Typically, a troll is someone who either posts inflammatory stuff to get a rise out of people or who takes a rather silly, but contrary stand on a point and holds it in the face of all evidence, simply to get reactions.
The fact that you obstinately hold opinions that even people on your own end of the political spectrum eschew, twisting every possible argument to avoid facing the reality of any situation you discuss, has led numerous posters to come to the conclusion that you are trolling.
You will note that I have not (yet) joined in that view. (If I had, you would have already been Warned for trolling.)
I simply think you are an unreasoning partisan who has some need to believe that everyone with whom you side must be the “good guys,” white hats and all, and you are incapable of seeing good among your enemies or faults among your allies. It is unfortunate–it certainly leads to some truly silly exchanges, but it is not a violation of board rules.
This is better, you simply think I am an unreasoning partisan. I need not defend myself on that.
I have explained in a very reasoned way that my first encounter here was over an issue where I and one other very reasonable writer hold a position that is not partisan. We both said that a Republican President Bush with Republicans and Democrats in Congress were correct to confront SH in the Fall of '02 because his regime in Iraq was in violation of international law at that time.
I still do not see the partisanship in that or the silliness of it.
My position on that huge discussion is that Bush was solely and ultimately responsible for the decision to force an end of UN inspections in March of 2003. I have not seen a single poster tell me that fact is not the case.
What is silly or odd about holding that view is what Would seriously like to know.
Perhaps the other thread I started on the Bush Library is a better place to discuss it.
I am proud of the reasonable thread I have started with my reasonable replies I’ve made and the reasonable responses and comments received thus far.
The term refers to that vanishingly small minority of Tea Party members who are unreasonable or irrational, not the vast majority of sensible and intelligent folks who just happen to believe that Obama is a nazi atheist muslim from Area 51.
As to the Hon. Mister Cummings, the more important question is posed but not answered: Did, in fact, the “Hon.” Mr. Issa withhold some transcripts that weakened his case while flauting those that supported it?
Further, your counter evidence offered only takes this to a “he say, she say” level of interlocking contradictions. Has Ms. Hofacre a memo, perhaps, from the perfidious Mr. Hull outlining the dastardly plot? If not, why not? If so, where is it? Mr. Issa seems to have little problem with swinging his subpoena power about, has he sought such communications?
That sort of uncertainty, attached to an ongoing investigation, means that leaping to a conclusion about the nucleus of the targeting, be it “it must be a couple of bureaucrats” or “Obama personally ordered this”, or “it was a false flag by crypto-conservatives”, is wildly premature.
Then by your definition, NotfooledbyW’s use of the term “Teabaggers” was incorrect. Unless you contend that the IRS review extended to only extreme whackjobs, and not ordinary Tea Partiers.
In what way is that the more important question? I would expect nothing less of a politician. In fact, it appears that Rep. Cummings did the same thing by focusing on the evidence that supports his preferred conclusion, and ignoring the contrary evidence. Is that also the more important question?
Man, I sure hope not. I hope that the more important question is whether the IRS targeted conservative groups. Because if this is about whether politicians probably shouldn’t be trusted to provide evidence contradicting their position, then maybe we should discuss more interesting topics, like whether water is wet.
Partly true. At this point, it seems to have risen to the level of “he say, they say.” Because according to Rep. Cummings, his belief is based on one person’s testimony. But I agree with you and Human Action that it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions about who was responsible and who participated.
How about I accept your point in that it is too trivial to concern ourselves with. I also accept that you may very well be more familiar than I at the nuances of distinction between “extreme whackjobs” and “ordinary Tea Partiers”.
Not quite. Actually, not even close. Mr. Cummings point is that Mr Issa has the information at hand, and is selectively releasing carefully picked sections. His offering is based upon its exclusion by Mr. Issa. Suggesting that his information is also slanted is too cute by half. There is no equivalence here, there is action and re-action.
Nope. Rep. Cummings wasn’t just trying to get information out there to balance the scales. He said, based on this individual’s testimony, that he would close down the entire investigation.
Rep. Cumming’s point wasn’t to criticize Rep. Issa’s use of selective reasoning. It was to call for an end to the investigation based on his own selective reasoning.
You said earlier that we’re at the “he said/she said” point of the investigation. You’ve been asking for additional documents, which have not been produced yet. Rep. Issa apparently thinks there are sufficient questions to continue the investigation, too. So unless your position has changed in the last few hours, you’ve got that in common.
What in the hell is “selective reasoning”? Is it a dishonest rhetorical ploy, or a symptom of the dreaded Cognitive Dissonance (the number one threat to the Republic!).
And, yes, indeed, Congressgit Cummings did say that if it were up to him, etc. Of course, it is not, and, of course, he knows that. House rules being what they are, and Mr. Issa’s chairmanship being what it is, I doubt any power short of a thunderbolt from the Throne could “close down the investigation”.
(I’m not really dumb enough to fall for that one. Its just my boyish good looks and warm, folksy demeanor that give a false impression.)