If someone comes up to me and insists, despite all evidence and knowledge available, that gravity is a myth, 2 + 2 makes 47, and Richard Nixon was a selfless saint who simply taped everything in his White House as part of an underground crusade to stomp out profanity, why am I obligated to “view the other side as reasonable”?
The first step in fighting ignorance is to identify it as such; dressing it up in cute euphemisms to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities is not on the agenda.
Sam:
Call me presumptuous, but on behalf of the 5000+ lurkers who are reading but not posting to this thread, you can wriggle, you can squirm, you can split hairs and bold to your hearts content, but you really ought to stop digging before you hit the earth’s molten core and are incinerated.
Also, I understand that there is a manpower shortage in the US army. While Canada was not an ally during the Vietnam (“uh…IndoChina?”) war, several Canadians felt driven to join their US brethren in this glorious struggle against the creeping tentacles of world communism. Since you are so driven, you might want to think about “being all that you can be,” becoming an “Army of One,” and all that.
One can almost hear the dulcet tones of the Drill Instructor, half Wookie, half busted chainsaw…
“Goddammit, Canuck maggot, you don’t say “Excuse me” before you ram the bayonet into his guts!”
Sam lives in Alberta. They’re not real Candadians out there, anyway. 
Now that it’s clear what you think of those who disagree with you, your analogy was, of course, ludicrous, and your answer proves the OP on this board.
Boy, sure got you good that time, huh, rjung! Bet yer just gnashing yer teeth and tearing yer hair over that, huh, rjung.
A most generous, even magnanimous, concession. We were right all along, and therefore we were reasonable. Thanks a pantsload. :rolleyes:
Why * should “the other side” get such credit? A reasonable position is one based on facts and, by definition reasoning. A position maintained in spite of* the facts, and rejecting reason in favor of faith, is by definition unreasonable. But that’s what the “Saddam had WMD’s and we’ll be greeted as liberators” argument always was, many of us knew it then, and got dismissed as fools and traitors by what you call “the other side” (“From our POV”, that is? What the fuck do you mean by that?). But they were wrong then because of the wrong reasons, the remaining deadenders are still wrong for the wrong reasons, and, if they continue to refuse to recognize the reasons that made them wrong, will be wrong in the future as well.
You seem to be fond of demanding that a position you’ve held, when shown to be wrong, get credit for similar reasonability anyway. Doesn’t work that way, chum - when you dismiss fact and eschew reason, you’re not being reasonable and do you need to be told so.
Would you similarly ask that accepters of evolution give creationists credit for holding a “reasonable” position?
Have you completely retreated into post-modernism? Are all points of view reasonable as long as they’re held in good faith? And should even reports as conclusive as the final report from the Iraq Survey Group(Duelfer’s report) be qualified with “seemingly”? Is this some jury trial and no one has yet pronounced the judgement of the facts? Need we qualify quotations from said report as “allegations”?
I would say no. There is no need for the qualifications and reservations. The current state of Iraqi WMD and pre-war state of same have been determined as conclusively as they are likely to be. If one viewpoint can not be considered “proved” by now then pray tell what will it take to remove the qualifications of “seemingly” and “from your POV” from statements of fact about WMD?
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m curious, is this what the OP and assorted other Bush-backers consider “fair and balanced”? Beyond ironic that this kumbayesque dribble should come from the “with us or against us” side.
Guess that’s as close as we’ll get to an admission of defeat barring a fifty-year wait to see if their blood-soaked fantasies come true…
I refuse to admit that such an abomination as “kumbayesque” can be inflicted on polite company with impunity! You got too far, sir! Too far!
Someone’s bitching, Lord, kumbayah …
Ooooh, a retort from lekatt! I’m all a-quiver! 
Bah! Jealousy will get you nowhere – tell you what, as long as proper credit is given, you can use too
This disgusting thread is redeemed only by irony. From the (prescient) OP:
The sort of thing that does not seem out of place in this discussion:
It’s not even the (lazy, nasty) insult that bothers me, so much as it is the attitutes that gave rise to the insult. First is the prevalent idea that it really is that simple – thank God you’re not one of the fools, huh? Just as bad – and this is nearly universal once a thread reaches a certain level of animosity – is the decision to forgoe actual discussion in favor of taking shots and scoring points.
I think the imbalance (by American standards) on this board is a moral hazard: it gives good people an incentive to be dismissive and rude.
Varloz:
You may notice that my attitude towards some of the posters in this thread is different from my attitude towards others. I’m polite and respectful towards John Mace and Bricker because they have always been polite and respectful towards me, despite our differences of opinion. I don’t post cheap shots at people just because they happen to disagree with me.
On the other hand, I have a history with Sam and Shodan. Shodan is consistently rude, snide, and condescending towards his debating opponents. He deserves no better in return, especially when representing a point of view that is also morally bankrupt. Sam – well, I can’t say much more here about him without breaking the rules of GD. Let’s just say that I finally, finally saw him for who he really is during the Swift Boat Veterans debacle, and have lost all respect for him. No one who has followed the debates between me and him could ever claim that I haven’t given him the benefit of the doubt.
Sam claims to be a libertarian, but he isn’t, really. Both he and Shodan present on these boards a politics of reactionary, militant, right-wing extremism. They’re warmongers, basically. For example, in any situation where Sam must decide between libertarian principles and militant extremism, he always seems to choose the latter. That’s why, when I read shit like this, posted by Sam:
…my stomach turns. Very few people on this board are as bloodthirsty as Sam. He did not view war then as a “last resort.” He advocated it as a policy of first choice, and he spread as much disinformation as he could here to support that choice. His faulty powers of clairvoyance have already been demonstrated, yet still he clings to the idea that had we not invaded now, we would have been forced to in a few years – and really, that’s the only argument he has left for the thing. (One could make a similar argument for the invasion of North Korea, or any other country, and how can it be disproved?)
To watch him pretend that he advocates war as a last resort, now, after the fact, is really sickening.
I’ve been known to eat babies, too.
Sweet Merciful Og, is that what “Canadian bacon” is?
Thanks, 'luc… I’ll never be able to order that agian!!
Mmm… Canadian Bacon and pineapple on pizza. It sounds so wrong but it tastes so right.
Enjoy,
Steven
B’rer Svin:
I trust that my status as one of your biggest fans accords me the privilege of mild remonstrance?
Chillitude, dude.
Your calmly unruffled demonstration of fact and blandly Scandanavian command of the Dark Arts of Google are mercilessly effective. So sharp your rhetorical enemy doesn’t know he’s been cut until his guts splash on his shoes.
You’re a much better sniper than a skirmisher.
Yer pal,
’luc