We’ve decided as a society that torture in the form of waterboarding is something to be looked down on. A matter of opinion? Yes, but hardly controversial . . . except to you.
Upcoming Scylla threads;
I War in Iraq
I Patriot Act
I Wire Tap
I War on Terror
CMC fnord!
Again, you do remember that this is the thread where you’ve called people who don’t agree with your politics “broken,” right?
Again, that’s not accurate. You’re politics can certainly differ from mine. It’s simply that if you think Krugman’s Op Ed was laudable and appropriate that you are broken.
I’ve read the thread. That’s why I asked a question about the thread, and not about like why does my toe get funny cramps in it. You have not answered the question I’m asking.
So, Krugman is bad because he is contributing to the rancor and hatred. Countering and undercutting the work of peacemakers, such as yourself, who spread the healing balm of understanding. Got it.
If this apologist for torturers thinks I’m broken, then I know I’m on the right track. Not that there was any doubt, but it’s good to be sure. I don’t think Krugman went far enough in his criticism of the torturer Bush and his lowlife cronies and keepers.
Is Krugman as bad as the Beatles? After all, they destroyed Western society in the 60’s right? Making all the kids rude to their elders and what not?
Oh, sorry- you sounded like Starving Artist for a bit there.
Ouch.
Many thanks for the truly excellent summary.
Cynical bastards persuade the weak minded toward their own object, and for their own purposes. This happens on the large social scale with depressing frequency. When it does, afterward, the weak minded and the cynics defend those persuasions to the last.
To the point where the actual objects become secondary, and it becomes impolitic of the lucid to note in front of the cynics or the silly that the arguments were thin, false or vapid, and that the intentions were base.
Oh, to become less incivil. It is beyond me, I fear.
Actually, you’ve claimed that anyone who isn’t as outraged as you are is broken, which is a far cry from actually agreeing with it. And, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly (to no substantive response from yourself) there isn’t a single thing that Krugman did with that article, that you haven’t eagerly committed yourself in this thread, usually in far harsher and insulting terms. You’ve admitted as much yourself, with the rather thin excuse that, somehow, it’s different when you do it.
All of which leads, once again, to the inevitable conclusion: your problem with Krugman is nothing more than the fact that he’s a liberal, and you aren’t.
Obviously they are opinions, and thus not fact.
But they are opinions that can be heavily supported by fact. Approximately 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq. The country is still in a state of turmoil, with car bombs and other acts happening on a regular basis. It has cost the US and UK many billions.
Now, can you tell me which part was a success?
Or the War on Terror? Have you seen a drop in threat levels since that began? Do you hear politicians saying that the War on Terror is being won, and will be over soon?
Yes, thanks. I heard you the first time. Listen, the oldest most boring trick around here is to try to take the ops argument and turn it around against them. Then they have to defend themselves, and then it becomes personal and ugly.
It’s old, and it’s boring, and it’s not worth going there.
Gary:
Yeah, we haven’t had another terrorist attack in our country since. We removed Saddam Hussein and are pro
Lying Democracy in the mid east, the germ of which has cAught on and is leading to spontaneous revolutions agains radical and militant mideast countries, making the entire world a better safer and fairer place.
We are unappreciated heroes, like batman at the end of the last movie.
I thought you were trying to argue that you in fact did do the same thing, but that it was okay because you didn’t care about being a hypocrite.
What’s boring and old is Scylla offering up a poorly thought out derivative piece of shit, and then spending 12 pages on varying disingenuous efforts to out-maneuver anyone who tries to argue with him. To repeat myself, the first recollection I have of you was seeing your posts in the double digit pages of a thread in which you were arguing that the Republicans never had a “Southern Strategy.”
Hey, it’s the “Scylla Show”! Where can I get tickets (hur hur hur)?
The whole reason why I don’t want to engage Millers line is because I don’t wan it to be the Scylla show, you idiot.
No, the reason why you don’t want to engage in Miller’s line of questioning is because you’re too stupid to come up with a legitimate response, and your typical strategy of appealing to emotions in order to distract and confuse has already failed.
Now the idiot is trying to tell me what I think. That’s always a great tactic .
Come on! He’s already done the “Liberals are all foolish children and have crippled the country” bit,and the “I"m only being a hypocritical ass because the liberals made me do it” strategy, followed by the “We got rid of Sadaam and are therefore safer” gambit.
What more do you want?
No, I’m explaining your behavior. Trying to understand your thought process itself sounds like a dangerous exercise in looking into the abyss.
How is that you propose, oh greatest moron on this board, to exPlain my behavior in terms that exclude my thought processes?
And, I thought you didn’t want the Scylla show? Why do you keep talking about me?
Better yet, can you just go away forever?