A personal remark from Richard Johnston that I will respond to.
I remember people early on in GWB’s presidency speculating about his being a “dry drunk” and such. It was silly.
No, it isn’t silly. It is either true or not true.
You start calling things silly, and you will begin to think you have the right discernment to filter out what is or is not legitimate. Then you will apply it to some other subject on the belief that you have successfully psychoanalyzed people’s intentions and thoughts. And you’ll be veritably wrong, if you first had not determined the accuracy and veracity of the original.
If people actually believed the things they did about Bush W, I would expect and approve of their taking extreme measures. But they didn’t take extreme measures. They just went along to get along. Approving a ‘surge’ in troops for Iraq when it was politically convenient, and then opposing it when it was politically convenient. If they really thought Bush W was a danger to the country and that opposing him would be the solution, why the rope a dope on the war American men and women were fighting and dying in? That’s the test. They failed the test. I applied the same test to you. Forget the psychobabble. I am not a psychoanalyst. I don’t need to be one to put you to the character test and make a personal judgment of your worth. I’ve already done so and stated my conclusions to the effect on Neo’s blog. The decision came out in your favor, in fact. I’ve done the same with Obama. Others at Neo’s blog have done the same in relation to Obama. They’ve looked at his policies, beliefs, words, and actions and made a decision about him. You continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that’s not the problem.
Are you a psychoanalyst, Johnston? If someone isn’t a lawyer/judge, do you expect them to be familiar with law cases concerning ERISA? Would you approve of them taking the bench to judge one of your ERISA cases? I predict your answers will all be in the negative, so tell me if they are not.
I’m not talking about courts of law. Remove that from consideration. I’m speaking of your experience informing your actions. Do you consider yourself experienced enough in psychoanalysis, with a proven test case of either verified correct or incorrect judgments, to tell the rest of us here that we are incorrect to attempt the psychoanalysis of others? I believe you lack the requisite experience for such a judgment, but you may disagree if you wish.
You answered that you did think other liberals were like you. Do you really believe that it is even possible for you to meet 100 million people in your life, accurately judge their characters, motivations, and life experiences, and then come here and tell us that “yes, they are like me”. No, that’s Not what I believe you did or claim you did. You gave them the benefit of the doubt, I believe. But the benefit of doubt does not cover psychoanalytical judgments, positive or negative. You cannot know what other liberals are, except for the ones you have met, loved, hated, or have had more than a passing association with. Your claim that other liberals are like you and your claim that you are fed up with the psychoanalysis of the Left’s narcissistic self-destructive tendencies are, coincidentally, mutually exclusive. But that’s not special, you know. The ‘moderate’ Democrats co-exist perfectly well with the radicals, pro-murderer, pro-Sharia, pro-religious theocracy proponents because you don’t find a problem with the Democrats or the Democrat party. You can recognize specific problems, as I have noted before, but you don’t draw any general overall conclusions about it. But most other Democrats can’t even do what you do, Johnston. They can’t even admit a single wrong doing of the Unions, of the Congressional Democrats, or a single good thing about Republican actions. They would look at Republican efforts on ERISA and say it is a sham because Republicans can only ever be for personal enrichment and diabolical bigotry. But I don’t believe to counter-act such prejudices, that one should be prejudiced in the other way. I don’t believe it is useful to say Republicans are always motivated for evil, just as I don’t believe it is useful or true to say that Republicans are always motivated for good. And if that is the case, it also applies to your judgment concerning other liberals. They are not like you, Johnston. I am not making a claim as to what they are. I am making a claim that you have no basis upon which you can judge, so you cannot claim something you can’t even prove is true. I don’t even see whether you even tried to prove whether it was true. After all, a benefit of the doubt requires no evidence, yes.
If you come to a court of law without evidence, but simply the claim that the court should rule in your favor because you are familiar with ERISA consequences and thus the court should agree with you, do you think the court will do so? I am not speaking of a court of law concerning the ERISA law or insurance companies. Put that from your mind. I am speaking of specific individuals on Neo’s thread that you did not agree with. Those specific individuals presented case studies of personal knowledge and experiences they had, and formed conclusions from those experiences. Others made generalities, but also based upon specific case examples only. Do you think it is legitimate to counter such arguments by utilizing your ‘benefit of the doubt’ for Obama, transferring to these Democrats and fake liberals known by others here, and saying they ‘are like you’? Who told you that this was true. Who told you that they were like you. If you believe nobody told you, then what told you, by what entity or right were you made to believe?
I’ve stated exactly why I believe you were not a fake liberal, someone extracting money from the disadvantaged because you had an advantage in knowledge on law. You had supported your clients and did not refuse allies or help simply because they were not normally ideologically your supporters. That is integrity in that you do your duty by your client, in protecting their interests, without sacrificing their interest when you may personally benefit. I can say this is true because I’ve tested it on you. We do not have a glancing or first time meeting. Our association is a bit more in depth, not because I have read your beliefs but because I have seen your actions. Both in your radio dialogue, speaking to others in the real world absent any attempt to manipulate or deceive me with malice forethought, and in specific test cases I gave you. I gave you the mark about Unions and Republican Congress and insurance companies and tested your reactions to them. And those reactions rang true and consistent with your stated purpose concerning ERISA. You were not interested in propping up unions, but you are interested in more government regulation even at the same time that you recognize that government regulation, in the form of ERISA, was what created the entire loophole and problem in the first place. But that’s fine, we all have our little quibbles and ideological issues concerning actual real world policy. That’s not what is important here. What is important here is character: integrity and honesty. And no, I don’t believe a super majority, 75% of the Democrat party are like you, Johnston, in those aspects.
When I tested Obama, his actions and reactions did not ring true. And that’s what matters. Individuals are what matters. If you have a problem with those in this thread speaking about the Left’s narcissistic fascination in overall… you can easily disprove their claims or challenge the evidence from which they based their claims. If you do not do so, you are either implying they have no evidence, directly contradicted by their claim to personal knowledge of Leftists (meaning you call them liars), or you are implying that you have no need to do so. I think you do have a need.
The original problem with the Left is that they can’t prove that their theories are true. You are not unfamiliar or incapable of justifying your statements. You are a lawyer, after all. But this is the real world, and one thing different in the real world is that law cases won’t be decided upon objective ‘words’ or the perceptions of certain judges or juries, but upon physical incontrovertible proofs. I don’t mean evidence that can be interpreted various ways. I mean proofs, like mathematical proofs. If one thing is wrong, all of it is wrong: the mortar squad goes through the motions to load the mortar, after it is aimed, the round goes down the tube and then Bloomp, it fires and starts going towards the target or the round goes down the tube and EXPLODES, killing most of the mortar crew. You see, both can’t happen at once. Either one exists independent of the other.
To say that Obama is a communist is either true or untrue. To say that Bush is a dry drunk is either true or untrue. In law, you can have people who are guilty and released as ‘not guilty’ because of a ‘technicality’ in the law. But that is the law. The physical reality we all exist in doesn’t deal in ambiguity and deception. It deals in integrity. Consistency, not inconsistency.
Either Leftists are narcissists or they are not. Either certain individuals are narcissists or they are not. Either they are sociopaths or they are not. Either they help with wealth redistribution or they do not. You can define down sociopath to mean something unverifiable. But it exists, like integrity and concepts such as honesty exists. Would they become non-existent if somebody redefined them with more ambiguity? Of course not. How can we say somebody is honest without judging their motives. And how can we legitimately approve of the virtue of honesty, if we can’t at the same time disapprove a person’s narcissistic lies.
Unlike the commenters at Neo who asked you questions, I am not notably interested in your words. I am interested in your actions. Your words on ERISA could have been lies smoothly covered up to benefit yourself personally or not. It’s hard to judge that based upon mind reading. I can see your actions, however, because they exist in the integral reality and fabric of our lives. It is much harder to create untruth or deception there. Not impossible, but still, harder. But one additional thing I would like you to consider, Richard Johnston, is that if I am correct in trusting in your motives, why am I incorrect in distrusting the amorality and unethical motivations of those you would call either your neighbors, comrades, co-workers, or general liberals?