I was attempting to summarize Veb’s point, not stating my own opinion. Your quarrel is with her, not me, unless you’re now stalking me.
Methinks you need a self-imposed time-out. You’re making less sense by the day.
And I with you. As you yourself say, I did and do support the destruction of the Saddam regime, and of any and all regimes who trample on the rights of peaceful honest people. But not by foreign governments. That has always been my stance. Nothing has changed. And unlike Desmostylus, you are smart enough to know the difference between a government’s army and a militia of private citizens. The only people whom I mocked in that particular thread were those who squabbled over whether Saddam murdered closer to 5,000 or closer to 3,000 people per month. A man of your character should have joined me in condemning both his atrocities and our government’s intervention. Pretending that something else happened is obviously contrary to the record.
And each day, you are more reasonable than the next. I call bullshit on bullshit statements. Unlike you, I do not first consider who made them and then figure out whether I ought to agree.
My friend, I don’t know if you actually believe the bolded sentence through some form of delusion or because of poor memory and lack of review, but it is untrue. You smeared equally those of us who simply said:
“But has it been happening recently?” The general summary of the position you’ve just characterized as nitpicking numbers was summarized in that thread thusly:
You called that argument “bullshit defense of a fucking monster”.
Does the following argument posted by one of your targets really seem like squabbling over the difference between 5K and 3K? It did to you in that thread:
The same poster further explained his reasoning:
You were unpersuaded that we “brain dead liberals” were not actually sanguine about murder, rape and brutality by Saddam.
And you really wonder why none of us who have consistently identified as “liberal” joined your principled condemnation of military hegemony? Perhaps we were distracted by your more visible condemnation of our “fucking stupid” anti-invasion argument? Perhaps our minds were clouded by liberal claptrap like concern over the most effective and pragmatic amelioration of the Iraqi plight instead of being focused on the crystalline logic of general opposition to non-private liberation of the Iraqis.
Perhaps you seemed to be telling us that we “dumbasses” couldn’t really be opposed to tyranny unless we were also opposed to our government(s) meddling in the affairs of tyrants and perhaps the particular vehemence of that message fooled us into thinking you were somehow in disagreement with us. Go figure.
Reread the thread, my friend, and make some apologies. It’s the right thing to do, and I pray that you do it.
If the Washington Post quotes some nonsense spouted by Bush, do you attack the Post for the content of the quote?
I also noticed this nonsense. I’m slightly interested in hearing Zoe expound on why she felt this way.
Hmm. Looks like the lying crybaby Liberaltarian has run away.
I think you’re right. Your advice has never misled me. So I did reread the thread and, upon reflection, believe that, allong the way, I became beligerent and mean spirited. I can see why people were prone to see my argument exactly as your describe it. I apologize to you and to everyone whom I offended.
That just doesn’t cut it, sport. I don’t think anyone was after an apology for what you posted in that thread, but rather in this thread.
It is a sad, sad day when a writer of softcore bondage porn can turn to one of his stories and say, "When I wrote this story of a conservative regime in the U.S. instituting the hooding and sexual degredation of prisoners, I thought I was writing fiction! I really did.
Note: I’ve used the two-step link because the text and illo here are very very adult in nature and not at all work-safe.
Yup, same old stuff. Nearly five years of same old stuff.
However you want the world to work, Lib, the vast majority of posters prefer debating politics within the context of its being the art of the possible. You, OTOH, can’t seem to get away from trying to hijack a normal political debate - any political debate, which is the problem - into a debate over libertarian first principles versus reality as we know it.
You were doing it here back in 1999, and you’re doing it in this thread now. Can’t believe a veteran like 'Luci fell for it, even if it was hidden under the “St. Ralph, 99 44/100% pure” bullshit.
The problem, of course, is that as folks like me get tired of playing your games, new suckers always come along to be sucked into your games. But you - you’re constant.
Hell, just the other day, you accused Left Hand of Dorkness of following you around the board. I remember that one from 1999, too. But Daniel was no more following you around now than I was then; I’m sure he was just getting into threads that interested him, and getting disgusted when you’d turn them into a debate over you.
You want to debate the merits of libertarianism versus American democracy (in general or in some particular facet), start a thread, why don’t you? (Don’t you get enough takers? There might be a message in that.) The rest of us who want to debate Abu Ghraib within the context of that democracy, we’ll be over here.
Oh, I completely understand your frustration, and I am aware that you don’t want me to express my own poltical views in political discussions. But until the rules of the board change, you’ll just have to put up with it. The vast majority of people on the Free-Market message board wouldn’t want you expressing your views there, either. They consider them to be impossible: people in poverty with no political clout, people of color who are almost as likely to go to prison as not, people who would like to vote for the candidate of their choice but cannot find their names on ballots, people who have loved ones who died because bureaucrats blocked their access to life-saving drugs that have been available to Europeans for years, people who cannot afford to send their children to the school of their choice because they have to pay to educate other people’s children, people who have great ideas and want to start businesses, but hit a brick wall of regulation designed not to protect people, but to protect established corporations and government monopolies — these people consider your opinion that you or someone else can plan their lives better than they can to be damnably impossible. “Possible” comes from the Latin posse, to be able. You make it impossible for them to pursue their own happiness in their own way. I view all of life, including politics, through the filter of the Noncoercion Principle. If you would deny me the expression of it, then you would deny me expression altogether. That might be what you wish to do, but luckily your wishes do not attain the authority to snuff my views out. I will continue to express them until the board’s representatives tell me I cannot. Fair enough for you? 
Hmmm…deliberately oblivious, or just an overeducated idiot? We report, you decide!
Lib, I certainly do want you to express your political views in political discussions. But there’s a difference between (a) talking about politics within the context of a particular political system, and (b) comparing fundamentally different political systems. Most people, when they ‘talk politics,’ want to do the former. You have a habit of hijacking the former into the latter.
Oh, nooooo!!! And here I’d sworn to use my super-powers only for good!
::rends garments::
I got over striking heroic poses like that, even in the dark recesses of my mind, when I was about sixteen.
Please, view all of life, including politics, through the filter of the Noncoercion Principle, if that’s what you must do. (And it clearly is.) And feel free to engage in discussions thereof. And I suppose the SDMB rules don’t prevent you from trying to hijack any thread you come across into a discussion of the Noncoercion Principle, Libertaria, Shiny Happy People, and the wonders of a world with no public property.
But it’s rude, self-centered, and boorish of you to do so. Not to express your opinion, but to do your damnedest to take over somebody else’s type-(a) discussion and hijack it into a type-(b) discussion, simply because that’s the sort of discussion you want to have.
OTOH, it’s easy to start a new thread, and even post to the thread that inspired it to link to it. And then those who wanted to join you in your sort of conversation could do so.
But speaking from the POV of normal social interactions, as opposed to SDMB rules, you don’t have a right to have your sort of conversation, unless others want to have it with you. You have a way of saying things that get under people’s skin, that are hard to lay off of. And then they’re in your conversation, whether they meant to or not. Fortunately, just as the SDMB apparently gives you the right to do your hijacks, it gives me the right to come in and point out what game you’re playing. 
Quick note to Lib: For myself, I accept your apology as offered (and was hoping only for your honest consideration of what I had to say). But you and I have a different online relationship than the one that’s developed between you and the main recipient of your beligerence in that thread and this one. I won’t offer any more suggestions (one meddlesome nudge per thread is enough), but I want to share two subjective observations:
-
In my own dealings with him on this board, I’ve found Desmostylus to be a perceptive and generally good natured sort, both willing and able to persuade me of things I hadn’t considered, but to be himself persuaded through rational discourse.
-
Br’er Rufus’ advice is reliable.
Rufus???
RTFirefly = *** Rufus?!?!??!?!?* or am I missing something else??
Clearly, you are not up on your Marxism.
I gotta start going to the meetings.
Oh, yes, do! We’ll be serving duck soup with animal crackers, then we’re all going for a night at the opera!
And here I thought RTFirefly was merely the cover identity of a time-traveller from the future, here to teach us the gospel of uniting as One People under the music of Wyld Stallyns…
Bogus!
Sorry, rjung, I’m a wisecracking time-traveler from the past, looking for ways to flim-flam my way into the presidency of a country with the help of rich benefactors, generally make a mess of the country’s business, and start wars on absurdly minor pretexts.
And I’m exceedingly jealous of the current White House occupant for having bested me on all counts!