Sure. I’m a grown up who is not ruled by his emotions, and thus, in your eyes, handicapped. It’s a stupid argument.
Personally, I’d rather hang out with my Bud, Marcus Aurelius:
“If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb you, but your own estimate of them. It is within your power to revoke that estimate at any time.”
Who says I can’t say or admit that. Of course it’s true. It doesn’t make what happens here right.
I don’t see how something Rush Limbaugh says makes it Ok to pile on Bricker.
I’m talking about this board, not the senate. What Cheney says or doesn’t say doesn’t make Bricker fair game.
I have a theory. The constant attacks polarize and embitter moderates and push them to the fringes.
Related topic but I’ve forgotten by now which thread it belongs in: what is with the delusion that the Right doesn’t have a voice in this nation? Rush has been on the air for how long? Anne Coulter is facing menopause and shows no signs of a stake in her heart. Hannity and [sub]Colmes[/sub] are around; Papa Bear is out there, doing his pinhead best. Please stop with the sob story re these few lone voices in the maelstrom of liberal media. It isn’t true. It doesn’t work. It’s bullshit like most of the Republican whining.
[/QUOTE]
No. I had to waterboard myself to know. I had to do it to speak with authority so that my words would carry weight and be considered.
And they were. It was a huge success. That thread was quoted both online and offline in various media outlets. The WSJ and several other publications sought to interview me. When I refused they found their own primary sources and duplicated my effort with the same results. I think I played a part in changing the character of the debate on waterboarding by taking it from the abstract and hypothetical to the personal fatally weakening the arguments of those who said it was human and acceptable. I was a nail in that coffin because of my initiative, and my way with words that resonated with others.
I changed the world just a little bit. I pushed it just a little bit in the right direction.
That’s why I had to do it.
That’s what I actually accomplished. I did it by creating empathy, by making people understand and feel and sympathize with what it would be like to be waterboarded.
Don’t presume to lecture me on the subject of empathy.
Again, you are pretending not to get it, I assume, or are just too fucking dense. It is not a sign of maturity to fail to feel pangs of conscience. It’s a sign of psychopathy.
Actually, to be fair, I give him major props for that.
Wait, you think that demostrates empathy? Some people don’t need to subject themselves to physical torture to understand empathy. If you think you garnered attention for yourself or for the subject of waterboarding, I have to lecture you that that is not empathy either.
Yes, and Reader’s Digest wanted to publish your piece on attack of the blimps too, right? Anyone want to publish your racist grandfather piece?
Well, that was a start-the beginning of an admission of possibility of ownership of the problem. “What happens here” is that both side snipe and snark to the detriment of true communication. And there are jerks on both sides that can poison a good discussion. No argument there.
Pardon me, I thought this was a complaint about how conservatives were treated in general. If Bricker defended the VP in his macho crap, (and I am not saying he did or didn’t–I don’t know), then he would deserve the same contempt that the VP engendered. If he said Cheney was a jerk, I’d heartily concur and respect him a bit more as someone who can see his party’s representatives objectively.
If you or [fill in name of conservative Doper here] come in and defend Rush, despite cites and evidence that Rush is talking out his ass, then you deserve the same jeering that Rush does. I am not saying you have done so (I have no idea)–I’m just making a point.
There have been many threads that have questioned and found policies/actions of Bush et al to be flawed, harmful or just plain stupid, but with the exception of AirmanDoors (or whatever his name is), I have not read one conservative post that says hey, we fucked up on Afghanistan or not allowing pictures of the military coffins does look bad, no matter how well intentioned or I’d have been more comfortable if Bush had stopped reading that damned book to those first graders on 9/11 and taken charge or [fill in the blank].
Now maybe you and yours have said all this and more and I’ve just missed it. If so, I apologize. But I scan through more than I post in GD and the Pit, and I tend to open political threads, and I have missed the middle ground so far.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. I have no problem meeting you civilly. I will say I don’t trust you or other conservatives here to actually put your money where your mouth is. But I am willing to go ahead, despite my misgivings. If I say I can see where some limits on abortion are a good thing, will you agree that some limits on the purchasing of firearms is not all bad? I wonder.
Actually your whole experience could best be described as “Attention Whoring.”
Because sure as shit you didn’t gain any empathy towards those it is (indiscriminately) used on. Otherwise why support a candidate who agrees (after flip-flopping) with the same disgusting method?
Face it Scylla, you’re scum. Win or lose you’ll remain as much.
Enjoy.
Cite?
Deleted post.
So, no cite?
I don’t make up little stories on an internet message board and call them accomplishments. I publish elsewhere. But hey, congrats on everything you’ve achieved.
Ok.
No not really. As you say, it’s both ways generally. I’m speaking more specifically about this board, and more specifically still, about Bricker.
I disagree. For example, I’m speaking hypothetically, I’m not familiar with the incident. Let us say, Bricker has a cite or an argument that suggests Cheney was provoked or justified in his statement. It could be something strong like saying that Cheney only said what he said because the Senator called his daughter a Dyke, or it could be weak. You really can’t evaluate the argument unless you examine it. To do so you need to give fair consideration to Bricker when he is bringing you that argument. If you are dismissive of him simply because you feel strongly that Cheney was wrong in saying what he said and you treat Bricker poorly, than you both lose. You lose the possibility of gaining new data and enlightenment, or of changing Bricker’s mind if his argument is weak.
More importantly you create further badwill which will doubtless reverberate down the road.
More importantly still, it is just better to be nice. Attacking others whether or not you feel you are justified is usually a bad idea.
I don’t think it’s a black and white world. I’ve listened to Rush. He’s good. He’s entertaining. He’s said some good things. He’s also said some bad things. He was thoughts and ideas, some of which are worthy of discussion.
Small minds discuss people. Larger minds discuss events. Larger still discuss ideas. Why not elevate the discusion beyond the “this person sucks. No, he’s cool. No, he sucks” level to one more meaningful?
I concluded that Bush lied about the WMDs and remarked so.
Understandable. There’s not much of it. That’s for sure.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. I have no problem meeting you civilly. I will say I don’t trust you or other conservatives here to actually put your money where your mouth is. But I am willing to go ahead, despite my misgivings. If I say I can see where some limits on abortion are a good thing, will you agree that some limits on the purchasing of firearms is not all bad? I wonder.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but enough already with the name calling. We get that you think he’s scum/an ass/a douche/a whatever.
Calling him that doesn’t make him go away and doesn’t make any of this better. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion and feelings, but can we not share quite so much? Thanks.
Don’t ruin it, Scylla--I was trying here. And now you come out with some disingenuous stuff yourself: Cheney told Leahy to go fuck himself on the floor of the senate, not because Leahy called his daughter a dyke. IIRC, it was an unprovoked attack due to the nerve of Senator Leahy for addressing The Grand Vizier, er, VP. The rudeness and incivility was all on the VP. But he was defended here, IMS.
No. He is partly the reason hundreds of thousands are dead – most of them innocent.
IOW, he is scum.
The opinions of someone from a self-avowed BananaLand do not count, at least as far as our President goes.
I wasn’t being disingenuous. I said, I wasn’t familiar with the incident and was being strictly hypothetical. I’m sure it occured exactly as you said.
And, I sincerely appreciate your goodwill, and will do my best not to give you reason to regret extending it.
I don’t think it’s location that devalues his opinion.
Maybe not, but his anti-American trolling certainly does.
Starving Artist, Scylla, et. al., is the way Carol Stream acts toward liberals your idea of how you would like liberals to act toward you?