Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by spookyfish
You could have won this argument had you accurately attibuted that to Mussolini, but since you had to invoke der Fuhrer, board rules dictate that you must move back two spaces and lose a turn.

Timmyfish

Keep reading, Francis.

(Ty, who the eff is Francis, and why do you think he's posting here?)

Anyone else who wants an explanation should PM me. -- T.S.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Lighten up, Francis.

I meant it to be funny. Didn't come off that way.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The most reliable current figures from NGOs suggest that Saddam's Baathist regime killed about 300,000 Iraqis, not counting casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm, or Operation Whatever in 2003.

That comes to about 10,000 Iraqis per year.

While all agree that estimates are shaky, a consensus seems to be forming around a ceiling of a bit over 10,000 Iraqis killed (military & civilian) in Operation Whatever.

So, assuming the U.S. can stabilize Iraq and produce a more-or-less democracy. The Iraqi people as a whole will be net better off in less than two years. Whether or not many see it that way in the short term, they will in the long-term. So sorry about any humilation to the national pride suffered while we crushed a totalitarian dictator and his kleptocracy.

S_A_M

In the interests of accuracy, the bulk of those deaths would relate to the repression of the Shiites and Kurds in the early 90s, both before the first Iraq war and in the immediate aftermath.

In other words, on the watch of George the I. The annualizing of numbers doesn't quite work.

The question of whether the Iraqis individually will be better off will be answerable only in hindsight (note for the record I believe and hope they will be). If we leave Iraq a shambles with high unemployment, an untenable political system, and inadequate security, we set it up for a rather desparate future. If we leave Iraq with a stable economy and a sustainable system of government, they will be much better off.

I note that the process is farther along in Afghanistan, and it is clear that there is a lot of work to do there.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is intellectually lazy and weak. If you are disputing that the bias or leanings or undercurrent of an author or source are material to a proper analysis of a writing, say so, so we can all laugh out loud. If you are saying that I have wrongly attributed such bias to specific authors or sources, say that too, and we can hash that out. But, frankly, when I constantly see the hard-core liberal pundits being cited here as neutral sources of raw data, my reponse is going to be a constant harping on why one should probably not cosider their opinions and musings to be raw data. If I do it too often for you, consider maybe that that is a reflection on how often people here cite from crap.

I am intellectually lazy, but I'm not weak.

I do not dispute any of the two points that you make in the second and third sentences above.

I was merely poking fun at what I perceive to be the reaction offered by you and many other R's on the Board that a negative characterization of the Administration's pre-War conduct regarding Iraq and regarding its communication with the American public on the same is not only inaccurate, but is necessarily coming from a partisan point-of-view and must therefore be discounted, because only a partisan source could possibly believe that such criticism of the Administration is warranted.

I did that poking by alluding to another (separate) refrain that is commonly heard here on the Board and thus getting a twofer. So, I can understand the confusion.

Boy, subtlety doesn't work around here.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I was merely poking fun at what I perceive to be the reaction offered by you and many other R's on the Board that a negative characterization of the Administration's pre-War conduct regarding Iraq and regarding its communication with the American public on the same is not only inaccurate, but is necessarily coming from a partisan point-of-view and must therefore be discounted, because only a partisan source could possibly believe that such criticism of the Administration is warranted.

No, you're now just saying the same thing over again. You are trying for the general characterization ("you do this all the time") without the rigor of the specific. When I've spoken of bias or leaning, it's been for specific individuals, for specific reasons, and I have not seen any responses which make me think I was wrong. You want to attribute to me the idea that "it's anti-Bush, so it's biased", and that hasn't been the case. It's akin to the intellectually weak approach on this board of making frequent snide references to Bush's "lies", and then testily backing down, upon challenge, to "but he didn't explain it well enough for me". If your best defense of an assertion is "well, everybody knows that", while pointing to your cohorts, you're probably better off not making it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Why John Edwards is like really good Chinese food.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's akin to the intellectually weak approach on this board of making frequent snide references to Bush's "lies",

I think you're among the leaders in snide references including the words "lies" or "liar". However these statistics are notably inaccurate, and don't necessarily take into account those that are discouraged from snideness.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, you're now just saying the same thing over again. You are trying for the general characterization ("you do this all the time") without the rigor of the specific. When I've spoken of bias or leaning, it's been for specific individuals, for specific reasons, and I have not seen any responses which make me think I was wrong. You want to attribute to me the idea that "it's anti-Bush, so it's biased", and that hasn't been the case. It's akin to the intellectually weak approach on this board of making frequent snide references to Bush's "lies", and then testily backing down, upon challenge, to "but he didn't explain it well enough for me". If your best defense of an assertion is "well, everybody knows that", while pointing to your cohorts, you're probably better off not making it.

Pot, kettle, black. You do this all the time. Yesterday, e.g., I posted something in which I referred to Paul O'Neill's book. You labelled it as partisan spin, and moved on. Hello? It's an account informed by the then-Treasury Secretary. Maybe you had some explanation or basis for this, but if you hide your light we don't see it shine.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe you had some explanation or basis for this, but if you hide your light we don't see it shine.

Damn, now i just wanna sing . . .

[Watchtower]

I thought I'd try to raise the level of discussion here by responding to a substantive point of Bilmore's and engaging him in discussion, so there was less space to simply insult each other.

But I went back a few pages and could not find a single substantive point. Bilmore, what is happening to you? Usually, when I post here (and I know that is not as often as many of you), you can be quite substantive. I still remember getting some support from you on the question of whether the do-not-call list was constitutional.

Please, post something substantive, not just some nasty, snide dig at someone else trying to get the conversation going. Or respond to someone's substantive comments and just ignore whatever else is there.

Please.

God Bless!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Or respond to someone's substantive comments and just ignore whatever else is there.

Okay, here goes.















































.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, you're now just saying the same thing over again. You are trying for the general characterization ("you do this all the time") without the rigor of the specific. When I've spoken of bias or leaning, it's been for specific individuals, for specific reasons, and I have not seen any responses which make me think I was wrong. You want to attribute to me the idea that "it's anti-Bush, so it's biased", and that hasn't been the case. It's akin to the intellectually weak approach on this board of making frequent snide references to Bush's "lies", and then testily backing down, upon challenge, to "but he didn't explain it well enough for me". If your best defense of an assertion is "well, everybody knows that", while pointing to your cohorts, you're probably better off not making it.

Are you intentionally ignoring what I said?

As I said, I wasn't challenging any specific assertion you had made about bias, but was just poking a little fun. Feel free to defend that, as you have, but that wasn't my point. Sorry it stung. Keep digging until you pop out in China.

The main thing I was doing was trying to post an article for all to enjoyment of all.

"You want to attribute to me the idea that 'it's anti-Bush, so it's biased', and that hasn't been the case."

Wow, Bilmore.

I was talking about my perception of most your posting in general for essentially all of 2003 -- on political topics, but especially on the issue of the Iraq War and particularly the Administration "selling" of the decision to go to War. As I recall, it essentially started about the time of the battle over your personal definition of partisanship and continued onward. It seems as if you frame your responses to each post as if it were sent by an adversary in the context of an overall reelection battle, or a battle for the security of the nation.

On the separate issue we're also discussing: It is also my _perception_ that you have given somewhat less effort to substantively engaging and debating "leftist" points of view than in the past, but are much more willing to simply give such an argument the back of your hand with the statement that the sources for the information can't be trusted. You may be right in any given case, but that argument can be "intellectually lazy and weak" in itself if used as an avoidance tactic.

I don't feel the need to go back and dig up old posts (most of which are gone) to support my perception or to do a compare and contrast. I'm not trying to win an oral argument, or a case, or even a debate. I'm sure you can point to many posts in which this was not the case. It is what it is.

S_A_M

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, here goes.

Fine. How about the other half of my suggestion, that you post something substantive and I'll respond to it.

Blessed are the Peacemakers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is what it is.

Ah. The truly unanswerable argument. You're not saying that I was ever wrong to claim bias, just that I claimed bias. Great point.

And, you want substantive argument? To what? Points attempted by people in the past and debated at length that end with little or no actual support, but then are cutely raised repeatedly as if they are accepted gospel? I think I read the FAQ wrong, and am on the wrong board.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Fine. How about the other half of my suggestion, that you post something substantive and I'll respond to it.

Blessed are the Peacemakers.

Go back and read his post that you are responding to. Maybe if you read it again, you will get it this time.