Are you trying to discourage conservatives from staying at SDMB?

[Liberal]

Bigot? For irrationally fearing Islam? You’re ignorant.

[RedFury]

@Liberal

Bigot? For irrationally fearing Islam? You’re ignorant.

And he has a sense of humor! Who knew?

Good one.

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

There’s nothing snotty about it.

Maybe it’s just a kneejerk reaction I’ve developed over time, but the way you phrased your original post, particularly your use of the word “allegiance”, rubbed me very much the wrong way. It’s cheap, easy, and meaningless for a professed “independent” to immediately claim the high moral ground by implying that anyone who is not an “independent” is, by definition, incapable of independent thought.

[Liberal]

But I am not a professed “independent”. I merely professed that I’m neither left nor right.

[gum]

@RedFury

WTF? Seriously, I hope they have padded walls where you post from; you’re nuttier than a fruitcake and an outright bigot to boot.

What my bald pate has to do with your incoherent ramblings (“every country has its own Guantanamo” :rolleyes: ) is a matter that may be best understood between yourself and your shrink. As for “doddering,” dahlin’, I’m afraid you’ll never get the chance to see just how wrong you are for I wouldn’t get within fifty feet of you – no doubt the stench of your rotting cunt would drive me away.

Run along now and go drink your daily turd-sundae. I’ll stick with my occasional 12 year old scotch*, thank you very much.

Worthless scumbag.

*That’s a drink, not a young Scottish lad, lest you label me a pedophile as well.

WHY YOU !!!

Hahahahahahahaha

I’m sorry.
I can’t do this anymore.
I know this is the pit and all and I’m sure I can find some terrible insults, but I’m getting the giggles.

[Liberal, I do not fear Islam. I fucking hate that religion AND it’s ‘prophet’ Mo (TPO).]

Love ye all.

[Liberal]

@gum

[Liberal, I do not fear Islam. I fucking hate that religion AND it’s ‘prophet’ Mo (TPO).]

Is there a particular reason why?

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

But I am not a professed “independent”. I merely professed that I’m neither left nor right.

Same reaction, though, at least given your initial phrasing about “allegiance”. Pointing out your independence of thought and lack of allegiance just implies that the rest of us do NOT have independence of thought and DO have allegiance.
At least that’s how I often interpret such posts.

[Liberal]

@MaxTheVool

Same reaction, though, at least given your initial phrasing about “allegiance”. Pointing out your independence of thought and lack of allegiance just implies that the rest of us do NOT have independence of thought and DO have allegiance.
At least that’s how I often interpret such posts.

I’m always open to reason. What, aside from allegiance, can explain interpreting the Articles of Impeachment for Bill Clinton to mean “impeached for a blow job”? Allegiance is the kindest thing I can think of, because the alternatives — stupidity, ignorance, recalcitrance, illiteracy, etc. — are all much worse.

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

I’m always open to reason. What, aside from allegiance, can explain interpreting the Articles of Impeachment for Bill Clinton to mean “impeached for a blow job”? Allegiance is the kindest thing I can think of, because the alternatives — stupidity, ignorance, recalcitrance, illiteracy, etc. — are all much worse.

The question is… are you attacking people who think Clinton was “impeached for a blow job” (if you wish to attack a particular opinion because you find it to be stupid, ignorant, recalcitrant, illiterate, etc., that is certainly a reasonable thing to do), or are you attacking liberals in general because (you assume) they all think Clinton was “impeached for a blow job”? For that matter, is the only reason one might have that opinion “allegiance to the left”?
In any case, it’s possible for “Clinton was impeached for a blow job” to be a meaningful and true statement without being literally, precisely, didactically true.

[Liberal]

I’m certainly not attacking liberals in general.

And I don’t mind metaphorical renditions of truth. After all, that’s what Jesus’ parables were all about. What I mind is euphemistic spinning of truth by way of red herrings, poison wells, and that sort of thing. If a person is conveying that there was a conspiracy against Clinton, then I don’t mind him saying something along the lines of, “The only reason they conspired to impeach him is because he got a blow job.” That implies that the charge of perjury was trumped up — a (tenuously) defensible position to hold. But to convey that Clinton was tried for getting a blow job is to alter fact. It seems to me that the burden of avoiding any equivocation is on the person who makes the statement.

[kaylasdad99]

@MaxTheVool

In any case, it’s possible for “Clinton was impeached for a blow job” to be a meaningful and true statement without being literally, precisely, didactically true.

I’m with you there. The problem is, that means that it’s not something that one can say without fear of contradiction is a fact.

And that’s only a problem when some toerag like Shodan is able to goad an incautious liberal into insisting that it is.

We sometimes need to remember the benefits of exercising some restraint…

[elucidator]

We’ve managed to get our hands on a strait jacket, but Shoddy is pretty quick on his feet.

[kaylasdad99]

Funny.

I shoulda said self-restraint…

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Sevastopol

Yet, the articles of impeachment are drafted in a sleazy way, trying to add the gravity of a regular ‘prejury’ court-case to the impeachment process which:

1. has nothing to do with Courts/Tribunals or Attorneys.

This statement makes no sense. Are you seriously arguing that it’s inappropriate for an article of impeachment to charge an office-holder with a violation of the law because the “impeachment process” doesn’t involve a court?

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

But to convey that Clinton was tried for getting a blow job is to alter fact.

I think we basically agree, but I have a small quibble here. I’d say that to convey that Clinton was factually and precisely and directly tried for getting a blow job is to alter fact. Someone saying “Clinton was tried for getting a blow job” isn’t necessarily saying that, although this kind of “when someone says X they really mean Y, so even though X is factually wrong they’re not wrong” thinking can easily be taken to ridiculous extremes.

[Sevastopol]

@Freddy the Pig

@Sevastopol

Yet, the articles of impeachment are drafted in a sleazy way, trying to add the gravity of a regular ‘prejury’ court-case to the impeachment process which:

1. has nothing to do with Courts/Tribunals or Attorneys.

This statement makes no sense. Are you seriously arguing that it’s inappropriate for an article of impeachment to charge an office-holder with a violation of the law because the “impeachment process” doesn’t involve a court?

Glad you asked.

Of course it is ok for the impeachment process to charge a violation of the law. But that is not what happened in this case. The impeachment does not get to make something ‘perjury’ by calling it that.

Let’s sidestep. Assume that instead of ‘perjury’ Clinton’s articles of impeachment alleged ‘champerty’. “What’s champerty?” many people would ask. Well it’s an arcane legal term with some twists and turns to it.

Perjury is a bit like that. There is no way Clinton’s conduct came within a slow mile of actual perjury, or champerty for that matter. Here’s what happened though, and this is key. The articles of impeachment were drafted in a way to make it appear that the ‘high crime or misdemeanour’ was a regular legal crime. This happened for 3 reasons.

1. A ‘guilt’ verdict was the conclusion. The purpose of the impeachment process was to railroad that conclusion.
2. No court or lawyer would arbitrate on the legal question of whether ‘perjury’ was established. Instead the least impartial body, a partisan political party, decided on that basis whether the supposed ‘perjury’ was made out.
3. The articles of impeachment were drafted in terms of ‘perjury’ to simulate and lend the gravity of a real, impartial and reputable legal conviction of Clinton, when the truth was the opposite.

Hope that has cleared things up?

[kaylasdad99]

Not in the slightest, dude. At least, not for me.

Better go start a thread somewhere else so the issue can be explained fully, without all this distracting noise about whether Dopers try to subtly (or bluntly) discourage conservatives from remaining as posting and paying members.

It will probably help if you include in the thread a sidebar explaining just what the hell champetry is. Arcane or not, inquiring minds are going to want to know!

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Scylla

If you wish for good arguments against a multitude of conservatives there’s plenty of places to find them within a few clicks. Or, you could just sit around here and congratulate each other on how smart you are and how there’s no conservatives to argue against.

Darn it! If only we could find that message board that had smart conservatives AND smart liberals! I always thought this *was *that place, but so many folks in this thread keep saying that intelligent conservatives with articulate arguments are unfairly picked-on here.

Can those of you making such criticism point me towards a better message board where I can find intelligent debate that is more balanced between conservatives and liberals?

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@I Love Me

Darn it! If only we could find that message board that had smart conservatives AND smart liberals! I always thought this *was *that place, but so many folks in this thread keep saying that intelligent conservatives with articulate arguments are unfairly picked-on here.

Can those of you making such criticism point me towards a better message board where I can find intelligent debate that is more balanced between conservatives and liberals?

toward, not towards.

[Shodan]

@kaylasdad99

@MaxTheVool

In any case, it’s possible for “Clinton was impeached for a blow job” to be a meaningful and true statement without being literally, precisely, didactically true.

I’m with you there. The problem is, that means that it’s not something that one can say without fear of contradiction is a fact.

And that’s only a problem when some toerag like Shodan is able to goad an incautious liberal into insisting that it is.

We sometimes need to remember the benefits of exercising some restraint…

There isn’t much goading involved - certain types of threads trigger it almost automatically, and some of the Usual Suspects don’t have much else to say.

But if they could exercise any restraint, they wouldn’t be the Usual Suspects.

Now that there is agreement that some kinds of statements can be meaningful and true without being “literally, precisely, didactically true”, let’s explore the concept.

Is it possible that the statement “some liberal will always show up to prove it” is meaningful and true without being “literally, precisely, didactically true”?

Is it possible that there are other statements that are meaningful and true without being literally, precisely, didactically true that have been made by conservatives or Republicans? If not, can you explain why you are embracing the genetic fallacy?

Regards,
Shodan