A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But, that requires strongmen accustomed to autonomy throwing their lot in with strongmen accustomed to total control (e.g. Uzbekistan). Not sure how that benefits the Afghan Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. May make sense to the Pashtos, if Pakistan let the rest go.

The strongmen are the only thing holding back the "national unification". That was how the non nation states held themselves together in Europe for so long but there is this constant pressure towards the nation states so once there is a weakness in a non nation state then the natural tide kicks in. The non nation states in Europe were headed by "strongman" who just wanted as much power as possible and national unification was not in their interest so they thwarted it. But they were fighting the natural pull of things.

The problem is the people want to be united with their national bretheren. Every once in a while a "strongman" will realize that this is a good excuse for extending their power and take advantage of that. Hitler is a perfect example of this. They will try and grab more land using the excuse and the people (in their own country and the land being grabbed - like the Austrians and the Sudatenland germans) will go along with it because they want to be united with their bretheren on the other side of the border.

Why people have this tendancy towards national states - I don't know. After the end of the Cold War the West Germans wanted to be unified with their East German neighbors eventhough it was totally not in their economic interest. Once uunification of the Korean peninsula is possible, the South will want unification with the north even though it will cost them a ton of money and will diminish their standard of living.

The only power holding back Arab unification is strong men. Baathists came to power in both Syria and Iraq because the poeple wanted Arab unification, and these parties gained power in both countrys because they promised unification. But once the strongmen who used the baathist party as tools to get into power got into power they ignored the will of the people because Arab unification meant diminishing their power. But the desire is still there.

I think in this modern world there is intense pressure to go democratic. In order to stay an authoritarian dictatorship you have to constantly fight your own people and international pressure. And the first thing people seem to want once they have influence on their own government is they want to form a nation state.

The only thing holding back Arab unification are strongmen. Same thing with Turkish, Pashtun and Baluchi unification (again their seems to be no persian nationalism, and I don't know why). But once these areas go democratic, or a strongman realizes he can use this nationalistic tendency to extend his or her power, the hankering of the people will push these areas toward national unification.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not pleased with Webb, though that I predict that he will continue to provide entertainment for the press. I thought the President was a jackass.

See Ty your irrational partisan stripes are showing again.

1) You claim to be for an open primary (and think our gerrymandered system is screwed up) but you can't support a proposition in California that would end the germander because it was opposed by the unions and the Democrats.

2) You claim to support free trade and yet when a free trade bill is pushed by the administration and opposed by the democrats, you can't bring yourself to support it and criticize the Democrats for opposing it.

3) Webb was clearly out of line, the President wasn't and yet you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Even though you have to admit Webb was acting like a jerk you just can't give bush any kudos. You are a blindly partisan individual.

In professional politics everyone knows that people have different opinions on different issues. That is the whole point. The total jerks are the ones that think that their cause is so important, and they are so clearly right, that they can do anything to push their agenda. The people with this type of thinking completely disregard the system and don't understand that in order for anything to get done you have to stop the screaming and bitching and get down to the business of governing. In order to do this, you have to accept people have different views and that the bitching has to stop at some point or nothing gets done. Webb was visiting the White House. He was in Bush' house. He was not forced to go there and he was a guest.

Webb had said all sorts of nasty stuff about the president, and yet the President made a point of trying to be nice to Webb and inquiring into the well being of his son. Being the Commander and Chief he knew perfectly well how Webb's son was doing, he was just trying to show some courtesy. It was a night where politics were supposed to be dropped so these people could see if they could establish some sort of cordial relationship. Bush understands (like most politicians with an I.Q. above six, a category Webb clearly does not fall into) that is in everyone’s interest in a Republic that the elected representatives have cordial relationships. He was trying to be polite and establish a relationship with Webb so they could start working together to find common ground (if that was possible). Bush understands that if they refuse to speak to each other in person, and just scream at each other through the public arena that is not in either of their interests. However, it is much less in Webb’s interest than it is in Bush's interests that they be able to have a cordial relationship. Bush ignoring the Senator is clearly not going to hurt his interests nearly as much as the Senator is being ignored by the most powerful man in the world.

So when inquired about the well being of his son, what does Webb do? He uses it as an opportunity to make a cheap political shot. Bush is fully aware of Webb’s position on the war. Bush understands that all parents want their children out of harms way. It is not like Webb was enlightening Bush on some subtle point of policy he wasn't aware of. Bush was reaching out to Webb, doing a Webb a favor and he spit in his face.

So what does Bush say to Webb? "You are a rude jerk and that is the last conversation we are ever going to have." "Why are you such a strong supporter of Al Qaeda and why do you want them to win". You are traitor and a disgrace to your nation - get the hell out of my house" "If you have any further opinions on the war, tell it to the wall." Bush shows restraint and says according to the press reports "That is not what I asked you." How can that be considered rude? Bush was pointing out in a very restrained way why Webb was being out of line. He pointed out a fact. Webb had not answered the question he asked, and instead had taken a cheap political shot. Bush had been insulted by this guy in his own house when he was reaching out to him, and instead of throwing the guy out (like he should have done) he stayed cordial and gave the guy another chance not to give a rude response. And Bush was being a jerk? Give me a break. He was showing incredible restraint.

The ironic part about all of this is people are acting like Webb's son joined the boy scouts. The boy joined the military. He signed up to join an organization whose job it is to train him to be a killer, to put him in harms way, and to be at the beck and call of the commander and chief. His job is to defend the US and pursue the US interests (as the President defines it), and to risk his own life doing so. Also when he joined up he knew it was very likely that the his leadership would pursue tactics and strategic goals that he may not agree with it, but he understood that even though they would do stuff he disagreed with, and he would have to risk his life to pursue those strategic and tactical goals he would disagree with. In the military you follow orders. Orders you don't like, don't agree with and may get you killed. That is the way it works.

So Senator Webb’s son’s military commander asked into the well being of his son, and Webb insults the man who can make decisions that directly affects his son health. That is one well behaved commander and chief and one idiot father.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


They have no appetite for victory, right Spanky?

Was this a direct quote, or was this someone claiming to hear something from anonymous an source. Did we already go over this? Were you away that there are problems with hearsay - ever go over that in law school? I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but sometimes people don't characterise things they hear correctly when they repeat it, and believe it or not, information from anonymous sources is highly dubious. Could information from an anonymous source be true? yes. Can we conclude that it is true? Not on your life.

And remind me again, which Democrats have been pushing for increased troop numbers. Is it more than one? And how much of an effort did they make in pushing for more troops? Did they propose increased spending on the military? Did they critisize the President for not spending enough money on the military?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.
  
  "In my view it is time for a major adjustment," wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."
  
  Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.
  
  "Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis," he wrote. "This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.' "
  
  "Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) -- go minimalist," he added. Mr. Rumsfeld's memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House's sharpest Democratic critics.
  
  The memo's discussion of possible troop reduction options offers a counterpoint to Mr. Rumsfeld's frequent public suggestions that discussions about force levels are driven by requests from American military commanders.
  
  Instead, the memo puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals that appear to conflict with recent public pronouncements from commanders in Iraq emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels.

NYT

Wake up and smell the coffee, Spanky.

Why would I ever trust a summary by the NYT of a memo written by an administration official that I had access to? I would have to read it myself because I am almost sure the NYT would mischaracterize it. And if I don't have access to it, I am pretty sure the NYT would not only mischaracterize it, but probably lie about it.

Hearsy, speculation and reports from irresponsible incredibly biased and pathetically lame papers like the NYTs don't count as evidence of anything, yet you keep posting this stuff like I am going to give it credence. Post the actual memo. If you can't you don't have jack.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I just think he's drunk too much of the Party wine, which is a danger that anyone who actually works within partisan politics faces.

Have you ever had wine at a Political function? Any of the wine you drink, is too much.

Actually I don't think I deserve that. I criticize my own party all the time. I criticize Bush all the time and compliment Clinton. When was the last time Ty said something complimentary about Bush or his administration?

I don't think my posts are outlandish at all. I think what makes them outlandish, is that people don't like what they hear. I realize that my opinions don't hold to a certain ideological way of thinking but I am actually proud of that. As Sebby said, I often point out the problems with my party. Can all of you that say my postings are outlandish make that same claim?

Like Sebby said, the problem I have with the liberals is the group think. Many people on this board cannot recognize when someone who supports their position makes a bad argument and when someone who is arguing against their position makes a good one. The recent FB discussion is a case in point. I thought I said something that was perfectly reasonable and rational and actually I am surprised anyone would disagree with it. Yet everyone was either too intellectually dishonest or cowardly to admit that.

I made a simple and direct criticism of one person’s statement, and then a third party jumped in, making an irrational criticism of what I said and making up all sorts of stuff I said that I never said. Then when I tried to point this out and stick to the point of the argument I was accused of being unreasonable because I tried to stick to the argument and then at the same time was accused of not sticking to the point.

I thought I was incredibly logical and restrained in that whole discussion (only resorting to name calling when he did, returning to civility which he never did) and the third party that jumped in was incredibly irrational, jumping all over the place in his arguments and even later denying posting things he posted, even when I presented him with the direct evidence. And during this time all the liberals of this board jumped all over me to support this third party’s irrational ranting. And now that exchange is being used as example of how my arguments are outlandish? Am I in the twilight zone?

Again - here is the evidence.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pony_trekker
Because it wouldn't have beeen a big deal. The fundamental difference between a white person using racial slurs toward a black and a black using racial slurs toward a white is this country's history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Spanky:

Maybe I should take this to the politics board, but this is pure hypocritical B.S. I believe in individual responsibility, not familial or racial responsibility. Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no. Am I responsible for the sins other people of my race have committed? - no.

Racism cannot be justified because you have been a victim of racism (or that other people of your race have been victims). Racism or racial slurs are either wrong or they are not.

TM:

I'm not going to spend too much time on this because I think it's pointless, but historical racism is responsible for the current state of affairs in this country. The stigma attached to being black permeates every aspect of life, from what socio-economic class you're born into, to your job prospects, to your everyday social interactions (especially with the police). Likewise, the position you're in if you're white, relative to black people, is a result of the same, whether your family came here yesterday or 200 years ago.

So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved. No one is accusing you of intentionally trying to benefit from it and no one is making you personally responsible for it. But the imprint of the impact of slavery, jim crow and everyday racism from the beginning of the slave trade until now is felt every single day. You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

TM

Anyone who thinks I mischaracterized anything about the FB discussion, then answer these questions:

1) Does anyone here disagree with what I said: “I believe in individual responsibility, not familial or racial responsibility? Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no. Am I responsible for the sins other people of my race have committed? - no. Racism cannot be justified because you have been a victim of racism (or that other people of your race have been victims). Racism or racial slurs are either wrong or they are not."

First of all I can see how anyone could argue with that? Who here disagrees with that statement and why?

2) Even if you disagree with what I said, how can what I said be considered outlandish? How is that irrational? How is what I said crazy and off the charts?

3) Then TM, who I was not addressing, comes in and accuses me of saying all sorts of stuff I never said or argued. For example: "So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved." "You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect."

How can anyone argue that I never said any of those things? Can anyone one point to any part of my brief post and point out what statements these above statements were addressing? How can his arguing not be irrational and mine irrational when he makes up stuff that I said?

4) Even assuming for a second I did say that stuff, how is his response in any way a rational response to what I said? Can someone take one of my statements and put it against one of his and argue his statement was a rational response?

5) Some people said "well you have to take in the whole context of the discussion". The problem is what I posted above was the whole discussion at that point. Yes other people were discussing the topic earlier, but I made a statement and he directly addressed my statement, even quoting my statement to show everyone that was the point he was addressing. And could he be referring to earlier statements I had made on the subject? No - that was my first statement on the subject. So maybe if we were irrational, emotional old ladies the other posts might be relevant, but we are supposed to be lawyers who address specific issues one at a time. When he responded to me, he was responding to the only statement that I had made, and he was addressing that statement directly. When people are making the "bigger picture" argument they are just showing that they learned absolutely nothing in law school and that they are pathetic lawyers.

So how can anyone argue that any prior posts have any bearing to the quoted statements above?

5) I can't even see any grey area here. I can't see how anyone could think that his postings were even a slightly bit rational, and that mine were even a slightly bit irrational, and yet many members of this board jumped all over me accusing me of being irrational. If I am wrong, and you guys were right to gang up on me, then again, point out what my irrational statements were, and which statements he made that was a logical response to my statements?

6) And when I have asked this question before people always give generalize answers and ignore the posts. It is like we are discussing a contract, but they are pretending the contract doesn't exist. And it is not like the initial exchange was long and complicated. The initial post that started the whole thing was very brief. But when anyone addresses what was said they don't quote what was said, they feel they have to summarize it (with the summary usually being longer than the quote). That is really intellectually dishonest especially for a bunch of lawyers. If you are not going to directly address the specific quotes don't bother to answer. But if you are going to try and be a little bit intellectually honest, take each one of TMs quote that I posted, line by line, and explain to me why they are rational and address what I said. And then take each one of my lines, and explain to me how they are irrational. There is no need for "generalize statements" or "summaries of the evidence”, or summaries of what was said, because the evidence is right there and is brief enough so it does not need to be summarized. These summaries and general statements are just ways of people to make up stuff, and ignore the painfully obvious facts.

Why did anyone when discussing these posts need to summarize anything when they can just quote the posts?

7) My suspicion is that many of the people on this board supported TM because he made the argument against me. You did not even consider who was making the rational argument or even what arguments were being made. To me that whole discussion was a pathetic example of blind irrational support, which to me was specially pathetic on an anonymous posting board full of lawyers who are supposedly rational and don't have to worry about having their posts used against them later. And realizing how dishonest you had all been, and how cowardly you all had acted, you tried to make yourselves feel better by patting yourselves on the back and taking lame ironic potshots at me. But again, if you guys think this is not what you are doing, the evidence is right there. Just take a piece of the post and explain to me why he was being rational and sensible and why I was not.

8) So until you guys can explain this to me, I think your "conventional wisdom" that I make outlandish statements is really an exercise in pathetic denial. Does anyone have the cajones to address the evidence directly to defend their behavior and their characterizations of my posts?

After that exchange I almost dropped from the board because I was really disappointed in the way many of you handled it. But then I realized it was crazy for me to be disappointed because I never had much respect for the people in question anyway. But since we are discussing why I am the only conservative left that participates in many of these discussions, this experience may tell you all something. Some people have a lower threshold for B.S. than me.

[Spanky]

Once again, George Will says it much better than I.

Webb conveys the message of a boor

By George Will

THAT WAS certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.


Wednesday's Washington Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq." When the President again asked, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told the Post:


"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the Presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. (But) leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."


Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the Presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being — one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When — if ever — Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.


Even before Webb's studied truculence in response to the President's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in The Wall Street Journal that began this way:


"The most important — and unfortunately the least debated — issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country."


Well.


In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.


Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated" issue in American politics.

And never mind his use of the word "literally," although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier" — whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms — does not "literally" live in another country.

And never mind the cavalier historical judgments — although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?


But notice, in the same sentence that the word "literally" appears, the word "infinitely." Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass." ("When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.") America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us how much richer the "top tier" has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say who he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators — Webb is a natural — often are too busy for accuracy.


Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Once again, George Will says it much better than I.

Webb conveys the message of a boor

By George Will

THAT WAS certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.


Wednesday's Washington Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq." When the President again asked, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told the Post:


"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the Presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. (But) leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."


Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the Presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being — one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When — if ever — Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.


Even before Webb's studied truculence in response to the President's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in The Wall Street Journal that began this way:


"The most important — and unfortunately the least debated — issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country."


Well.


In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.


Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated" issue in American politics.

And never mind his use of the word "literally," although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier" — whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms — does not "literally" live in another country.

And never mind the cavalier historical judgments — although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?


But notice, in the same sentence that the word "literally" appears, the word "infinitely." Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass." ("When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.") America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us how much richer the "top tier" has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say who he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators — Webb is a natural — often are too busy for accuracy.


Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking

1. Webb had every right to do what he did. Having your child in combat gives you the right to tell the Commender in Chief who put him there as part of a doomed, half-assed mission to fuck off.

2. George Will is missing substance for style here. Lergely because on substance, his argument's a huge loser. Bad conservatoves do this... They harrumph about theother side's manners or poor upbringing and behavior when they don't have anything to say about the merits of a thing. It's a variation of the dumbass Left's calling Bush out for lack of military servoce whenever he suggests sending troops anywhere.

3. The real problem with Webb is he's a fucking whore and a fool. He runs as a quasi-Republican, but now in office he's blathering about "economic inequality" (aka, Capitalism). Like all his shithead Lefty friends, he of course has no actually plan to implement Socialism, just saber rattling about protectionism. If hekeeps drinking Howard Dean and John Edwards' Entitlement Junkie Kool Aid, he'll find his stint a short one. He doesn't represent Ohio or Pennsylvania. Virginia still has people who actually work for a living in it.

[nononono]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Webb had every right to do what he did. Having your child in combat gives you the right to tell the Commender in Chief who put him there as part of a doomed, half-assed mission to fuck off.

2. George Will is missing substance for style here. Lergely because on substance, his argument's a huge loser. Bad conservatoves do this... They harrumph about theother side's manners or poor upbringing and behavior when they don't have anything to say about the merits of a thing. It's a variation of the dumbass Left's calling Bush out for lack of military servoce whenever he suggests sending troops anywhere.

You know, even if the bride is a whore, it's bad form to scream it at the wedding. Sometimes form is so bad there is virtually no possibility even of getting to the substance. As Spanky pointed out, there were many opportunities to express his opinion on the matter, many of which he'd already used. And what's to discuss about the point here - Webb is upset about his son's being in Iraq. Nothing to argue with there. All that's left of this particular point is his choice of ways to express it again and his motives for doing so.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by nononono Sometimes form is so bad there is virtually no possibility even of getting to the substance.

Accusing someone of bad form in politics is like pointing out the murderer used a cheap weapon. And this is not one of those moments when form trumps substance. Bush sought him out on an issue; Webb let him have it. The "lack of civility" whined about by Will and his kind is a shitass nostalgia for a level of respect arch-conservatives seem to think people should have for their elders and elected officials simply because they're older or hold office. Bullshit. That respect was fine back in the day, when people didn't know the facts about their elders and politicians. It's been arguable that Bush is a liar and a dimwit in his foreign policy. It's established by his vocation that he's a whore.

Few politicians deserve any respect. They lie down with dogs and steal govt money. Caveat emptor.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Pasthuns get Kandahar and the Dari get Kabul.

I thought you had Afghanistan being split up with the pieces joining its neighbors - would you expect the Pastuns to join Pakistan? And if the Dari get Kabul, does that mean Kabul joins Iran? There are a lot of Tajiks and Uzbeks in Kabul, and it is the place in the country least supportive of fundamentalist Islam -- are you sure it makes sense to see Iran prevailing there?

This isn't to be snide, but instead to point out that one reasons for the various ethnicities to stick together in Afghanistan may be that there aren't many attractive alternatives.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I criticize my own party all the time. I criticize Bush all the time and compliment Clinton. When was the last time Ty said something complimentary about Bush or his administration?

That is true. I believe I recall Ty making a complimentary post about some environmental issue sometime in the past six months.

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think my posts are outlandish at all. I think what makes them outlandish, is that people don't like what they hear.

Absolutes are dangerous, but some of your posts are pretty outrageous -- on substance and/or argument style. (e.g. you have essentially just said you'll pay no mind to the classified Rumsfeld memo until you personally see it.)

Originally posted by Spanky
The recent FB discussion is a case in point. I thought I said something that was perfectly reasonable and rational and actually I am surprised anyone would disagree with it. Yet everyone was either too intellectually dishonest or cowardly to admit that.

To try to avoid a yet another pages-long debate that some people might not want to read, I PM'd you about the substance of this. I'll just point out that I did state my agreement with your basic point once or (possibly) twice over on the FB.

Other than that, I'm not really interested in a long discussion over who struck John and why -- particularly given what you and your lover Hank have already said about me.

Originally posted by Spanky
After that exchange I almost dropped from the board because I was really disappointed in the way many of you handled it. But then I realized it was crazy for me to be disappointed because I never had much respect for the people in question anyway.

Love you too.

Originally posted by Spanky
But since we are discussing why I am the only conservative left that participates in many of these discussions, this experience may tell you all something.

You're not particularly conservative.

Originally posted by Spanky
Some people have a lower threshold for B.S. than me.

How could you live with yourself otherwise?

S_A_M

:violin:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
See Ty your irrational partisan stripes are showing again.

1) You claim to be for an open primary (and think our gerrymandered system is screwed up) but you can't support a proposition in California that would end the germander because it was opposed by the unions and the Democrats.

2) You claim to support free trade and yet when a free trade bill is pushed by the administration and opposed by the democrats, you can't bring yourself to support it and criticize the Democrats for opposing it.

On both of those positions, you are mischaracterizing what I've said, doubtless because it's fun to argue about the topics. You and I agree more on free trade than many people do, but this board accentuates our disagreements. When we agree on stuff, there's no reason to dwell on it, unless someone else is disagreeing.

3) Webb was clearly out of line, the President wasn't and yet you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Even though you have to admit Webb was acting like a jerk you just can't give bush any kudos. You are a blindly partisan individual.

I live in a world where it's possible that both Webb and Bush were out of line. It's not either/or.

This episode is an impressive Rohrshach (sp?) test. Opinions about it are all over the map, on the board and on the many blogs. My take is that there was nothing wrong with (a) Webb skipping the receiving line, (b) Bush asking Webb about his son, or (c) Webb's response, but that things went off the rails with (d) Bush's "that's not what I asked you" line, leading Webb (e) to be rude in his reply. Nonono thinks the rudeness started with (a). My wife thinks it started with (b), and that that's a question you never asked the family of veterans -- you ask them quesions they can answer, like "when did you talk to him last." Other people here think it went south with (c).

Since you were criticizing my reliance on the NYT in another post, I'll point out that the usually reliable George Will omitted essential facts when he recounted the conversation. If you compare his version to the other published reports, you'll see that he made Bush look better and Webb look worse.

On the whole, Peggy Noonan has my proxy.

[nononono]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Accusing someone of bad form in politics is like pointing out the murderer used a cheap weapon. And this is not one of those moments when form trumps substance. Bush sought him out on an issue; Webb let him have it. The "lack of civility" whined about by Will and his kind is a shitass nostalgia for a level of respect arch-conservatives seem to think people should have for their elders and elected officials simply because they're older or hold office. Bullshit. That respect was fine back in the day, when people didn't know the facts about their elders and politicians. It's been arguable that Bush is a liar and a dimwit in his foreign policy. It's established by his vocation that he's a whore.

Few politicians deserve any respect. They lie down with dogs and steal govt money. Caveat emptor.

It's a sad, sad day when a man who cares about collar-style doesn't care about these things. Sigh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Was this a direct quote, or was this someone claiming to hear something from anonymous an source. Did we already go over this? Were you away that there are problems with hearsay - ever go over that in law school? I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but sometimes people don't characterise things they hear correctly when they repeat it, and believe it or not, information from anonymous sources is highly dubious. Could information from an anonymous source be true? yes. Can we conclude that it is true? Not on your life.

David Ignatius is a Washington Post columnist. He was attributing the information to administration officials. If administration officials have been talking to him off the record, it would not be the first time they have talked to WaPo op-ed writers to get their views out. It probably wouldn't be the first time this week.

And remind me again, which Democrats have been pushing for increased troop numbers. Is it more than one? And how much of an effort did they make in pushing for more troops? Did they propose increased spending on the military? Did they critisize the President for not spending enough money on the military?

I think that it's more of a question of how to spend money that's being appropriated than a fight over the total appropriations. New weapons systems can be expensive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would I ever trust a summary by the NYT of a memo written by an administration official that I had access to? I would have to read it myself because I am almost sure the NYT would mischaracterize it.

If you read the article -- not a bad idea, even if you decide not to trust it -- you'll see that there is a link in the body, and another on the margin, to another page on the NYT's web site with the full text of Rumsfeld's memo. So in this instance, you don't have to trust the NYT. Or, you could read the memo, consider that the article represents it fairly, and decide that it's more trustworthy on this day than, say, George Will.

eta: Further to my speculation yesterday about why the memo was leaked, here is today's FT:

• Few people in Washington see the leaking of Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq memo as anything more than a belated and probably forlorn attempt to retrieve the outgoing defence secretary's tattered reputation.