|
Who said this about Iraq?
But I think that it needs a timetable ... the presence of the United States there has not reduced tension and it has not limited terrorism either. In fact, it has increased terrorism.
The U.S. government has made a series of mistakes in the past few decades. The imposition on the U.S. economy of the years of heavy military engagement and involvement around the world . . . the war in Iraq, for example. These are heavy costs imposed on the U.S. economy.
The world economy can no longer tolerate the budgetary deficit and the financial pressures occurring from markets here in the United States, and by the U.S. government.
Obama? Clinton?
This is an ad hominem argument, or at least the beginnings of one. Hitler loved German shepherds. That's ok, people that can be very wrong about many things can still be right about one or two, without making those of us who hold those points in common either enemies or wrong. It also does not free those who disagree with those points from engaging them to test their truth.
The last two posts made the point I wanted to get at. Yes it was the president of Iran, but the statements could have easily been made by Democrats. When our enemies and our politicians both start using the same talking points, where do we go from there?
Ugh. You gotta be kidding me. I try to stick to gaming related posts on these boards, otherwise I'd never get anything done, but I feel compelled to point something out here.
Those aren't talking points. They're facts. And there are certainly a wide range of republicans among the general populace and serving in Congress who agree with them as well.
Who said the war, which has cost more than $700 billion, has nothing to do with the economy?
That's right, George W. Bush.
|
|
Those aren't talking points. They're facts. And there are certainly a wide range of republicans among the general populace and serving in Congress who agree with them as well.
Who said the war, which has cost more than $700 billion, has nothing to do with the economy?That's right, George W. Bush.
Okay, then show me the evidence that the war in Iraq had anything to do with declining home values, the collapse of the mortgage market, or the current problems with the investment banking industry. Otherwise it is an opinion that the war caused our current economic situation.
Okay, then show me the evidence that the war in Iraq had anything to do with declining home values, the collapse of the mortgage market, or the current problems with the investment banking industry. Otherwise it is an opinion that the war caused our current economic situation.
One reason I don't get involved in debates on message boards is because some people have such propensity for putting words in others mouths. Those statements don't say that the war caused our current economic situation. I'm not saying the war has caused our current economic situation. The point is, a war, particularly one as drawn out and expensive as the current one, absolutely has an impact on the economy. You can debate how much of an impact, but it's staggering to think that anyone would believe that one has nothing to do with the other.
War and the national economy, and even, in times of peace, the military-industrial complex, are connected, whether for good or bad. You don't need to have degrees in political science and economics to understand that. There is a ton of money spent directly; an enormous amount of companies, including some of the largest in the county, employing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, with huge budgets, along with the military and all of its personnel & money, all with some degree of influence over how & why the government does things. You're not seriously suggest that all of that has no impact or bearing on what happens with the national economy? Are you? (Note, also, how I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying, instead of telling you.)
|
|
I completely agree that there is an impact from a long drawn out military conflict. However, what the Iranian president said in his statement was that the current economic situation in the United States is a result of the Iraq War.
The imposition on the U.S. economy of the years of heavy military engagement and involvement around the world . . . the war in Iraq, for example. These are heavy costs imposed on the U.S. economy.
The world economy can no longer tolerate the budgetary deficit and the financial pressures occurring from markets here in the United States, and by the U.S. government.
Then you stated that this was not a talking point, it was a fact. That is why I asked for evidence of this fact, that the Iraq War is directly responsible for the current economic situation we are in, which is derived from the other factors that I mentioned.
I completely agree that there is an impact from a long drawn out military conflict. However, what the Iranian president said in his statement was that the current economic situation in the United States is a result of the Iraq War.
Then you stated that this was not a talking point, it was a fact. That is why I asked for evidence of this fact, that the Iraq War is directly responsible for the current economic situation we are in, which is derived from the other factors that I mentioned.The imposition on the U.S. economy of the years of heavy military engagement and involvement around the world . . . the war in Iraq, for example. These are heavy costs imposed on the U.S. economy.
The world economy can no longer tolerate the budgetary deficit and the financial pressures occurring from markets here in the United States, and by the U.S. government.
I think, and this is only my opinion, that you're misinterpreting Ahmadinejad's statements, at least as you have it quoted. I don't read it to be that he's saying the war has caused our current economic debacle. To me, what he's saying is it's the "heaving military engagement and involvement around the war" and he uses the war in Iraq, quite literally, as an example of that. But then he also goes on to mention that there is also "budgetary deficit and financial pressures" as further factors.
Those, I agree, are all contributing causes, to some degree or another. Certainly, there are others as well - issues with regulation, accounting practices, etc., not to mention good old fashioned greed of the Gordon Gecko variety. However, I don't think the statement you quoted should be interpreted as simply as Iraq War = bad economy.
|
|
Here are the two articles that I quoted from, so you can read them for yourself. It should be noted that Time also came to the conclusion that he was refering to Iraq and other US military interventions with his statement.
Iran's president blamed U.S. military interventions around the world in part for the collapse of global financial markets and said the campaign against his country's nuclear program was solely due to the Bush administration "and a couple of their European friends."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wow. That reasoning makes me ill. You're better than that David, that is one of the most offensive and disgusting inferences I've ever read on these boards. Other leaders of other countries who are not "our enemies" have made similar statements as well. What do we make of that? Presumably, given that abortion is extremely limited in Iran and homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle, Ahmadinejad agrees with those positions, what conclusions can we draw about conservaties that feel the same way?
This is a shallow, bullying, abusive form of debate. If you want to discuss the ideas, fine, but the implication you seem to be making is that agreeing with an "enemy" of the U.S. makes that person an "enemy" irrespective of the merit of the underlying idea about which they agree.
Seriously sick stuff.
|
|
Some quotes from someone who actually *is* a factor in American politics (quotes from 1994), archived on RedState, since you discredit references that come from 'left-wing' or 'liberal' sources;
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
And I think he was right. I don't have to like the man. I surely wouldn't want to go on a hunting trip with him! I don't have to agree with him now, either, but I agree with what he was saying then.
He could be Joe McCarthy, Darth Vader, Ahmedjinanutjob, Voldemort, Bill Clinton's penis, Satan and Hitler rolled into one, and if what he's saying is solid and sensible, then it's solid and sensible.
Several Republicans have accidentally cribbed parts of fascist speeches, such as the 'made the trains run on time' bit.
http://www.gopconvention.com/news/Read.aspx?ID=460 (I picked the first link that google burped up, that wasn't a 'liberal' or 'left-wing' site.)
Does that invalidate everything that they stand for, that somebody said something that sounded like what some dead fascist once said? Nope. It's just an unfortunate turn of phrase, and it would be completely specious for me to jump up and down in mock outrage because somebody said 'triumph of the will' or something and forgot that the phrase is tainted by a nasty historical context. I don't think it makes the speaker a Nazi, so much as their speechwriter a bit lax in their due-diligence.
And I think it would be many times more specious to pick on some random quote from Hitler and say, 'Wow, this sounds like something Donald Rumsfeld would say!' since all that would prove is that *I* have some bizarre anti-Rumsfeld agenda or something.
McCain and Obama have both said *plenty* of things that are eye-rollingly obtuse and even worthy of some hard questions. Phony outrage manufactured over stuff that somebody else said that you feel 'sounds like something they might have said' is, IMO, kinda pointless. Neither candidate, nor famously 'foot-in-mouth' Biden, for that matter, have given you any shortage of *actual* things they've said that you could be posting about, rather than putting Ahmedijiniwad's (sp?) words in their mouths and suggesting what a sorry state we're in that some crazy person said something that reminds you of someone else, or, whatever.
|
|
Some quotes from someone who actually *is* a factor in American politics (quotes from 1994), archived on RedState, since you discredit references that come from 'left-wing' or 'liberal' sources;
I think you misunderstand me. I don't "discredit" left wing sources, I just want them identified as such, rather than being presented as an objective source. I would feel the same way if it were right wing sources being used.
Here are the two articles that I quoted from, so you can read them for yourself. It should be noted that Time also came to the conclusion that he was refering to Iraq and other US military interventions with his statement.Iran's president blamed U.S. military interventions around the world in part for the collapse of global financial markets and said the campaign against his country's nuclear program was solely due to the Bush administration "and a couple of their European friends."
As I said above, I'm just giving you my interpretation of what you quoted. I haven't yet read those articles, and I'm not weighing in on what they say, or even what else he may have said in that speech or at any other time - only what you quoted, and in my opinion, misrepresented, in your original post.
Your quote from Time actually supports my interpretation - they talk of his pointing to US involvement around the world as a contributing factor. They are not saying that he said, as you suggest he did, that it's the war in Iraq.
Oh, and for the record, I agree with Sebastien, although I know nothing about you. Your original point, that some Dems and Ahmadinejad have said something similar (the substance of which, I agree is true) is just crap. It's (Karl) Rovian politics - dressing up something to make it appear to be other that what it is, just to stir up shit . . . and please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that you were not trying to stir things up with your original post.
Basically, your original sentiment is along the lines of - John McCain is calling for substantial regulation of investment houses (despite actually working for less regulation until very, very recently). A fundamental principle of socialism is government regulation of private businesses and industries. Therefore, John McCain agrees with socialist thinkers!
David, what source(s) do you consider to be objective? It seems that every media source is called liberal or conservative by the opposite side whenever something is printed that they don't agree with.
Yeah, it's kind of fun how deciding what is objective, is a subjective decision. Is Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman, or even CNN, really fair and balanced? Two people may disagree.
Of course, there are other traps there as well - It's not a simple black & white matter along the lines of a source is either objective or it's not. It's really more of a spectrum, and can even change from moment to moment or from topic to topic. We all have our biases, and they're stronger or weaker depending on the topic. Just check out the 4e boards.
|
|
David, what source(s) do you consider to be objective? It seems that every media source is called liberal or conservative by the opposite side whenever something is printed that they don't agree with.
Does objective media exist anymore?
To me, any media that doesn't go out of it's way to present an agenda is about as close as unbiased as you can get. The materials that Set was discussing that I "discounted" were sources like Slate, and the former editor of The New Republic, who have stated that they have a left leaning, liberal agenda. As it is I never discounted the source itself, I simply pointed out who they were and said that the things they were saying should be viewed through the prisim of who they are, rather than being presented as an unbiased source.
|
|
Oh, and for the record, I agree with Sebastien, although I know nothing about you. Your original point, that some Dems and Ahmadinejad have said something similar (the substance of which, I agree is true) is just crap. It's (Karl) Rovian politics - dressing up something to make it appear to be other that what it is, just to stir up s#~! . . . and please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that you were not trying to stir things up with your original post.
Of course I was trying to stir things up, but please don't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that no one else has ever done it either. To call it Rovian politics is to ignore the fact that Lyndon Johnson said that Barry Goldwater would start nuclear war if he was elected, and that the Daily Kos created an ad in which the current president was portrayed in a Nazi uniform having sex with a goat. I was not however, trying to say that Democrats agree with the Iranians, I was pointing out that our enemies have co-opted Democrat talking points to stir up anger against the United States. I always here Democrats talk about how America is hated in the world, but the never stop to listen to the fact the the words being used to express that hate are their own.
As it is I never discounted the source itself, I simply pointed out who they were and said that the things they were saying should be viewed through the prisim of who they are, rather than being presented as an unbiased source.
But, as I said, we all have our biases, whether one is stronger that another, or whether we even own up to it.
The last two posts made the point I wanted to get at. Yes it was the president of Iran, but the statements could have easily been made by Democrats. When our enemies and our politicians both start using the same talking points, where do we go from there?
Do you think you were being objective with that post? Because, quite frankly, it's real hard to not see it through the prism of your bias. Am I being objective in my posts? Whose to say? I think I am being very objective - my interpretation is of the words and sentences you quoted, with their literal meanings. But, an I am fully aware of this, you may disagree.
Gee, this is fun. I really should do it more often.
|
|
This is a shallow, bullying, abusive form of debate. If you want to discuss the ideas, fine, but the implication you seem to be making is that agreeing with an "enemy" of the U.S. makes that person an "enemy" irrespective of the merit of the underlying idea about which they agree.
Is it shallow and bullying to call the current president a facist, and to dress him up as a Nazi to try and get elected? Is it shallow and bullying to make fun of a man's disability and say that he should not be president as a result? I was not trying to say that Democrat politicians agree with our enemies, I was trying to point out that the words that those who hate us in the world are using to express that hate are the words of the Democrats. I'm sorry if you find that insensitive or bullying, or even beneath your estimation of me, but it is the truth.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was not however, trying to say that Democrats agree with the Iranians, I was pointing out that our enemies have co-opted Democrat talking points to stir up anger against the United States. I always here Democrats talk about how America is hated in the world, but the never stop to listen to the fact the the words being used to express that hate are their own.
My god, that's a stupid thing to say. Groundbreakingly stupid. You seriously believe that other countries are just parroting what the current opposition party says to irritate the U.S.?
I'm done. You've crossed the line separating reasonable discourse from paranoid nonsense and lost any respect I may have once had for your opinions. I'm thankful there are a great many conservatives who do not share your beliefs or condone your tactics. They do a much better job serving their beliefs and advancing their cause than this childishness.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is it shallow and bullying to call the current president a facist, and to dress him up as a Nazi to try and get elected? Is it shallow and bullying to make fun of a man's disability and say that he should not be president as a result?
Last time I checked, I neither defended such tactics, mentioned such tactics, or posted any judgment whatsoever about such tactics - I'm not sure why you think you can attribute support of such tactics to me. I'm not even sure what they have to do with what you've posted. The fact that someone is an asshat about politics does not legitimize your asshattery.
I was not trying to say that Democrat politicians agree with our enemies, I was trying to point out that the words that those who hate us in the world are using to express that hate are the words of the Democrats. I'm sorry if you find that insensitive or bullying, or even beneath your estimation of me, but it is the truth.
You do disservice to the political process and your beliefs with these tactics. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but it is the truth.
|
|
The last two posts made the point I wanted to get at. Yes it was the president of Iran, but the statements could have easily been made by Democrats. When our enemies and our politicians both start using the same talking points, where do we go from there?Do you think you were being objective with that post?
I hope that you don't mind if I answer your question with a question. What is not objective about that statement? The statements were made by the Iranian president, and similar statements have been made by Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I did not pass judgement other than to say that when our political leaders and our enemies start saying the same things, what should we as Americans do? Personally I think that we should start reconsidering our political discourse to try and find ways that we can disagree in our veiwpoints without giving those who don't like us a wedge to use against us. I may not have expressed myself in the best way, but I also never presented myself as an unbiased source.
Of course I was trying to stir things up, but please don't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that no one else has ever done it either. To call it Rovian politics is to ignore the fact that Lyndon Johnson said that Barry Goldwater would start nuclear war if he was elected, and that the Daily Kos created an ad in which the current president was portrayed in a Nazi uniform having sex with a goat.
I don't believe Karl Rove's tactics were the same-old politics as usual. I give him a lot of credit for being extremely shrewd and clever, and while I can't even begin to get into it here, I believe he fundamentally changed how things are done in politics. He rewrote the rules of what is acceptable, and a big part of Al Gore and John Kerry's problems were that they tried to do things the same-old way, without adopting how he changed things.
I was not however, trying to say that Democrats agree with the Iranians, I was pointing out that our enemies have co-opted Democrat talking points to stir up anger against the United States. I always here Democrats talk about how America is hated in the world, but the never stop to listen to the fact the the words being used to express that hate are their own.
Okay, here, you're actually misrepresenting what you yourself said. You were not trying to say that Democrats agree with Iranians? Could have fooled me, because that's exactly what you said. You were pointing out that the Iranians have adopted democrat talking points? Try harder - that's not at all how your statement should have been interpreted. If that's what you meant to say, than you should have said that. You always here [sic] Democrats talk about how America is hated in the world, but the never stop to listen to the fact the the words being used to express that hate are their own? Dude, I can't even touch that. You're making a very general statement based upon one specific instance of something that was said, which happened to be a factual truth that even many republicans agree with. It's what I said before - your making something appear to be other than what it is, just to fit your own agenda.
|
|
Last time I checked, I neither defended such actions, mentioned such actions, or posted anyting about such actions - I'm not sure why you think you can attribute support of such tactics to me.
Actually, if I recall, it was your side of the argument that first attributed a motive to my statement. I simply said that the Iranian president made some statements that sounded similar to what our current crop of Democrat leaders have said. Then I was attacked for saying that the two were in bed together. Then I tried to explain myself and was attacked further. If anyone crossed the line between thought provoking discussion and paranoid nonsense, it was your side. I simply asked people to think and draw their own conclusions. I don't know what is so scary about that.
I hope that you don't mind if I answer your question with a question. What is not objective about that statement?
Oh, c'mon, are you serious? What wasn't objective about that statement? You're equating democrats to the fanatical leader of Iran, and implying that they all have the same agenda . . an then you try to say that that's not what you're doing.
Oh, okay, I get it. You were just trying to get me. Ha ha.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, if I recall, it was your side of the argument that first attributed a motive to my statement. I simply said that the Iranian president made some statements that sounded similar to what our current crop of Democrat leaders have said. Then I was attacked for saying that the two were in bed together. Then I tried to explain myself and was attacked further. If anyone crossed the line between thought provoking discussion and paranoid nonsense, it was your side. I simply asked people to think and draw their own conclusions. I don't know what is so scary about that.
WTF are you even talking about? "Your side?" This isn't a matter of "sides." It's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity, concepts that are not in anyway represented by the implications of your original statements or your express clarifications since that time.
Heathy, Aberzombie, if you guys are reading this thread, tell me I'm wrong. Clearly since I am on "the other side" (whatever that means in David's binary us-against-them universe) my opinion is irrelevant and tainted by anyone who's ever disagreed with David or the conservative viewpoint (as interpreted by David).
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
And yet, much of Karl Rove's (and, by extension, the Republican Party) political strategy comes straight from Goebbel's propaganda techniques that he used in Nazi Germany. Does this make him a Nazi? I don't think so.
People quote other people and take ideas from them all the time. This does nothing to prove/disprove an individual's character.
Actions are what matter, not words.
If other countries are quoting our own leaders when discussing the US, it means nothing except that they are paying attention to what is happening here. Seems to me, we should be setting a better example rather than fighting amongst ourselves over party politics.
A statement made by McCain, Palin, and many other Republicans that came out of the Republican National Convention stays with me: "Right now, we have to take off our Republican hats and put on our American hats." Shouldn't all of us, Repbulican and Democrat, be wearing our American hats all the time? Since when does a party come before our country?
We need to stop thinking in terms of Republican vs. Democrat and Conservative vs. Liberal, and start using some common sense to cooperate and start fixing the issues created by both parties.
I simply said that the Iranian president made some statements that sounded similar to what our current crop of Democrat leaders have said. Then I was attacked for saying that the two were in bed together. Then I tried to explain myself and was attacked further. If anyone crossed the line between thought provoking discussion and paranoid nonsense, it was your side. I simply asked people to think and draw their own conclusions. I don't know what is so scary about that.
Here's my take on all this: You started a thread with a statement that was anything but objective, and which you admitted, was meant to stir shit up. People responded to suggest that your statement was logically unsound, and that you misinterpreted what you quoted. You made additional statements, which others again tried to point out had no basis in logic. Then you start saying that what you said, wasn't what you said. When others try to further engage you in a logical debate, you start whining that you're being attacked.
Please, spare me.
See what I did there? By using the word whining, and attributing it to you, I'm engaging in hyperpole and clearly trying to push buttons. That's what you've been doing. But of course, I understand that you really posted this thread with the intent of specifically pulling me in and throwing me off my work for the afternoon. Just try and prove otherwise. Not to mention, everyone knows that people who posted threads titled, "A Quick Quiz" are really anarcho-syndicalists.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
You started a thread with a statement that was anything but objective, and which you admitted, was meant to stir s%*! up. People responded to suggest that your statement was logically unsound, and that you misinterpreted what you quoted. You made additional statements, which others again tried to point out had no basis in logic. Then you start saying that what you said, wasn't what you said. When others try to further engage you in a logical debate, you start whining that you're being attacked.
This is a perfect example of a Karl Rove campaign tactic. If you watch any interview with a Rove candidate, past or present, when they are confronted by the media over something controversial they said in the past, they immediately back pedal, try to spin what was said into something that makes them appear better to the general public, then play the victim by blaming the messenger (usually the media) for "misinterpreting their intention."
This is the lowest form of political maneuvering.
|
|
WTF are you even talking about? "Your side?" This isn't a matter of "sides." It's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity, concepts that are not in anyway represented by the implications of your original statements or your express clarifications since that time.
Alright then, lets lay everything on the table. I said that Ahmadinejad and the Democrats were saying the same things. Then you, Mairkurion {tm}, and Billzabub accused me of saying that the Democrats agreed with Ahmadinejad, something that I did not say. Here is what I actually said:
The last two posts made the point I wanted to get at. Yes it was the president of Iran, but the statements could have easily been made by Democrats. When our enemies and our politicians both start using the same talking points, where do we go from there?
Once again, note that I said they sound alike. Then you responded:
Wow. That reasoning makes me ill. You're better than that David, that is one of the most offensive and disgusting inferences I've ever read on these boards. Other leaders of other countries who are not "our enemies" have made similar statements as well. What do we make of that? Presumably, given that abortion is extremely limited in Iran and homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle, Ahmadinejad agrees with those positions, what conclusions can we draw about conservaties that feel the same way?
You infered something from my statement that was not there. You even used the word inference, which means "The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." You assumed something about me which did not exist and jumped to a conclusion. Despite your statment that you once had respect for my opinions, I have to wonder since you infered something from my statement that I was not trying to imply. Just so everyone is clear the difference is "Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions."
So since you want to discuss integrity and intellectual honesty, the simple fact is that you have jumped to a conclusion about my statement and attributed thoughts and motives to me that did not exist. Barack Obama and Joe Biden sound like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. John McCain also currently sounds like a socialist. Just one more time, I said:
When our enemies and our politicians both start using the same talking points, where do we go from there?
You, and others like you heard:
You were not trying to say that Democrats agree with Iranians? Could have fooled me, because that's exactly what you said.
Again, I said they sound the same. You heard they are the same. Which one of us is not being honest here?
This is a perfect example of a Karl Rove campaign tactic. If you watch any interview with a Rove candidate, past or present, when they are confronted by the media over something controversial they said in the past, they immediately back pedal, try to spin what was said into something that makes them appear better to the general public, then play the victim by blaming the messenger (usually the media) for "misinterpreting their intention."
That's dead on. (Dead? Get it? Oh, nevermind.) And that's a big part of what I mean when I say Karl Rove changed politics. He changed how you debate the issues - which is to say, by not actually having a debate. Not in the logical point/counterpoint way. It's more along the lines of (logically unsound) point/counterpoint/spin with a sound bite and put the otherside on the defense/defense which is away from the original argument. It's the forensic equivalent of the Ali Shuffle.
There is a pattern of logic to a proper debate - and he throw them out the window, much as has been done here. In a way, I am unfortunately a product of my education and training. Like Sebastien, I'm a lawyer. I make my living crafting arguments with an attention to structure and logic. Despite being in the courtroom plenty, on both civil and criminal matters, and often with substantial stakes, the person I least like to argue with is my wife. Why? Because everything goes out the window. She does things like what David does above - Make a statement like Democrats and Iranian fanatics agree on things. Then say, that's not what I said.
In all seriousness, I find this fascinating. Not necessarily for David's original point or his misinterpretation of a quote, but for how the debate and arguments unfolded. I really can't help wonder how Rove's influence on debate will impact how lawyers craft arguments in the future.
Actually, if I recall, it was your side of the argument that first attributed a motive to my statement. I simply said that the Iranian president made some statements that sounded similar to what our current crop of Democrat leaders have said. Then I was attacked for saying that the two were in bed together. Then I tried to explain myself and was attacked further. If anyone crossed the line between thought provoking discussion and paranoid nonsense, it was your side. I simply asked people to think and draw their own conclusions. I don't know what is so scary about that.WTF are you even talking about? "Your side?" This isn't a matter of "sides." It's a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity, concepts that are not in anyway represented by the implications of your original statements or your express clarifications since that time.
Heathy, Aberzombie, if you guys are reading this thread, tell me I'm wrong. Clearly since I am on "the other side" (whatever that means in David's binary us-against-them universe) my opinion is irrelevant and tainted by anyone who's ever disagreed with David or the conservative viewpoint (as interpreted by David).
Well, I have to say I think David is making some good points. He's saying that the leaders of these other countries are copying what the Dems have been saying. What is so "out there" about that?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, I have to say I think David is making some good points. He's saying that the leaders of these other countries are copying what the Dems have been saying. What is so "out there" about that?
It implies causality that is absurd, and, to the extent it is not absurd, attempts to serve as justification for dismissing certain viewpoints.
Or, more succinctly, it is a stupid argument, even when attempts are made to obsfucate the conclusion which is so obviously being drawn.
|
Heathy, Aberzombie, if you guys are reading this thread, tell me I'm wrong.
Ok...you're wrong.
Just kidding. I haven't read the thread and don't intend to. I skimmed it and as soon as I saw the words "Republican", "Nazi", and "Rove" in the same sentence, I figured this was a thread where civil and intelligent discussion had already gone right out the window.
C'mon, David, you said that Ahmadinejad said the Iraq War caused the current economic crisis. Which isn't what he said. Then you pointed out, Time said he said the same thing. Which isn't what they said.
As for the idea that you weren't implying any connection between the Dems and him, and that you were just pointing out, Gee Whiz, Wally, look how they just happen to have said something similar, who cares if its true and doesn't mean anything more, I'm just pointing it out because it's an interesting coincidence - sorry, I don't buy it. If that was the case, than why didn't you just say "our politicians" or "Repubs and Dems" instead of just Dems? Your were impliedly suggesting that Dems agree with Ahmadinejad, and perhaps, therefore, hate our country. No one can prove it, of course, and you can certainly deny it, but your choice of language is revealing.
Smurf.
And smurf again.
And smurf for yet a third time, still.
Point made, I hope.
Well, I have to say I think David is making some good points. He's saying that the leaders of these other countries are copying what the Dems have been saying. What is so "out there" about that?
Good points have a clear purpose. So far we've seen inferences, but no actual clear point... at least, for my part, I have to admit that the purpose so far totally eludes me -- I mean, so what if Ahmanijad says some things that sound similar to what some Democrats may or may not have said? Does that mean we should not allow Democrats to speak? Of course not. Do we fine Ahmanijad for plagiarism and tell him not to do it anymore? Good luck. So, what do you propose? Otherwise, all of this is just talking to hear ourselves speak.
David, I've found in the past that you almost always have a point to make when you bring things up. You've brought this one up, so, if there's a point, please go ahead and let us in on it.
Well, I have to say I think David is making some good points. He's saying that the leaders of these other countries are copying what the Dems have been saying. What is so "out there" about that?Good points have a clear purpose. But I have to admit that the purpose of these totally eludes me -- I mean, so what if Ahmanijad says some things that sound similar to what some Democrats may or may not have said? Does that mean we should not allow Democrats to speak? Of course not. Do we fine Ahmanijad for plagiarism and tell him not to do it anymore? Good luck. So, what do you propose? Otherwise, all of this is just talking to hear ourselves speak.
David, I've found in the past that you almost always have a point to make when you bring things up. You've brought this one up, so, if there's a point, please go ahead and make it.
Let me ask you a question. Do you know why Ahmanijad is doing this? The answer is pretty clear to David and me.
This is the place where I'm putting a request for Gary to create a separate thread for politics on these boards so I can fold the triangle on it and never have to see it again. Off-Topic has always been my favorite part of the Paizo boards, and I don't want Red State or DU or Free Republic or Daily Kos in it.
This is the first, and hopefully last, time I am going to use this for anything but a joke, but as someone pumping a substantial share of my disposable income into Paizo, I strongly request that they give my request some consideration.
David, I'm sorry. I'm sure you're a really nice guy in person, but this constant pot-stirring and baiting is wrecking my ability to enjoy my visits here. I hope Gary can accommodate your need to have these discussions while accommodating my desire to have them out of my favorite part of the boards.
|
|
David, I've found in the past that you almost always have a point to make when you bring things up. You've brought this one up, so, if there's a point, please go ahead and let us in on it.
Your right, Kith, it is time to reveal my master plan. I apologize to all of you for leading you on, this has been part of some research that I have been doing. I have been working on my paper for admission into a masters program and I wanted to write about whether people will behave rationally in political discussion if faced with a completly irational argument. I haven't had to look too far to observe people responding irrationally to rational argument, as well as responding rationally to rational arguments. However, I felt that I need to provoke an irrational discussion to see if people remained rational.
Again I am sorry that I had to mislead you. I though Billzabub had seen through me there for a minute. The data you helped give me is excellent, and I was glad to see most people remain mostly rational, even in the face of the completely irrational things that I said. I was also sorry that my comments had such an effect on Sebastion, someone who's judgements and comments I have come to respect and admire. I hope that you can forgive me and that we can continue to have a good relationship. When my paper is finshed I will post it so that you can all see how hopeful you have all been. Thanks for all your help, even if you did not know that you were helping.
Let me ask you a question. Do you know why Ahmanijad is doing this? The answer is pretty clear to David and me.
Gary, if he's doing it to sow dissent among Americans ("those Democrats talk like IRANIANS!!! Let's git 'em!") then I'd say he's doing a pretty good job.