In some cases, I vehemently disagree with both statements. To invoke Godwin's law for the lulz, most Germans never met Hitler. But obviously some (such as Herr Schindler) hated what he was doing and tried to circumvent his killings.
I know you're a Republican, but I hope you're not delusional enough to think that Sarah Palin's increasingly extremist and idiotic viewpoints are doing this country any benefit. If she does, in deed, represent the views of the Tea Party, logically that means they agree with the majority of her stances on political issues. Therefore, if one disagrees with Palin, one can say that he or she will most definitely hate Tea Partiers.
Whether or not she represents Tea Partiers in actuality depends on whom you ask, though.
I just don't understand the position "If [person A] is near [cause], then I won't be."
From the opposite opinion, I might then say, "If Bill Maher is supporting the Democrats, then I'll be as far away from them as I can."
Bill Maher recently gave this gem:
"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing. While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them! They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."I disagree with Bill Maher. I find his opinions to be quite offensive, and what's more, his approach to discourse to be completely hypocritical. Yet, since he's calling out "teabaggers" and associating all of these particular traits with the founders (study of science, reading of Plato) as things that Tea Party members would abhor, it implies that he is in favor of those things. Guess what, though: oh snap, I read through
Republic last fall. As a computer guy, I tend to generally classify myself as "within the engineering-ish/science-ish professions." How do I ever justify this?!?
I don't buy the patently ridiculous "If [person A] is part of [cause], I'm going to be as far away from it as possible" position. It's either short-sighted or a rhetorical and psychological trick of trying to polarize people into your side. George W. Bush was equally guilty of it when he said "You're either with us or against us." (Yes, that's right. I've just equated Sidoh's logic to that of GWB's. GG).
Pick your causes. If you want to be on the side of statism, if you're happy with a relatively small percentage of elites controlling every facet of your life (those facets depending on their flavor of the day), then great. If you want to be on the side of populism, with most people's lives being generally free (those things not being free depending on the populists' flavors of the day), then also great. But at least have the intellectual honesty to understand that those are the ultimate choices. I honestly don't give a shit about Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Green or Tea or whatever. I just want to live in a way that nobody's getting into my life because I'm not getting into theirs. And so I tend to vote Republican because, while I believe that only about 30-45% of Republicans are true populists, maybe only 1-2% of Democrats are. And like I said before, only the two predominant parties are viable for the time being. God willing, we'll see a big divide in the Republicans and they can fade into the sunset where a truly populist party can take its place. So please, don't color my opinion as "MyndFyre is a Republican." I am registered that way. But I don't think that any successful future of America can endure the Republican party lasting very much longer.
