Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

It's a rotten media for getting you to say what you mean. As I said above, I think Iran's treatment of the British troops is like termites. No one reasonable is for it. There may be a couple of eco-nuts who actively root for termites to destroy people's houses, and there may be a few Chomskyites who groove on seeing Anglo-Saxon imperialists put in their place, but they're wingnuts.

Apparently, we can argue all day without you saying what you think. Who, exactly, on "the Left" do you think supports what Iran did and "disingenuously" criticizes our own treatment of prisoners but not Iran's? I can't tell.

Maybe you're only saying that there are people on "the Left" who are happy to criticize Bush for torture because of the happy coincidence that they dislike Bush and dislike torture, or that there are people on "the Left" who don't go out of their way to say what they think about Iran because they don't see a political upside. But none of that is "disingenuous." It's opportunistic.

The framers of this great country recognized that people are opportunistic in politics, and designed a system of government with checks and balances. If you don't like opportunism then you don't like America. Love it or leave it, pal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Meet Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. He's a former Marine, with five years of active service and 19 years in the reserve, and a legal critic of Roe vs Wade and supporter of the Alito confirmation. He's also on the Terrorist No-Fly List:

• "I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said."

Just a heads up about what these people are up to.

Andrew Sullivan

eta: Some skepticism here.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who, exactly, on "the Left" do you think supports what Iran did and "disingenuously" criticizes our own treatment of prisoners but not Iran's? I can't tell.

There is no arguing with perception (especially when people can even hear what others are thinking). It's like trying to talk Post-Eighth-Of-Shrooms Sebby out of the proposition that the trees are breathing.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

I am not sure what is sneaky, rotten or neat about pointing out the basics of international relations, but whatever.

As for missing "the issue," as far as I can tell your only point here is to (irrationally) rail against the (fictional) Left one more time, so yeah, I guess it misses the issue.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Citing the obvious is passing for enlightened lucidity these days?

Only when it is buried among ranting screeds of hyperbole and piles of bottles knocked over big swinging cat-dicks.

[taxwonk]

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

My parents are country clubbing limousine liberals. They raised me among country clubbing prep school Nazis and Klansmen.

I myself am an upper-middle class fuck-up who always screws the pooch just far enough into a hole that I can eventually crawl out of.

I forgot; where did you prep?

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

I don't think so. I think, as most Democrats do, that Americans are a better people than all other people in the whole world. Therefore, we hold ourselves to a much higher standard than that we would hold to a nation like Iran.

What the Iranians did to the British marines and sailors was deplorable.

It's not hypocricy to think ourselves better than that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a rotten media for getting you to say what you mean. As I said above, I think Iran's treatment of the British troops is like termites. No one reasonable is for it. There may be a couple of eco-nuts who actively root for termites to destroy people's houses, and there may be a few Chomskyites who groove on seeing Anglo-Saxon imperialists put in their place, but they're wingnuts.

Apparently, we can argue all day without you saying what you think. Who, exactly, on "the Left" do you think supports what Iran did and "disingenuously" criticizes our own treatment of prisoners but not Iran's? I can't tell.

Maybe you're only saying that there are people on "the Left" who are happy to criticize Bush for torture because of the happy coincidence that they dislike Bush and dislike torture, or that there are people on "the Left" who don't go out of their way to say what they think about Iran because they don't see a political upside. But none of that is "disingenuous." It's opportunistic.

The framers of this great country recognized that people are opportunistic in politics, and designed a system of government with checks and balances. If you don't like opportunism then you don't like America. Love it or leave it, pal.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think so. I think, as most Democrats do, that Americans are a better people than all other people in the whole world. Therefore, we hold ourselves to a much higher standard than that we would hold to a nation like Iran.

What the Iranians did to the British marines and sailors was deplorable.

It's not hypocricy to think ourselves better than that.

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.

It's a variation of an argument I apllauded Ty for using yesterday.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
I am not sure what is sneaky, rotten or neat about pointing out the basics of international relations, but whatever.

As for missing "the issue," as far as I can tell your only point here is to (irrationally) rail against the (fictional) Left one more time, so yeah, I guess it misses the issue.

Fictional? OK, how about you describe (a) the Right and (b) the Left for me. Take all the time you like.

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

It's a variation of an argument I apllauded Ty for using yesterday.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Only when it is buried among ranting screeds of hyperbole and piles of bottles knocked over big swinging cat-dicks.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

Oh, come now, you're just another garden-variety, aristocratic-Mexican Texas liberal do-gooder who hangs out with artistic types and advocates for a dirty socialistic capitalistic statist healthcare system and doesn't understand The Market.

I know your type.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

Insulting the religious is Les and Slave's schtick.