That is also true. Which opinion is most commonly held by Americans?
Only a broken person would not.
Really, its too early to say, definitively, that Custer lost the Battle of Little Big Horn. One can easily be misled by the casualty figures for Custer’s command. After all, we have no reliable records from Sioux and Cheyenne. Who were, it should be mentioned, illegal combatants. It would be unreasonable to accept such an opinion as fact.
New evidence may yet be offered. We should wait until Thanksgiving to be sure.
How, then, can one reasonably accept that the opposing opinions are facts, and that anyone who believes them is broken?
I dunno. Do you have a cite? Why does it matter?
I’
Because your entire OP is based on a difference of opinion. If you are in the minority with respect to the rest of the country, perhaps you could gain some insight into what is reasonable, and what is not. Unless you insist that everyone else is unreasonable.
That’s actually a really good question. To answer it I need to define “broken.” Which, subject to revision I would describe as being counter to the accepted basic mores of society.
We’ve decided as a society that torturing puppies is something to be looked down on. A matter of opinion? Yes, but hardly controversial.
Krugman’s actions fall into this category.
…by doing what?
So, you have some cite saying that only a vanishingly small percentage of the public believes the Iraq war and the Patriotic act were wrong?
I mean without that your argument doesn’t even get off the ground as something besides a hypothetical.
According to this cite 74% of Americans thought that we made the right decision to use force in Iraq back in 2003.
Even today, the number is still 40%
It goes back and it reads the OP to answer it’s question. Than it puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose.
But you’re saying that not only Krugman’s op-ed column, but all of us who believe “that the War in Iraq has been conclusively demonstrated to have been wrong, and that the Patriot act has been wrong, and the wire tapping wrong, and the war on terror wrong” are broken, and that we are the same as those who torture puppies.
Yet you refuse to see why some might take offense at that.
Krugman violated the basic mores of society by writing a blog post?
I rest my case.
Who would possibly take offense at such a pathetic non-argument?
Paul Krugman started a war?
I didn’t say that, no. Certainly reasonable people can disagree.
Kind of, in a way. I think that what he has done has helped create and perpetuate this huge schism in American politics that in many ways is crippling the US government’s ability to function properly.
That’s only a “war,” like the war on drugs is a “war,” but it’s still pretty fucking bad.
We aren’t angry, just very, very disappointed.
I’ll look past, for some reason, the fact that Scylla is calling me and really most everyone I know a morally bankrupt person because I think it’s OK to actually talk about what actually happened after 9/11 and what ended up being the significant consequences of it.
What I want to know is, if that’s your position, Scylla, what on earth does
[QUOTE=Scylla]
9/11 was basically destroyed, poisoned turned to a thing of shame
[/QUOTE]
mean to you? Other people have pointed out that it isn’t what Krugman really said, but I’m interested in your reading of it. You said Krugman was like Phelps because he said that. But what was 9/11, the event, to you that it could be destroyed, and that you’d get so upset by somebody saying that it had been? One doesn’t usually speak that way of a terrible event. I’ll defer to your dislike of posts that seem to psychoanalyze your motives, but I do wonder. To me the concept is incomprehensible. How are we supposed to feel about 9/11 that is completely separate from what happened as a result of 9/11? Good?
I think you can read the whole thread and find the answer faster than I can retype it.