Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Is my hyperbole at all exotic or holding any shock value among a board of people echoing their political views back and forth and jumping en masse on anyone who suggests their "we know better than you and the govt is benevolent" politics are flawed?

I've taken it as a rule in life that the more vehemently people argue for something and freak out at even the smallest attack on their beliefs, the less validity the thing they advocate holds. I see the Right do it every day on so many issues example aren't necessary. But I also see the Left do it - and quite rabidly - here, on progressive taxation, global warming, wealth disparity, universal health insurance and just about every other totem or strawman connected to the Democrat party's platform.

Every time Slave, Spanky or Hank even suggests skepticism,of a Democrat ideal, you race in to attack in a group, reinforcing a soft infallibility and echoing each other in condemning any criticism as ignorant or opportunistic. I'm a fucking Libertarian who agrees with your social agenda and you still go into a fucking froth when I make fun of your rank and file or rip into the Democrat Party's economic policies.

You're all damn quick to insult the religious, but I don't see much difference betwen the mobthink on these boards and the way the religious lockstep behind their beliefs. You all are Never, ever wrong about anything, and you'll argue to the death the weakest planks of your party's platforms. I'd say some of you are just being lawyers. I do that myself at times. But what I'm beginning to recognize is not lawyer behavior, but the desperate need to protect at all cost a political view you all treat with an almost religious fervor.

Rabid partisans are fools, and both parties worth nothing but loathing. Keep that in mind as a baseline. Forget it... Believe in either party, and you're a fool.

Dude, I said that I totally agreed with your observation. Why are you on attack mode?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Since, I consider myself part of "the Left," I generally bristle when you ascribe to me opinions that I do not have.

I didn't ascribe to you any opinion. I ascribed to the group of people generally having views similar to yours an "opportunistic" lack of consistency in their criticism of dicey interrogation policies.

What you and Ty are doing by individualizing the debate is trying to take apart the notion that a "Left" even exists, thereby undoing my argument from the start. I could do the same with the criticims of the "Right," but it would be cheap debate gamesmanship. In the political realm, there are general groupings of people according to their beliefs. There are subgroupings within those groups, into which Ty or you fit, but as you admit, you're both "Left." You're stuck with that just as I'm stuck with being branded "Right" in my economic views.

If you don't like that, I suggest regsitering as a Libertarian, and earning the contempt of the most deluded members of both groups.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Dude, I said that I totally agreed with your observation. Why are you on attack mode?

It's not an attack on you and I don't intend it to come off that way if it did. It's a general observation. You happened to raise the "hyperbole" thing, which Ty raised yesterday, which led to my little stream of consciousness piece there.

I wouldn't attack a fellow miserable upper middle class fuck-off.

The "you" in the post describes the vehement Left on this board, not you.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've taken it as a rule in life that the more vehemently people argue for something and freak out at even the smallest attack on their beliefs, the less validity the thing they advocate holds.

Oh wise Sebby, how does this particular sentence relate to your two-day rant about The Left?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The "you" in the post describes the vehement Left on this board, not you.

And by this you mean a group of people all of whom have condemned Iran's treatment of the kidnapped sailors? Interesting.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Andrew Sullivan

eta: Some skepticism here.

A friend of mine is on the do-not-fly list. His son, who is named after my friend, is also on the list. As is my friend's brother. Apparently there's a family terrorist organization out there with the last name "Gonzales."

His wife and his son went down to Honduras for a wedding a few months before the second son was born. When they were coming back to the US, the airline wouldn't let the son on board. Terrorist, you see. His mother pitched a royal fit, and they managed to convice the airline that a three-year-old wasn't a threat to national security and could come back home.

When the second baby was born, they hyphenated his last name on the birth certificate to ensure that it was unique enough to avoid confusion with terrorists.

In fairness, Honduras airport officials share the blame with the US officials that put together the do-not-fly list.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Insulting the religious is Les and Slave's schtick.

SD does a good bit of it too, as I recall. Me, not so much.

I only insult people who believe foolish and mistaken things -- and then only if they disagree with me.

S_A_M

P.S. [Wait, was my post part of the rabid, frothing piling-on that hapens on this Board when a rebel like SD dares to speak Truth to Power? I'm so ashamed.]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
SD does a good bit of it too, as I recall. Me, not so much.

I only insult people who believe foolish and mistaken things -- and then only if they disagree with me.

S_A_M

P.S. [Wait, was my post part of the rabid, frothing piling-on that hapens on this Board when a rebel like SD dares to speak Truth to Power? I'm so ashamed.]

Truth to power? I merely described what I saw going on amongst fellow travelers on this board and in many other political discussions. You can take it is as truth or reject it. It's my view. Nothing more, nothing less. And your inference is yours.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
And by this you mean a group of people all of whom have condemned Iran's treatment of the kidnapped sailors? Interesting.

You should have stopped posting last night.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Insulting the religious is Les and Slave's schtick.

And mine. What's your point?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness

Jesus, man... That's the best you've got at the end of the day? To admit the Left's cravenly opportunistic on an issue in which it holds itself up as morally infallible and then distinguish "disingenuous" from "opportunistic."

You do realize you conceded my point, don't you. My point was the Left is playing politics with that which it claims is an issue of such moral gravity it transcends politics.

It's fine to be a whore and a liar in politics, but when you hold yourself out to be morally incorruptible on an issue, you're disingenuous.

Who the hell is holding themselves out as morally "incorruptable" or "infallible"? (I recognize, BTW, that that's the cardinal sin in your universe.) We were talking about people who are against torture. If you oppose torture, does that mean you think you're morally infallible? The overwhelming political consensus in this country until just a few years ago was that torture is wrong, so it doesn't exactly take infallibilty to still think that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's got a ring of after-the-factism to it, but I'm sure so many here looking for an argument to explain the Left's "opportunism" on this issue will glom onto it like a lifeboat.

I suppose it's also "after-the-factism" to point out that Americans elect the U.S. government, and not the Iranian government.

Sebby, I haven't seen you condemn Robert Mugabe lately. Your silence about Mugabe -- when you spend so much time criticizing "the Left" in this country -- shows impressive disingenuousness.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
A friend of mine is on the do-not-fly list. His son, who is named after my friend, is also on the list. As is my friend's brother. Apparently there's a family terrorist organization out there with the last name "Gonzales."

His wife and his son went down to Honduras for a wedding a few months before the second son was born. When they were coming back to the US, the airline wouldn't let the son on board. Terrorist, you see. His mother pitched a royal fit, and they managed to convice the airline that a three-year-old wasn't a threat to national security and could come back home.

When the second baby was born, they hyphenated his last name on the birth certificate to ensure that it was unique enough to avoid confusion with terrorists.

In fairness, Honduras airport officials share the blame with the US officials that put together the do-not-fly list.

I wonder how much discretion local officials possess to disregard what's on the list. For a family trip last year a member of my family popped up on the list during check-in, but crisis was averted when the skycap was able to look down at the subject, sitting in his stroller, and confirm that a 3-year-old was unlikely to be plotting anything nefarious.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Truth to power? I merely described what I saw going on amongst fellow travelers on this board and in many other political discussions. You can take it is as truth or reject it. It's my view. Nothing more, nothing less. And your inference is yours.

And in any event, not much power here.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I didn't ascribe to you any opinion. I ascribed to the group of people generally having views similar to yours an "opportunistic" lack of consistency in their criticism of dicey interrogation policies.

What you and Ty are doing by individualizing the debate is trying to take apart the notion that a "Left" even exists, thereby undoing my argument from the start. I could do the same with the criticims of the "Right," but it would be cheap debate gamesmanship. In the political realm, there are general groupings of people according to their beliefs. There are subgroupings within those groups, into which Ty or you fit, but as you admit, you're both "Left." You're stuck with that just as I'm stuck with being branded "Right" in my economic views.

Note that in my original post on this subject, I didn't refer to "the Right." I said:

• [N]o apologist for the Bush Administration's torture policies can complain about this -- it's far milder than what we've been doing to a lot of people. Assuming that you condemn this stuff too, on what basis do you say that Iran shouldn't have been doing this stuff but that we can do the other?

Suggesting generically that "the Right" has been hypocritical is surely just about as useless as saying it about "the Left." As I've said to Slave many times, this game of beating people up for failing to condemn something is mostly pointless, a waste of electrons.

etfs