This Is How the "Left" Thinks

[Aramike]

I've always considered myself a "centrist". Frankly, I like to find holes in the arguments of both sides of the political spectrum. Often, this is far more interesting to me than the issues themselves.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman gives us a great insight into how some people on the left think in this column.. In it he complains about, amongst other things, his cellphone dropping calls. He claims that,

Landing at Kennedy Airport from Hong Kong was, as I’ve argued before, like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones.

Here's another odd quote:

All I could think to myself was: If we’re so smart, why are other people living so much better than us?

REALLY? Thomas Friedman apparently believes that how many bars his cellphone gets and how clean Penn Station's floors are serve as indicators for quality of life.

Abe Greenwald from Commentary Magazine wrote a very poignant response. Here's a gem of a quote:

The Chinese live better than us? That’s insulting. No, not to us - to the poor Chinese! With their industrial slaves, toxic red seas, multicolored air, ethnic warfare, human trafficking, forced population relocations, birth fines, and dam collapses, Thomas Friedman gives them an A+ on the Super Sci-Fi Cellular Network Global Connectivity Scale and calls it a day.

Interesting...

[SUBMAN1]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Typical.

-S

[Diopos]

He's not the right left! Right?

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Diopos

He's not the right left! Right?

I almost started marching at that one:rotfl:

[PeriscopeDepth]

There should be a sticky at the top of this forum. It would be the most popular thread on GT. And it would be called "My politics is bigger than your politics".

PD

[mookiemookie]

As a lefty, I'd just like to say that Friedman is pretty much regarded as an idiot on our side of the spectrum as well.

[Enigma]

I read Friedman's article yesterday. The OP clearly didn't. Gross misrepresentation, as usual.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

There should be a sticky at the top of this forum. It would be the most popular thread on GT. And it would be called "My politics is bigger than your politics".

PD

This isn't about politics. This is about intellectual honesty, hypocrisy, and elitism.

It's about the way that both sides of the aisle skew everything in order to try to make their points resonate.

This is about the way that elements on the left continuously blame the right for this "rich, white guy" mentality then elect Ted Kennedy again and again. This is elements on the right unilaterally claim that taxation is bad, then go on to spend billions without accounting for it.

In Friedman's column alone you see example after example of him taking an element out of context in order to make his argument for a better US infrastructure. If your point is so damned valid, why do you have to be so "pie-in-the-sky" about it?

We just see this phenomenon again and again. In the abortion debate alone, we have primarily two sides which are absurdly titled "prolife" and "pro-choice". The right-wing acts as though it's somehow the moral highground on general issues of life, then go on to be for capital punishment. The left-wing acts as though the only choice that is presented is AFTER conception. Why not just tell the truth? Why these grand, bullsh** titles instead of the REAL positions of anti-abortion and pro-abortion?

These are the things I find interesting/frustrating. Thomas Friedman is just another case-in-point. He just made it REAL easy to post about.

[joegrundman]

This isn't about politics. This is about intellectual honesty, hypocrisy, and elitism.

gosh so many political dog whistles in one and a half sentences and yet you claim to be in the center.

And i suppose you also feel that you yourself are displaying this thing called intellectual honesty in the topic and title

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

gosh so many political dog whistles in one and a half sentences and yet you claim to be in the center.

And i suppose you also feel that you yourself are displaying this thing called intellectual honesty in the topic and title

Yes. And I suppose you have a reason why I'm wrong other than the fact that I'm pointing out the flaw of a lefty instead of a righty?

I wonder if you'd still be all riled up were I to point out the inconsistancies of Rush Limbaugh... Somehow I doubt it. The title is honest. Like it or not. It would be the same if I were criticizing Ann Coulter (who I find to be a somewhat obnoxious dolt).

And that is what intellectual honesty is.

[A Very Super Market]

I'm fairly certain that the "right" would be just as pissed off if you took a quote from say.... Fred Phelps, and then claimed that all right-wingers thought like that.

[Aramike]

If you seriously wanted to claim intellectual honesty you should have titled the thread "This is how Thomas Friedman thinks".

I'm fairly certain that the "right" would be just as pissed off if you took a quote from say.... Fred Phelps, and then claimed that all right-wingers thought like that.

I guess having the word "Left" in QUOTES was too subtle for some people?

...but you'd think that'd be cleared up by using the phrase "some people" in the third sentence.

Heh, I'm sure people on the right would be pissing and moaning over the same stuff, though.

Edit: Do you people on the left disagree with Friedman?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Aramike

This isn't about politics. This is about intellectual honesty, hypocrisy, and elitism.

It's about the way that both sides of the aisle skew everything in order to try to make their points resonate.

This is about the way that elements on the left continuously blame the right for this "rich, white guy" mentality then elect Ted Kennedy again and again. This is elements on the right unilaterally claim that taxation is bad, then go on to spend billions without accounting for it.

In Friedman's column alone you see example after example of him taking an element out of context in order to make his argument for a better US infrastructure. If your point is so damned valid, why do you have to be so "pie-in-the-sky" about it?

We just see this phenomenon again and again. In the abortion debate alone, we have primarily two sides which are absurdly titled "prolife" and "pro-choice". The right-wing acts as though it's somehow the moral highground on general issues of life, then go on to be for capital punishment. The left-wing acts as though the only choice that is presented is AFTER conception. Why not just tell the truth? Why these grand, bullsh** titles instead of the REAL positions of anti-abortion and pro-abortion?

These are the things I find interesting/frustrating. Thomas Friedman is just another case-in-point. He just made it REAL easy to post about.

I actually think you've hit on something important. Politicians aren't held liable for much worse. We, as a people, have become indifferent. "Political discourse" has degenerated to Left vs. Right, because it is simple enough for most people to handle and serves both political parties quite well. Political parties exist to "divide and conquer", having people vote for black and white issues that make them feel high and mighty. But political parties have become fraudulent electioneering mechanisms, AFAIC. Spouting about everything and acting on nothing. This country now has a political elite CROWNED BY MONEYED INTERESTS, IMO, and whether a Dem or Republican is in office actual policy differences are minimal.

The latest financial crisis is an excellent example of this. Nobody's telling the truth, the government (both sides of the aisle) is in fact cooperating with banks in NOT TELLING THE TRUTH and fixing the problems that financial institutions created with government's help. Because telling the truth means telling the citizenry that our financial institutions and the government that oversaw them royally screwed up.

What scares me most about it are not the financial repercussions, but social. People are starting to think of the government not as an institution that holds bad people responsible for their actions to protect the citizenry, but an institution that serves the bad people's interest first and foremost.

Everybody's just smiling and winking now, but eventually somebody's going to get an eye poked out down the line and I fear the consequences will be much, much worse than simply just telling the truth NOW.

PD

[Aramike]

I actually think you've hit on something important. Politicians aren't held liable for much worse. We, as a people, have become indifferent. "Political discourse" has degenerated to Left vs. Right, because it is simple enough for most people to handle and serves both political parties quite well. Political parties exist to "divide and conquer", having people vote for black and white issues that make them feel high and mighty. But political parties have become fraudulent electioneering mechanisms, AFAIC. Spouting about everything and acting on nothing. This country now has a political elite CROWNED BY MONEYED INTERESTS, IMO, and whether a Dem or Republican is in office actual policy differences are minimal.

The latest financial crisis is an excellent example of this. Nobody's telling the truth, the government (both sides of the aisle) is in fact cooperating with banks in NOT TELLING THE TRUTH and fixing the problems that financial institutions created with government's help. Because telling the truth means telling the citizenry that our financial institutions and the government that oversaw them royally screwed up.

What scares me most about it are not the financial repercussions, but social. People are starting to think of the government not as an institution that holds bad people responsible for their actions to protect the citizenry, but an institution that serves the bad people's interest first and foremost.

Everybody's just smiling and winking now, but eventually somebody's going to get an eye poked out down the line and I fear the consequences will be much, much worse than simply just telling the truth NOW.

YES!!! *Great* post! This is the kind of thinking I like to see. I strongly believe that, once people begin to understand the concept behind your post, they may begin to look deeper and finally decide the issues for themselves.

And when they do, I may not agree with them ... but I sure as hell will respect them a lot more.

Bravo!

[subchaser12]

Let me give you some insight as a liberal. We have different concerns about the world we live in. Most of us on the left are in much higher tax brackets that Joe Citizen. I just spent 200$ on a pair of jeans for example. We worry about things like when we travel will there be a Starbucks? We are worried about the quality of staff at the hotels we stay in. There is nothing worse than unprofessional servants. Boston is great as well as DC because they use African immigrants to park cars. The foreigners are so much nicer than Americans. I mean my big gripe about Christmas was Starbucks being closed. I mean come one, surely we can find some poor slobs to at least come in at 10. Their poor kids can open their presents and they can be out the door soon after.

I agree with the cell phone issue. A lot of liberals actually have time that is valuable, so we need to be available 24/7. We don't have jobs with hard start and stop times, so when talking business and flying around it's important to be able to stay in touch.