You must also have forgotten to check the one marked, “The summer sun does not shine out of my ass, and I am not the only one posting on this messageboard. So if a post doesn’t apply to me, I am not required to respond”.
Let’s see if we can develop a little perspective here, shall we?
I don’t really have time to qualify every fucking thing I post with a long list of those to whom it applies and those to whom it does not, so you may have to pay attention. If I address whiny lefties, and you’re not whining (or not a leftie), then I am not addressing you. If you are, then I am.
That is all well and good except for the fact that you, as a poster, tend to use language like “you people”, “you lefties” or “you liberals” quite a bit. This leaves on with the impression that you are painting with a rather large brush and it is not a wild leap to assume that if I am a Liberal and you are making comments about “you Liberals” that by extension you are talking about me.
If that is not the case, and you are only talking about a specific poster, just say so. Taking the time to communicate what you really mean is (IMO) never time wasted and avoids much misunderstanding and hurt.
This is a valid point. I’m guilty of doing this myself, and yet taking umbrage when it’s done to me. It’s something I really need to work on.
But … there should be some recognition that, at some level, things like this happen. By this I mean that rioters in San Francisco hurt the liberal cause, because people will see that and THINK, “Oh, there go those liberals.” In the same way, Ann Coulter’s vicious hyperbole calling liberals treasonous hurts all conservatives, because people hear this and think, “Oh, those conservatives are so reactionary.”
I am absolutely convinced that empty-headed pronouncements from Cher about gays being herded into one state, and from Susan Sarandon with her “Statement of Conscience” that pledged her alliance to those countries attacked by the US, did more harm to Kerry’s campaign than good… not because Kerry authorized or endorsed their views, but because people heard these things and thought, “Oh, there go the crazy liberals again.” And successfully pinning Kerry as the second-most liberal Senator completed the square, so to speak.
In any event, I’ll try to work on my own tendency to reason from the specific to the general.
Yet WMD was a vital question. A question of objective fact sustained by evidence and a source of fertile debate. Where were Bricker’s uncanny powers of insight and prediction as this debate unfolded?
Was Bricker perhaps holding them in reserve to assist a wager on a 50/50 propostion? Thence to bask in the glory of having guessed lucky.
Or was Bricker in his timid and modest way restrained from voicing an honest opinion by the possible consequences for the Republican Party? Who knows what uses accusations of hypocrisy and ignorance can serve.
Had I applied my uncanny powers to this question, I would have reached the same conclusion that Congress did: WMDs are there. I freely admit that I would have been wrong.
GeeDubya did. He proclaimed himself certain. He was wrong. He’s not paying the cost for it. Our kids are. I don’t much like that.
So he gets a Mulligan, a do-over? He’s getting the hang of it now, and, heck, he’s such a nice guy, he deserves another whack at it?
You go to a surgeon, he takes off the wrong leg, but he was certain, and he’s really sincere and a nice guy, and you’d take one of your kids to him? Really?
And, no, Congress said no such thing. Individual members said so, but damn sure Paul Wellstone didn’t! Damn sure John Kerry didn’t! What Kerry said was the President needed such authorization in order to do what was needed. We give the cop a gun, in case he needs it. We don’t give him a gun to plug some guy and then search the corpse afterwards to find out if he shot the right guy.
It’s more like he took off the correct leg and the post-op biopsy didn’t find cancer as predicted but all the gangrene that was also diagnosed was there and the leg had to go in any event.
[Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
(snip)
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
(snip)
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;](http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf)
You don’t have to read Atlas Shrugged. Or The Fountainhead either. Yet.
Somebody, in another thread, made an observation that unfortunately got sluffed over. It was to the general extent that you, Bricker, are focused on process – with the implication, to the extent that you sometimes ignore content. Worth thinking about, at least.
As for me, I’m taking a bit more philosophic view of things. Dissent has not been forbidden in America, at least yet and to the majority extent. (There are a few amazing exceptions to that rule.) But I have learned not to trust in the good hearts or will of the majority – if they exist, they’re charily used.
Well, that gangrene stuff is an interesting, albeit pointless, reworking of my metaphor. Do you mean anything by it, or were your fingers bored?
And thanks a lot for showing me the wording of the resolution! Gosh, I’m such an illiterate dumfuk, I had no idea! If it weren’t for you, I still wouldn’t.
Gimme a break, Manny. I got my faults, stupid ain’t on the list. That was the resolution, Kerry could either vote for it or not. I think he made a big mistake, I think he trusted a man not to be trusted. I think he would have amended the resolution if he had a chance in hell of suceeding. He made the best of Hobbes Fork.
As well, you know as well as I know that our spineless congresscritters were stampeded by GeeDubya riding 9/11 fever for all it was worth. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, would he have had a snowballs chance of getting that resolution passed? We both know better.
So do us both a favor and don’t pretend I’m stupid. I know what the fuckin’ resolution said, you know I know. If you’re gonna be snarky, could you at least be funny?
Not all of it. Just John Galt’s radio speech. [sub]Where’s the :evil: smilie?[/sub]
Thanks for the link manny. Some interesting stuff there.
There’s a whole lot of “Security Council” stuff in there, and it seems to set a pretty high bar for non-UN actions. Gotta justify that it wasn’t possible to go the diplomatic route and that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorists. I’d love to see that report. Wonder if I can find it.
Is that the best you got? Christ, Manny, you even insult like a New York pussy. You best stay out of Texas, they’ll saddle you and ride you home with a corncob up your Nixon. Best avoid MN as well, cold weather shrivels your pecker about an inch, and you wouldn’t be an improvement as a female.
Just to be clear: I have never once knowingly posted a false statement (well, outside of jocularity, of course). If you can prove otherwise, do it. Since you can’t, you can suck the brown grease out of my ass, buttmunchkin!
And, for whatever it’s worth, Paul Wellstone also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, his “no” vote on the force authorization notwithstanding. (cite)
You want to engage in reasoning with me, Manny, you gotta apologize for calling me a lying sack of shit first. I’m a forgiving guy, but my dignity ain’t yours to wipe your butt with. Failing that, go fuck yourself.
First of all, you don’t know me, and you don’t know my ass.
Second of all, let’s examine your precise quote, shall we?
Nope, that’s not addressed to “whiny lefties” or “certain lefties” or “lefties who do not have ‘the’ in the middle of their usernames”. It’s just addressed to lefties, ie, all SDMB lefties. That includes me.
So you can take your “use vague and insulting terms to nastily describe large groups of people, and then chicken out like the coward I am when I’m called on it” posting style and ram it up your ass. Not “the ass of all conservatives”. Not “all you fucking Bush Supporters’ asses”. But your own personal, specific ass.