Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand most of your post was hyperbole, but do you really believe that those who favor lower taxes are lucky to be in their situation? Is that how they got their, as if it was by some random chance?*

*Disregarding, of course, the few who inherited their money - they are certainly lucky in the sense that they won the genetic lottery.

Yes. Almost completely random chance.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They need something to rail against, and they're defined by what they hate.

Can someone please page PLF for an irony ruling?

I still have no idea what you and Club are talking about. Of course there is more outcry about what our government does - it is our government and we have some influence over it. And, moreover, we should be holding ourselves to the highest standards. The fact that Iran does not is not news.

But you are kidding yourself if you do not believe that every time we lower our standards for the sake of expediency, we make it easier for the Irans of the world to do the same (or worse).

Unless you endorse the Pony "nuke 'em all" view of the world, I'm not exactly sure what you and Club would like to see people doing right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
When a Dem rips into the Bush Admin's interrogation policies with a vengeance and claims those policies are of utmost importance - a near sacred matter, then sits silent when Iran engages in similar (though I agree tamer) interrogation policies, I call that person a hypocrite. And a lot of dictionaries would back me up.

It's not a question of which dictionary you use. It's a question of finding a normal person who would think that a Democrat who is not quoted in the newspaper condemning Iran for doing what every normal person knows is wrong must, therefore, support it. No normal person would think that. It's sophistry. It's a debating trick. It's a cheap way of impugning Democrats. It's the sort of shit lawyers do -- crappy lawyers do -- and I thought you were smarter than that.

Lawyers like you and I know know the best lie is one of omission. When you don't want to deal with a fact that fucks up your case, you avoid it. In this situation, the same voices who shred the US on its interrogation policies are ignoring what Iran has done.

First, you don't know that they're ignoring anything. You only know that they're not getting quoted in the newspaper or on TV. And the obvious reason for that is everyone in this country agrees that Iran was wrong, and so there's no dispute to write newspaper stories about. The O'Reilly Factor would be pretty dull if everyone agreed. But it's never happened.

Second, you didn't just say that "Lefties" are "ignoring what Iran has done." You said they were disingenuous. Which is taking another bullshit step to try to infer from the "ignoring" -- which is itself bullshit -- that "Lefties" somehow support Iran.

I know a lot of Lefties who only get their backs up when the US does something bad but sit silent at all other times. They have an agenda, and they refuse to see both sides of an issue, just like many of their counterparts on the Right. These people make politics a religion, and avoid anything that detracts from the delusional view they sustain at any cost. Some people are so desperate to believe in something, and feel like they're right that they'll bullshit themselves rather than see the fact that both sides of an issue are wrong, or a lot closer together than makes these "true believers" comfortable. They need something to rail against, and they're defined by what they hate. And there's no hate stronger than that directed to our Fumbler in Chief. Add the fact that many liberals are young and naive (a lot of my liberal friends like to believe in conspiracies of powerful people controlling our world like a puppet show) and you get a very deluded mindset more intent on attacking and winning the debate against an Administration it hates than honestly addressing the facts of an issue. These people only scream when the target of criticism suits their goals.

Stop hanging with Chomskyites. Their stupidity is rubbing off.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Yes. Almost completely random chance.

I realize i may be whiffing, but if so I will just note that you're too stupid to be trying for irony- AND that if you really believe that attaining wealth is pure luck then you should take 50% of what you make and give it to a poor family, or a rich one, it doesn't matter under your theory which one.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand most of your post was hyperbole, but do you really believe that those who favor lower taxes are lucky to be in their situation? Is that how they got their, as if it was by some random chance?*

*Disregarding, of course, the few who inherited their money - they are certainly lucky in the sense that they won the genetic lottery.

Sebastian threw out his caricature of the Right, choosing the Redneck Yahoo stereotype. I responded with the caricature that is more consistent with my own background and experience.

My only aim was to show him how silly he was being, especially after his shining moment of lucidity earlier in the day when he noted that the extreme wing of both sides of the political spectrum were equally hare-brained and deluded.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not a question of which dictionary you use. It's a question of finding a normal person who would think that a Democrat who is not quoted in the newspaper condemning Iran for doing what every normal person knows is wrong must, therefore, support it. No normal person would think that. It's sophistry. It's a debating trick. It's a cheap way of impugning Democrats. It's the sort of shit lawyers do -- crappy lawyers do -- and I thought you were smarter than that.

First, you don't know that they're ignoring anything. You only know that they're not getting quoted in the newspaper or on TV. And the obvious reason for that is everyone in this country agrees that Iran was wrong, and so there's no dispute to write newspaper stories about. The O'Reilly Factor would be pretty dull if everyone agreed. But it's never happened.

Second, you didn't just say that "Lefties" are "ignoring what Iran has done." You said they were disingenuous. Which is taking another bullshit step to try to infer from the "ignoring" -- which is itself bullshit -- that "Lefties" somehow support Iran.

Stop hanging with Chomskyites. Their stupidity is rubbing off.

In order:

1. You're changing the issue. I never said the Left supports Iran. I said they are conspicuously silent on what Iran has done because discussing what Iran is doing wrong - even when its on a subject they discuss ad nauseum when it pertains to the US's policies on interrogation - gives some credence to Bush's argument that Iran is a dangerous rogue state, and by extension, admits Bush's policies have some credibility. At a minimum, focusing on Iran's bad behavior is detracting from the Left's aim of keeping the focus on Bush's bad behavior.

I never said Dems support what Iran is doing. You repackaged my argument in that fashion. Come on, counselor. I haven't been retired that long...

2. I see no Opeds anywhere from the Left regarding Iran's treatment of the soldiers. Who's got Paul Krugman and Frank Rich's tongues? Or do you lump them in with Chomsky? If you do, then you've admitted there is no "Moderate Left," since everyone on the Left likes Paul and Frank's columns.

Still, I will allow that you make a decent argument that maybe there are a few Lefties who have screamed about what Iran did, but were ignored, or simply found no reason to scream at all, since they assumed everyone knew where they stood on the issue. But I'd still have to say they're de minimus... If there's one consistent thing about a strident Leftie or Rightie, it's his ability to get himself heard.

3. See #1. They're disingenuous because they're screaming about what the US is doing and mute on what Iran's doing. I'm not going to debate the definition or common usage/understanding/scope of "disingenuous." You understood what I meant.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
My only aim was to show him how silly he was being, especially after his shining moment of lucidity earlier in the day when he noted that the extreme wing of both sides of the political spectrum were equally hare-brained and deluded.

Citing the obvious is passing for enlightened lucidity these days?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sebastian threw out his caricature of the Right, choosing the Redneck Yahoo stereotype. I responded with the caricature that is more consistent with my own background and experience.

It's nice to see you admit you're a country clubbing limousine liberal.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's nice to see you admit you're a country clubbing limousine liberal.

Oops. Quoted the wrong post. I meant to respond to:

Citing the obvious is passing for enlightened lucidity these days?

It does when the rest of the time you are busy asserting that the left is only against torture because Bush is for it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
But you are kidding yourself if you do not believe that every time we lower our standards for the sake of expediency, we make it easier for the Irans of the world to do the same (or worse).

This... now this is a pretty neat argument. It's sneaky rotten horsehit and totally misses the issue, but it turns the debate on its head real quickly. Cheap and deflective, but that one would get some traction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Oops. Quoted the wrong post. I meant to respond to:

It does when the rest of the time you are busy asserting that the left is only against torture because Bush is for it.

Ball 3.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order:

1. You're changing the issue. I never said the Left supports Iran. I said they are conspicuously silent on what Iran has done because discussing what Iran is doing wrong - even when its on a subject they discuss ad nauseum when it pertains to the US's policies on interrogation - gives some credence to Bush's argument that Iran is a dangerous rogue state, and by extension, admits Bush's policies have some credibility. At a minimum, focusing on Iran's bad behavior is detracting from the Left's aim of keeping the focus on Bush's bad behavior.

I never said Dems support what Iran is doing. You repackaged my argument in that fashion. Come on, counselor. I haven't been retired that long...

2. I see no Opeds anywhere from the Left regarding Iran's treatment of the soldiers. Who's got Paul Krugman and Frank Rich's tongues? Or do you lump them in with Chomsky? If you do, then you've admitted there is no "Moderate Left," since everyone on the Left likes Paul and Frank's columns.

Still, I will allow that you make a decent argument that maybe there are a few Lefties who have screamed about what Iran did, but were ignored, or simply found no reason to scream at all, since they assumed everyone knew where they stood on the issue. But I'd still have to say they're de minimus... If there's one consistent thing about a strident Leftie or Rightie, it's his ability to get himself heard.

3. See #1. They're disingenuous because they're screaming about what the US is doing and mute on what Iran's doing. I'm not going to debate the definition or common usage/understanding/scope of "disingenuous." You understood what I meant.

Writing an op-ed complaining about what Iran did is like writing an op-ed condemning termites. Who disagrees? What's the point? Krugman and Rich get only so many words a week -- they might as well try to say something, instead of trying to satisfy this sort of loyalty test. There's no disingenuity about failing to state the obvious. There is, though, in using this lawyer's trick to try to create daylight between left (sorry: "the Left") and right on this sort of issue.

It's not like you're suggesting that anyone actually thinks what Iran did was OK. So where's the harm in failing to say more about it? Usually you have little tolerance for cant, so why are you stuck on it here?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ball 3.

hank, adder, sebby, ty, club, wanker. Easter in the OC and Hot Brandon recommending more alcohol suddenly seem like good ideas.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Writing an op-ed complaining about what Iran did is like writing an op-ed condemning termites. Who disagrees? What's the point? Krugman and Rich get only so many words a week -- they might as well try to say something, instead of trying to satisfy this sort of loyalty test. There's no disingenuity about failing to state the obvious. There is, though, in using this lawyer's trick to try to create daylight between left (sorry: "the Left") and right on this sort of issue.

It's not like you're suggesting that anyone actually thinks what Iran did was OK. So where's the harm in failing to say more about it? Usually you have little tolerance for cant, so why are you stuck on it here?

It's not an matter of harm or daylight between the Right and the Left. It's a matter of shining a light on the Left's motivations and goals.

As I said, you and I can disagree about why the Left is quiet on the Iran thing. I think it's because they have a pattern and practice of not addressing such things because it doesn't help their limited agenda. You think it's implied they loathe what Iran did, so saying it's not necessary. We could argue that all day, but it's an issue of fact neither of us will ever really know for certain. In that vacuum of proof, we'll agree to disagree. I think I have the circumstantial evidence to win it in a courtroom, but whatever...

You know, this is a rotten medium for cross examination. I could drive at you all day, but you'd be able to duck and weave here until I was blue in the face. And vice versa.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Unclear and cryptic can often seem profound. This wasn't one of those instances.

English, please.

Your boxing up of left and right into neat little straw men lacks even the complexity of one of Seuss's second tier efforts.

Don't worry, you'll soon be much more familiar with Seuss's work. Strive for Yertle.