Wesley Clark is soooo busted!

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
**See, Scylla, this is ironic. You seem to expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt – when you apparently misunderstand what Saddam did, you get angry when people assume you were lying. But when people apparently misunderstand what you’re saying, you assume they’re lying, and extend them no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

Either be a lot less cavalier with accusations of other people lying, or else be a lot more thickskinned when people throw similar accusations at you.

Daniel **

Please stop. Notice what I did when I saw I was wrong on an issue. I got it the fist time it was explained to me. I conceded my error. I did that in spite of the fact that the person doing it was being a real prick about it.

I’ve explained my position four times and it’s still being ignored and there are those pretending I said something different.

The fact of the matter is that it is easy to attack me and debase my arguments by mischaracterizing them, but difficult to respond to what I actually said.

Nobody said “You are right. I apologize for saying that you think anybody who criticizes the war is a traitor. Thanks for the clarification.”

So gimme a fucking break, 'kay?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Scylla, the problem might be this passive voice. When you say your position “is being ignored” and that “there are those” pretending you said something different, are you talking about me or about somebody else? When you say people are lying about your position, WHO is lying?

If you think I’m characterizing you accurately, that’s fine. If you think I’m mischaracterizing you, that’s fine too. If you’re accusing me of lying, then you’re fucking wrong.

Daniel

[Scylla]

No Dan, I’m not accusing you, and I apologize for the passive voice. I simply don’t want to credit the assholes with attention they don’t deserve.

I think you’re a fine guy, and I’ve enjoyed our last few encounters.

[Spavined_Gelding]

But don’t you see Scylla that when you complain that “some people” are doing you dirt it lumps the honest debater, like DanielWithrow, right in with the assholes. Without special access to your particular thought process it tars the “some people” who are trying to keep this thing rational with the same brush as the “some people” who are jerks. Without a scorecard the good “some people” cannot be distinguished from the bad “some people.” It becomes especially difficult when you tell us that you are being persecuted for your righteousness. I am trying to be reasonable here but it is taking an effort after our exchange of the last few days.

I’d still like to know what questions of yours you think I’m avoiding.

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**
So yeah, I am being persecuted. Certainly not auschwitz, revoke my civil rights burn a cross in my yard and string me from a tree persecuted, but persecuted nonetheless. **

Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Maybe one day you will strike the persecution region, but for now it is but a jingoistic pipedream. Keep reaching for that persecution rainbow!!!

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Yes. And one potential end to that embarassment and failure would be that we actually find what is that Bush said was there in convincing fashion.

There are some here and elsewhere that ** clearly** would be unhappy with such a result. Such a person is a shithead. **

With a straw body. If you think someone here, or elsewhere, is actually that childish, then name names and explain reasons. Or admit that’s a lie. Take your choice - but you do know what the default answer is.

If you’re as sincere as you seem in thinking that being expected to take responsibility for your statements is “persecution”, then your troubles run far deeper than anyone on a message board can help you with.

[CarnalK]

To avoid dealing with my real life I did a little research. I am sad to say that Scylla had raised the '98 Inspectors Kick-Spin before (1, 2, 3) and noone called him on it. I could see why he might still hold the story as true and I think a call of liar is pretty hasty. Many people still believe it. Where were you guys in those other threads?

I admit when I corrected december on it I used the L-word without looking to deep. He had begun to make too bad an impression on me I guess. Now, I may think Scylla pigheaded but I haven’t seen dishonesty ('cept maybe a strawman or two ). Hope that’s not too backhanded.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Actually I am being persecuted. **

So when you call others names, you’re persecuting them then?

Such a person is a shithead.

I simply don’t want to credit the assholes with attention they don’t deserve.

“Bush is a liar. They were deliberate lies. There are no WMDs. There never were any.” are statements of unfounded stupidity deserving of contempt.

I take argument with unfounded knee-jerk assertions.

You were asking interesting questions and now you’re being a prick.

Or this this a one-way standard? Those are just some of your posts. Given your own actions here, your claims seem ironic. You were the last person I would have predicted playing the victim card. Oh well. Also given your last thread on december you reference to him here seems a bit baffling. Are you joining the “evil-liberals got december banned” set?

Here is some more politically based irony for the day:

“Surprise, surprise, they are calling for a special counsel. My goodness,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. “It must be in their political handbook, their campaign handbook.”

The Democratic handbook? Gee did I just dream the entire second term of Clinton, or is Tom DeLay irony impaired?

[Scylla]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *

Without special access to your particular thought process it tars the “some people” who are trying to keep this thing rational with the same brush as the “some people” who are jerks. Without a scorecard the good “some people” cannot be distinguished from the bad "some people. It becomes especially difficult when you tell us that you are being persecuted for your righteousness.

It’s hard to see how you’re confused since I gave specific examples.

I am trying to be reasonable here but it is taking an effort after our exchange of the last few days.

Hyperanalysis is like contemplating your navel.

I said what I said. I clarified it. I stand behind it.

**I’d still like to know what questions of yours you think I’m avoiding. **

Jeez, man. The two questions I identified.

This has devolved into unrewarding effort. Why don’t both of us just move on and bring no hard feelings to the next thread?
Tars Tarkas:

Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Maybe one day you will strike the persecution region, but for now it is but a jingoistic pipedream. Keep reaching for that persecution rainbow!!!

I gave you examples of my persecution. If you think they’re wrong, address them.

Elvis:

You’re too fucking stupid to be answered.

Carnal K:

Thanks for avoiding life and helping me out.
elf6c:

So when you call others names, you’re persecuting them then?

No. I am the arbiter of all that is right and I only attack when provoked.

By definition all attacks on me are persecution since I’m outnumbered. Me attacking back is “just retaliation.”

Those are just some of your posts. Given your own actions here, your claims seem ironic.

That would be hypocrisy, not irony.

You were the last person I would have predicted playing the victim card.

I’m not. Who said I was a victim? I didn’t bring it up. Somebody defended me and somebody else made a smartass comment about conservative persecution.

I felt it was rather obvious when I was accused of lying and that it was seconded by Tejota without any grounds or reason, and when people ignore my actual words and simply attribute arguments despite 3 or four contrary clarifications… that I am being persecuted.

I wouldn’t have brought it up except that somebody said it wasn’t happening.

It is.

Oh well. Also given your last thread on december you reference to him here seems a bit baffling. Are you joining the “evil-liberals got december banned” set?

No. There is no large concept or agenda behind my statement about persecution, and it applies nowhere else but in this thread.

Knowing the way this thread goes somebody else will show up and claim that I’ve switched my position on December. It’s a waste of my time to dispel false allegations.

It is very tedious to say “no I did not say that” 3 or four times.

Once enough people say i said it, other people just assume that I did, and it’s a major hassle to dispel.

Look carefully in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply that anybody that disagreed with the war or criticized Bush was bad or a traitor.
Yet the allegation that I’ve said this is constantly repeated throughout this thread. I’ve corrected it 3 or four times. Yet, just a few posts ago, Worldeater makes the implication again.

Admit it, I’m persecuted.

[Azael]

I think that ever since december left the traditional SMDB pattern of liberal mutual masturbation has gotten really out of hand. But the fact that anything to do with Iraq brings them salivating like Pavlov’s dogs has been obvious since this whole mess began. You must know that as well Scylla, threads about Iraq that haven’t degenerated into an echo chamber of contempt and disgust for anything right of center are few and far between to say the least.

I’d be tempted to say that you are being persecuted, but it seems more likely given the circumstances that you are bringing it on yourself.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Azael *
**I’d be tempted to say that you are being persecuted, but it seems more likely given the circumstances that you are bringing it on yourself. **

You may be right. My presence in this thread does feel somewhat masochistic.

Was that what you meant?

[Spavined_Gelding]

There are no hard feelings, Scylla, on this thread or any other. I like to be told I’m acting like a prick. I actually enjoy people who carp that I’m not addressing their questions and then keep the questions a mystery. I get a huge kick out of people who claim that their particular political view points are not receiving proper respect when their particular sept dominates the highest levels of all three independent branches of the national government.

Just for yuck, and for the second or third time, tell me what question it is that I’m not answering. If you show me your questions, I’ll show you my answers. You go first.

In the mean time I think I’ll go engage in some liberal mutual masturbation, thank you very much. Purely for therapeutic purposes of course. It’s said to be good for the prostate.

[Scylla]

Spav:

Oh your being sarcastic, I guess.

The questions are in the first post of page two.

If you want to answer them, I would expect quotes from me supporting the characterizations you made or a retraction of those characterizations.

[Spavined_Gelding]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**What am I wrong about?

What assumption is that over which I am mistaken?
**

These questions? Hell, I responded to them in the ninth post on page two. As reported before your response amounted to “nice try but no cigar.”

Your “now you’re being a prick” language appears on the tenth post on page two.

If the characterization you are talking about is my recitation of your position on the substantive issue, if you will go back to the page two posts you will see that there is a series of questions that were hoped would cause you to flesh out your position on the substantive issue. Apparently it did not work because the only position I have been able to deduce from your posts is that you are not yet ready to take a firm position on the validity and credibility of our President’s publicly stated pretext for the invasion of Iraq. From that stance, assuming my conclusion is correct, it would seem fair to think that you do assume that our President was playing straight with his countrymen. There are plenty of reasons to think that is not the case. If you want to wait until Thanksgiving, or New Years Eve, or Election Day 2004 that’s OK by me–but sooner or later, if something indicating that there was a real threat of Saddam’s use or proliferation of bad stuff does not turn up, you are going to have to face the conclusion that our President was pulling your chain, my chain and the country’s chain.

My own thought is that 9/11 presented a happy concurrence of opportunity and motive for our President. Mr. Bush’s people had long wanted to go after Iraq but had no excuse. 9/11 provided political cover to go beat up on some Islamic country and a public willing to accept just about any phony baloney excuse. You will note that the stuff that was publicly produced to justify the invasion did not demonstrate a threat from Iraq, but rather was consistent with the theory that Iraq was a threat. Rather than deductive reasoning, the war was supported by inductive reasoning. Unexamined inductive reasoning can be very seductive. When combined with a fervent desire to believe the President (very prevalent after the convoluted word games of the Bill and Monica affair) the combination is most persuasive. What has been going on in these boards for the last year and more has been a serious effort to examine and evaluate the justification for the invasion. The failure of the Administration to turn up even forensic traces of the bad stuff the existence of which provided the foundation for the invasion goes a long way toward persuading me that the war was based if not on a lie, then on a grossly negligent misrepresentation.

I fully understand it if you are not yet willing to take that last step from giving the President the benefit of the doubt to concluding that the justification for the war was just so much smoke and mirrors. Sooner or later, however, a thinking and politically aware person has to make that final step. I think you have accepted if nothing demonstrating Saddam’s possession of bad stuff shows up by the end of November then you will conclude that the pretext for the war was illegitimate.

The only really difference between us, if the above is accurate, is that some of us thought the pretext was questionable from the beginning. If you want to take a while longer, help your self. When you finally reach your conclusion, I am sure that you will be welcome in the effort to save our nation from the continued administration of a dishonest and reckless adventurer.

[gex_gex]

originally posted by Azael
I think that ever since december left the traditional SMDB pattern of liberal mutual masturbation has gotten really out of hand.

This is cool. We’re actually getting to see a martyr being created. Give it a few hundred years and december will be seen as some sort of conservative messiah, who (so it is prophesised) will one day return and save the right wing from the liberal hordes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by gex gex *
**This is cool. We’re actually getting to see a martyr being created. Give it a few hundred years and december will be seen as some sort of conservative messiah, who (so it is prophesised) will one day return and save the right wing from the liberal hordes. **

The blind and hairy-palmed liberal hordes, to be more precise.

My main problem is that I don’t have any liberal masturbation partners. Well, there’s my wife, but she’s just not into either politics or masturbation with the zeal that is necessary. Perhaps we should form up regional support groups, sort of like regular Dope-Stroke Fests. Anybody else up for it?

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**
Tars Tarkas:
I gave you examples of my persecution. If you think they’re wrong, address them.
**

People disagreeing with you doesn’t equal persecution. I could give you a taste of real persecution, but i would just get banned. All you come off here is a self-important whiner. Your president lied, and played you for a fool. And you are still being played.

[Weird_With_Words]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**That would be hypocrisy, not irony.

**
Main Entry: iro·ny
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

From what I gathered from this definition and others, irony tends to be a generalized word for “contradiction”.

By definition all attacks on me are persecution since I’m outnumbered. Me attacking back is "just retaliation."

Main Entry: per·se·cute
1 : to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

Perhaps you have a different interpretation, I wouldn’t claim the dictionary to be completely empirical.

[/nitpick]

But let’s get beyond the words itself and move on to the intent. I guess it’s just hard for me to see your attacks as being purely retaliatory when you were the one who made the first attack. Now, it could easily be argued that many of the posters went a bit overboard in interpreting your “shithead” statement as a blanketing indictment against liberals, but I can also see why they might feel this way when one considers that ElvisL1ves’ opinions presented in this thread are not too far out of line with the opinions of liberals in general, i.e. “there’s no WMDs, there never were, and I can’t wait 'till Bush is exposed for the lying fuckwad he is.” Is this purely political? You betcha. But keep in mind that most of us liberals feel that all we have to do to regain most of America’s credibility (what little there was) is to get those fuckers out of office. On top of that, many of us resent Bush for squandering so much global support and sympathy in the months after 9/11. A level of global support that we may never see again, unless of course another 3,000 people get killed, and even then they might think “careful now, don’t lend them too much sympathy, you remember what happened last time”. But I suppose now you’ll accuse me of wishing death on innocents.

So far the only outright insult I’ve seen directed towards you was Desmo’s either/or question/accusation, which, while not exactly giving you the benefit of the doubt, can in no way be compared to claiming ElvisL1ves wants the soldiers to die for nothing. And yeah, a lot of liberals interpret that as an accusation of treason; partially because we’ve become oversensitive from years (well, two, actually. But, what a couple’a years, huh?) of being called unpatriotic or even treasonous. But mainly because, well, when you accuse any american of wanting our soldiers to die for nothing, that is tantamount to an accusation of treason. Just my POV? Mayhap, but I would think it rather hard to dispute.

So, in the most literal sense, you’re right. You didn’t accuse anyone of treason, but let’s not be cute, what you said was nearly as offensive. Even I was offended reading it, and I hadn’t even posted for my first time yet (btw, where’s that welcoming committee? I want my dope basket and I want it now!) And if we’re not supposed to be offended, why should you be offended by ElvisL1ves’ alleged wishing of meaningless upon the soldiers? It’s not like he’s wishing a meaningless death on you.

Who said I was a victim? I didn’t bring it up.

I guess there really is a first time for everything.

I felt it was rather obvious when I was accused of lying…

You were not accused, you were asked, and when given two optional answers, you picked the first one. Now if only you had given ElvisL1ves such an option…

I only attack when provoked.

Bwahahahahaha!!! Cough… ahem… excuse me, that was a… sneeze. Yeah. I appear to be allergic to bovine fecal-matter.

Look carefully in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply that anybody that disagreed with the war or criticized Bush was bad or a traitor.

Correct. You only owe one person an apology.

As far as your “persecution” is concerned, if it’s such a heavy burden why, not put it down?

[ElvisL1ves]

It ain’t worth it, Weird. Thanks, but don’t waste electrons on it. The guy’s already shown us how much his views are worth. An apology wouldn’t actually mean jack even if he gave one - and I’m far, far from the only target of his schoolyard invective here.

[Weird_With_Words]

I guess I’m just trying to make him doubt because I see that as the first step towards reason. And also because I don’t really think he’s a bad guy. He does hit below the belt sometimes, but he has a good sense of humor (not to mention science fiction), and I figure that anyone that has a good sense of humor can still be saved.*

*cheekiness intended