See, I told you I was wasting my time.
Yeah, much easier to drop a driveby dismissal than to engage constructively.
Do you deny that certain people, or groups of people, within the right wing community, have politicized 9/11 and used it as a trump card to limit discussion of such things as the Patriot Act, for just one example?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen?
Say the cop in this scenario is somewhat trigger-happy - or alternatively, gun-shy. A cop who runs amuck shooting everyone who looks at him funny will also keep the psycho at bay, for example. Are people not right to complain, and try to change this, considering he’s the only cop they have?
You’re assigning motives to the cop-detractors that they may not hold - you’re assuming everyone who disagrees with your point of view does so because of a petty, unimportant reason. Is it impossible for you to acknowledge that some people may have legitimate grievances?
No, I don’t. Do you deny that you are generalizing, which is exactly what I was talking about, when you said this:
Who is in the Bush rightwing? Anybody that voted for Bush? Anybody that is part of his administration? Anybody who agrees with anything at all that the man has done in the last 5 years? Who?
Oh, that’s right. The Bush rightwing. How could I not have known who you were talking about? :rolleyes:
In the very thread where I decry this type of nonsense I find people like you doing it. Jesus, even rjung had the courtesy to get the point, and he was the one person I expected to miss it entirely. Fortunately, we had you to pick up the ball and run with it.
Airman, please forgive me if you feel like I’ve hijacked your thread.
Why did you scoot right over Evil One’s pure partisan bullshit to snipe at lissener? If you were really hoping to moderate for some sort of reasonable debate, why not smack down one of the most dull of the right and his red meat?
I mean jesus, not only is his post logically ridiculous and inaccurate, but it also contains those nasty generalizations you are so very up in arms about. Why the vitriol for one and not the other? Why shouldn’t I generalize in my speculation about your motivations there?
I forgot to note specifically how Evil One is full of shit regarding “everyone knowing” that the “majority of Americans” view the Republicans as the party they would prefer to handle national security.
ABC News/Washington Post polling of 1/23-26/06 shows that when asked which party they would trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, 47% say Democrats and 40% say Republicans. When asked which party they would think would do a better job handing the US war on terrorism 46% say Republicans and 41% say Democrats. Note, that is TWAT, not even “national security.” This is Bush’s one big thing, the thing that Evil One thinks is the harbinger of the end of the Democratic party, and not even a majority regard the Republicans as the better party for the job. And when asked the same thing a few months ago, the numbers were 42% for each party.
See, guys, your party can’t just fuck up everything it touches, and expect that people will fall in line behind you. I noted in another thread that most people eventually realize that it isn’t in fact raining when they are being pissed on.
BTW, AD, I hope you all enjoyed the books.
Because his analogy, as it were, was in response to lissener starting the silliness to begin with. It only got stupider with each additional post.
His first post in this thread boiled down to “It’s now to the point that many people think that those who are ideologically opposed to them are stupid, or evil, or both.” That’s pretty hard to argue with, and it is in fact the point of this whole thread.
OK. Noted.
Dude, the bottom line is that both parties have strengths and weaknesses, and neither of them are capable of solving any of the problems of this country by themselves. The partisan bullshit has gotten in the way of that, mhendo’s disagreement notwithstanding. So we have a loud group of Republicans and a loud group of Democrats trying to shout the loudest, to the detriment of important stuff.
I did, thanks. How rude of me, not to post a thank you. Sorry. 
Put me on your ignore list and find SD nirvana.
Oddly enough, a certain amount of impeachment fever was alive and kicking in Republican ranks in the mid to late 1960s. But the target wasn’t LBJ.
We must be looking at different things. Evil One’s first post was #34, lissener’s first was #38, in direct response to Evil One.
That line was an add-on to a Cleveland steamer of a post about how everyone knows which party the majority of Americans see as more capable of handling national security, and that the attacks dealt a death blow to liberalism.
Please be so kind as to explain to me how that concluding sentence is in any way supported by the monkey-flung poo that came before it. It’s also historically nonsense, because Rush Limbaugh became a wealthy man long before the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to explain to you that his bread and butter is saying things based on the principle that those who are ideologically opposed are stupid, or evil, or both. Richard Scaife was funding a partisan movement to attack a president before 2001 as well.
But hey, it’s your thread. If you don’t wish to practice what you preach, but would rather demonstrate how “it’s okay if you’re spouting liberal bashing nonsense” looks in action, knock yourself out.
Nirvana is the extinction of desire. What I desire is that you be less of an idiot, so the ignore list isn’t going to help.
Fortunately, you will keep moving closer and closer to the edge, baiting people in order to cause trouble, posting inappropriately in GD, lying, etc., and then being banned once and for all. And good riddance.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not Airman’s fault if you disagree with what I’m saying, Hentor. I have made these points before in threads regarding 9/11 and it’s aftermath. We could start another one of those if you like.
As an incentive, I found the following in about thirty seconds. Here are the first two paragraphs if you can’t bring yourself to look.
"The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, helped redraw the political landscape in America, giving President Bush and the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. But Republicans may have difficulty consolidating the gains because of divisions within their expanded coalition.
The survey underscored how important the issues of terrorism and national security and Bush’s personal appeal were in helping the GOP put together a winning coalition of voters in 2004. The findings suggest that Bush’s reelection depended not just on motivating the Republican base but also on his success in attracting swing voters and even some Democrats."
I don’t dispute that his statement was debatable. All the same, he made a reasonable statement that did not demonize the Democrats or any particular Democrat, whereas lissener did with his “the psycho with the gun is the Bush rightwing” comment.
To put it another way, saying that Abu Ghraib gave the US military a black eye is legitimate. Saying that because of Abu Ghraib every member of the military is contemptible is not. And to take it even further, calling me dishonorable because of actions taken by others is inappropriate and irresponsible.
I have nothing against the Democrats. I don’t have this huge chip on my shoulder anymore. In many ways I think the Democrats are on the right side of things. In others I think the Republicans are on the right side of things. I choose to deal with issues and individuals rather than just stating that they’re all assholes, because they’re not.
That’s my point. Controversial statements I have no problem with. That is an essential requirement for a good debate. The debate ends when someone comes in and says that Republicans suck because they voted for Bush or Democrats suck because they’re soft on terrorism, because in the virtually every case it’s not that simple and the statement itself is needlessly inflammatory and leads nowhere. The statement that Evil One made was a good premise for a debate, and it wasn’t nearly as contentious as you’re making it out to be.
I bumped a thread that I started in September of 2003 in case anyone wants to continue the topic. We’ll see if the sound of crickets continue to emanate from it as they did back then.
:dubious: Saying the attacks of 9/11 will serve as the death knell of liberalism isn’t contentious? Fine - I’ve no need to debate that “point” any further than I already have. I will simply restate my first post and say that everyone needs to generalize to some degree. I suppose it only depends on whose ox is being gored to categorize something as a controversial but debatable point versus an inflammatory generalization.
I’m in agreement with Hentor. And speaking to the OP I have to face that support for current US foreign policy has had a pretty soft ride.
We all saw the evolving debates, a whole lot of apparently good faith arguments about WMD, tranquil outcomes, democratic waves throughout the middle east and so on. This we were told, is why people did or didn’t support the policies.
But what happenned then? The evidence all mounted one way, became totally in your face and undeniable. And the people who had predicted wrongly, misread the evidence we assumed, what of them? Did they in xstisme’s immortal words review the evidence, concede their error and revise their opinion.
By and large no, following the moral lead of the contemptible bluesman the position was, “Oh yeah we knew they were lying (not that we’ll admit it if you ask) all along and just played you for fools.” “Cause for us, it’s all about the bloodshed, torture and rapacity.” There was a whole lot of humility called for. Instead, they spat our good faith in our faces.
So neither Airman or I have a sound basis to assume good faith in the reasons presented for the supporters of this administration. Instead the evidence and experience compels us to start from the position that supporters of the current administration do so out of malevolence and love of falsehood.
So, if you are disturbed by the level of aggression I and others bring to our arguments, you know from where we are coming from. Your position is not entitled to be accepted on good faith. If you want it again, you’re going to have to work to show why.
Big person claims with no evidence Shodan. Is this your normal practice, or an aberration? Because if its aberrant, brought on by interaction with me, then I again recommend you use the ignore list. Lord knows what end of bother its saved people on this board.