OK, you want to argue whether or not liberal anger at Lieberman is justified, rather than whether it exists.
Ditto your other points.
Feel free to start a “Is liberal anger at Lieberman justified by the facts?” thread. I’m not going to get into an argument about that. DrDeth asked why the anger, and I tried to tell him. That’s as far as I’m taking it in this thread. To prove the anger isn’t justified by the facts doesn’t disprove its existence or its reasons. Please quit confusing two very different things.
No, I wouldn’t. I’d include the entire broad swath of national security issues, Supreme Court and lesser judgeships going all the way back to the formation of the (presumably defunct) defunct Gang of 14, Lieberman’s undercutting of SEC regulation…you get the idea.
Same caveat as earlier applies: I’m explaining the ire at Lieberman, not debating how well justified it is.
Look, I agree that we’ve been over this many times so if you want to drop it that’s fine with me. But I don’t understand why you’re getting all pissy about it. You are not just explaing “liberal anger” as it applies to the folks over at The Daily Kos, but signing onto that anger yourself. So, if you are going to bring that into the thread, don’t be surprised when someone asks you to back it up.
What’s more important for an elected official? To bow to the Will of his Party or the Will of his Constituents? Clearly, constituents- when you are elected, you represent all of your constituents, not just dudes in your party. In this case, the Elections results show clearly that the will of the People was for Leiberman to represent them.
I’m doing that; you’re asking me to back up the justifications for that anger.
One more time:
I am claiming the fact of the anger, and the motivations for that anger. I am willing to substantiate both with cites if needed. There’s absolutely no reason why claiming that much should require me to show also that the motivations in question are based on solid fact and reasoning. In this thread, I’m not claiming that they are.
You are expecting me to do so anyway. You’re asking me to support a claim I haven’t made here. So yes, I’m pissed about that. Kindly be your usual rational self, and cut it out.
I’m being the only self I have. I broke down your post above item by item, and I’m not interested in cites that demostrate others hold the same beliefs-- why would I? I’ll take you at your word. The cites I’m looking for are ones that back up the assertions you make like “The problem a lot of Dems have with Lieberman is his membership in the ‘Dems who hate Dems’ club. Kinda like all the DLC Dems, his guns are primarily aimed left. We’re tired of the so-called centrist Dems who set themselves up as the arbiters of how liberal it’s OK to be…” Did you mean to write “they’re” instead of “we’re”? I interpret “we’re” to mean that you are including yourself in that group.
I could understand it if you were just trying to explain the motivation of a group to which you didn’t belong. In that case, you’re not responsible for backing up their beliefs and proving them to be justified. But if you are going to include yourself in that group, then you do open yourself up to people asking if those beliefs are justified.
First of all: whether I include myself in the set or not doesn’t really validate or undermine the properties of the set.
Second: whether or not I can demonstrate whether my anger is on solid ground still has nothing to do with the truth of the claim I made in this debate. I may ‘open myself up,’ as you say, but I have opened myself up about a side issue. Your interest in it is personal, and not germane to this debate.
Finally, to the extent that I’ve ‘opened myself up’ to your interest by including myself in the group, we’re having a personal discussion about my personal beliefs, which I have every right to discuss with you or to tell you to go screw yourself.
I have no interest in having this personal discussion with you, OK? I came for the debate; along the way, I thought I’d take five minutes to answer a side question that DrDeth posed. The question itself was simple enough for me to answer, and you have agreed that no cites are needed to back up the truth of my answer: that I and a bunch of other libruls are indeed mad at Loserman for the reasons listed.
I did not in any way commit myself to answering questions about how well-founded those reasons were, because I didn’t argue they were well-founded. I stated that these were the reasons for the anger at Loserman, you apparently concur, and nobody else disagrees. The End.
The assertion was that I and a bunch of other people were mad at Lieberman for particular reasons. I was willing to support that assertion, but it seemed unnecessary and nobody asked me to.
I never claimed the particular reasons were valid. I stated over and over again that I [b ]wasn’t** claiming that in this thread. Hence for purposes of this thread, it hardly matters whether the reasons were well-founded, or something we collectively pulled out of our asses because the mood struck us.
You insisted, despite my protestations, that I should defend the validity of those reasons. I couldn’t figure out why this was so, and so I couldn’t figure out how to make you stop demanding that. I tried all the reasoning I could come up with.
Apparently I finally hit on the right phrase to cause you to give up. Thank goodness.
I haven’t given up. I just haven’t decided whether to open a seperate thread yet.
But I’ll tell you what I think about the idea of posting “personal beliefs” in GD. Sounds to me like a cop out. *I’m going to post a statement, and because it’s a “personal belief” I’m going to demand that no one challenge me on it. * Pfffft.
To stay within GD limits for the moment, that is a fucking idiotic statement.
Look, if I say “I think the reason I’m getting water in my basement is because the drainage around my house sucks,” then as far as you know, I really do think that, even if the drainage is fine.
If all I’m claiming here is that that’s what I think, then there’s my proof. I don’t need to prove that my thinking is correct. That’s an entirely separate issue, and I don’t need to defend it, because I didn’t claim it. All I’m claiming is that I thunk the thought.
You can ask about the quality of the though all you want, but it’s not germane to the fucking claim.
Good golly miss Molly, am I really having to explain this to you yet one more fucking time??