

They throw out a simple, unproven (unprovable) statement that they simply "believe".

You can come back with a million bits of evidence that counters it, and it doesn't matter. They're not gonna believe it. When it comes right down to it, actually, you can't really "prove" him false (or prove that your own belief that it was not necessary true), unless you can play out both scenarios and compare the two.

But you can argue with reason, and evidence, that nothing made Iraq a significant threat to us, or anyone else. But he's not gonna listen.

I get caught up in these "debates" sometimes on Huffington Post, and I wonder why I do it. I'd say "don't. But if there's an audience reading it, then even if the person you're responding to doesn't get it, maybe you can change the mind of someone else who may be reading.

But back to a specific idea for responding, just stick to your guns and present EVIDENCE, and when he counters with non-statements like "I notice you try to slip that accusation in any chance you get and I get sick of reading it since I know for a fact you are wrong", reply by asking why, when presented with voluminous evidence, are you able to do nothing but "I'm sick of hearing that! You're just wrong!" Ask them why they can't rebut your facts. Challenge them.

Point out that what they're doing is the equivalent of covering their ears and shouting "Nah nah nah... I can't hear you!!!" Make your clear case and show them for what they are.

It won't matter if no one else is reading but the clueless person you're responding to. But if you have a wider audience, it may be worth it.

[Ikonoklast]

25. I'd back away slowly, being careful not to make eye contact or a

sudden movement. It is obvious that he is mentally unbalanced and rational discourse on your part will only enrage him as you question his belief system.

Part of Bush's Backwash; forget him and his failed "facts". History and reality are running right past that doofus.

[bunkerbuster1]

26. Is he posting this message from Iraq?

Is he fightin' 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here?

[bowens43]

27. 'go fuck yourself , moron' works for me.

[tom_boy]

29. Been there. Done that.

When they want to stop thinking they just repeat over and over...
"Those are just liberal talking points"

[treestar]

39. Thinking tires them out so quickly.

[tom_boy]

41. obviously

[shadowknows69]

30. Just write in words with more than one syllable

and that should sufficiently confuse him.

[bluerum]

31. How about - Hussein was a dictator. How about why was hitting Iraq

required?

How about - how are we OR Iraq any better off now than we were $100 billion and 3 years ago?

How about you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts?

[deutsey]

32. Ask him what he means by "socialist" first

That should provide you with a good laugh, if nothing else.

You can then ask why would the CIA help to install a "socialist" regime in Iraq (they did help the Baathist Party come to power in the '60s, as you probably know...); then why did the Reagan administration do business with and sell arms to a socialist dictatorship?



Then you could to cull an explanation from him about why Cheney, when he was with Halliburton, did business with Saddam?

[treestar]

40. Right wingers label anything to the left of them socialist

point out that it refers to state ownership of the means of production and they start claiming that taxation is control of their money and that such is the equivalent of socialism.

They also refer to taxation as "stealing" their money (to give it to the lazy poor who won't work, the illegal immigrants, etc., you get the idea). This includes all taxes passed by Congress to date.

[kiki]

34. www.goarmy.com/careers/ n/t

[Ksec]

37. Why bother?

These types are worthless and nothing you say will change that. Just walk away and save yourself .

[mac56]

38. (1) Tell him that "I'm sick of reading it" is a wussy non-response.

(2) Ask him to tell you just where you've been "exposed to the truth".

It's so pathetic to argue with these folks. You can say the grass is green and the sky is blue. And they'll respond, "Oh sure, you and your brainwashing. If you're stupid enough to believe THAT.........."