Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Whats with the democrats? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Whats with the democrats?
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PaH: You can call me whatever you want.

On the smoking issue, I would only ask why people in their 90s are trying to commit suicide on more than a pack a day -- and whether you would go into the smoke of battle with somebody who's afraid of cigarette smoke. One dies of smoking or car exhaust. What difference?

One thing the War on Smoking demonstrated to me: nonsmokers, whatever their protests, aren't the least bit nicer than smokers were. I should have known. I have an uncle who was head of a big tobacco company -- who never smoked!

Inappropos: All the major gay papers in NEng have published what's being called "The Offending Passage" of the Republican Platform in an attempt to sway gay Republicans to bolt the party. Watch NH and possibly ME.

Utah Gay Rights Questioned
Salt Lake City. Bill Duncan, an attorney for the conservative Sutherland Institute disputes the conclusion of the three candidates for Utah attorney general [incumbent Mark Shurtleff (R), Greg Skordas (D), and Andrew McCullough (L)] that the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages also would bar extending basic partnership rights to unwed couples. Cf.: http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/090304utahBan.htm

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who cares if they agree?
Oh right, we can't ask for sacrifice anymore. Sorry. I almost forgot how the mindset of people has changed. Apparently there are people out there who can't accept the death of even one soldier to remove a dictator who killed hundreds fo thousands of people within his own borders.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who cares if they agree?
Oh right, we can't ask for sacrifice anymore. Sorry. I almost forgot how the mindset of people has changed. Apparently there are people out there who can't accept the death of even one soldier to remove a dictator who killed hundreds fo thousands of people within his own borders.

Its not one soldier, its nearly a thousand, and the number is growing with no end in sight. By your logic, we should be invading half the countries in the world, starting with China (1 million Tibetans, and countless others). The fact is, this is not possible. If we are obligated to liberate the world, we must employ other means. The lives of our soldiers must be spent on more than a drop in the bucket regime change which has yet to prove beneficial to even the Iraqi people, much less desirable to them.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam - People were saying it was unacceptable back when the number was a few hundred.

And why would we start in China? The cure would be worse than the disease.

And Iraq sits in too important a spot to be called a "drop in the bucket" regime change.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You also need to remember that nearly 6,500 American soldiers have been maimed, amputated, paralyzed, crippled, and wounded in addition to the tragic deaths of nearly 1,000 of our brave soldiers.

In just this past month of August alone, over 1,100 American soldiers have been maimed, amputated, paralyzed, crippled, and wounded in addition to 75 soldiers killed in the same month of August 2004.

In other words, American soldiers are being killed and wounded at an ever-increasing pace.

Today (Labor Day), seven American Marines and were killed and many other Marines wounded in one car bomb attack near Fallujah:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/250/world/Car_bomb_kills_seven_U_S_Marin:.shtml

quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) A massive car bomb exploded Monday on the outskirts of Fallujah, killing seven U.S. Marines and wounding several others, a U.S. military official said, in the deadliest attack on Americans since May.

The attack nine miles north of Fallujah a stronghold for Sunni insurgents destroyed two Humvees, witnesses said. Medical teams in helicopters swept into the dusty, barren site to ferry away the injured, and troops sealed off the surrounding area.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, an Interior Ministry spokesman said that medical tests on a man being held in custody showed he is not former president Saddam Hussein's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, ending conflicting claims about his purported arrest.

The man is a relative of al-Douri, said Interior Ministry spokesman Sabah Kadhim, and was wanted by authorities, but not an important member of Saddam's ousted regime.

The force of the car bomb outside Fallujah sent the vehicle's engine ''a good distance'' from the site, a military official said on condition of anonymity. Four Iraqis were wounded by fire from U.S. troops near the site of the bombing, said Ahmed Bassem of the Fallujah General Hospital. The U.S. military was unable to immediately confirm the report.

With Monday's deaths and those of two U.S. soldiers in a mortar barrage outside Baghdad a day earlier, 985 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq in March 2003, according to the Defense Department.

As American forces and Allawi's government continue to lose more and more control of ever-widening areas of Iraq, American casualties are steadily increasing as we are slowly but steadily retreating on all fronts in Iraq (Fallujah, Tal Afar, Latifiyah, Mosul, Ramadi, Samarra, Najaf, and Sadr City). Even in the Kurdish controlled areas around Kirkuk, an increasing number of suicide bombings and IED attacks are steadily forcing the American forces into retreating from Kurdish population centers.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... and clearly we can't keep up that pace of deaths and injuries forever.

But what is your more acceptable solution?

note: I *have* asked you this before David...

[ September 06, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have consistently said that we should stop implementing Operation Cut and Run in Iraq. If we had eliminated the Fallujah insurgency and exterminated Sadr and his Mahdi Army, we would not be where we are today.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has no backbone, so they cowardly refrained from eliminating the insurgency when they could have done so. They retreated from Fallujah and Najaf, and now we have insurgencies sprouting up all throughout Iraq in half a dozen other cities besides Fallujah and Najaf.

We have probably reached the "point of no return" in Iraq already -- where we realistically have no chance of preventing civil war and chaos from spilling out in Iraq. We have already lost far too much control in Iraq.

Nevertheless, if we want to try one last time to make things right in Iraq, we must immediately go on the offensive now against the insurgency centers in Fallujah and Najaf. Most of all, we have to eliminate al-Zarqawi's base in Fallujah, and we must eliminate al-Zarqawi. Moreover, we have to disrupt the flow of funding, troops, and ammunition across the Iran/Iraq border that is funding the southern Shiite insurgency against us. This would require the Bush Administration to stop ignoring the Iranian threat -- and to start employing military action or at least the threat of military action to end the Iranian subversion of southern Iraq.

On the other hand, we can also cut our losses in Iraq and cut and run immediately -- instead of cutting and running over the course of another 6 months to 2 years as the Bush Administration is doing. After withdrawing from Iraq, we could pivot our military against Iran and mop up the remaining Al-Qaeda and Taliban who are still fighting us in Afghanistan.

[ September 06, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adam - People were saying it was unacceptable back when the number was a few hundred.



This is still more than one. I was just clarifying your hyperbole.

quote:
And why would we start in China? The cure would be worse than the disease.


I'm confused about what you mean here. I assume you don't mean our occupation would be more repressive than that of the current government. Do you mean it would be too hard and costly? If so, couldn't one just send your argument about sacrifice right back at you?

quote:
And Iraq sits in too important a spot to be called a "drop in the bucket" regime change.
But now you are getting into reasons beyond the noble sounding "rescue mission" you described earlier. The suppossed strategic implications of toppling Iraq are exactly the kinds of arguments I said would sound painfully hollow to the parents of a slain soldier. Which was it that necessitated this war (and the casualties with it), Sadaam's butchery or the strategic importance of Iraq's location?
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David, the U.S. showed tremendous restraint dealing with al Sadir and the insurrection in Fallujah, showing respect for Shiite Islam's holiest shrine. They finally got the militia to leave the shrine, and avoided having to wipe everyone out and level the shrine. You seem to think that was not the proper thing to do. You think we should have wiped everyone out and leveled the shrine. Sometimes you sound like a pacifist, protesting that too many have died pursuing U.S. policies in Iraq, and then you turn around and sound like a warmonger, saying we should slaughter everyone in sight. How Kerryish of you.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David Ricardo - Well it's about time the military hired you, so you could tell them how to make martyrs the right way.

Adam - Try pinning down a number that people would call acceptable. It won't happen on either side. That's what *I* am trying to clarify.
As for the "cure" and the "disease," I'm saying that we would create far more serious long-term difficulties. I believe that invading China now would not accomplish any of its objectives, no matter how much we sacrificed. On the other hand, I believe we CAN accomplish objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and are in the process of doing so now. Like David Ricardo, I think we should be taking the fight to the enemy harder, but that's what you get in election season. Ron Lambert is on to something himself, but I'd still press the fight harder in Iraq.

quote:
But now you are getting into reasons beyond the noble sounding "rescue mission" you described earlier. The suppossed strategic implications of toppling Iraq are exactly the kinds of arguments I said would sound painfully hollow to the parents of a slain soldier. Which was it that necessitated this war (and the casualties with it), Sadaam's butchery or the strategic importance of Iraq's location?

That's an either-or fallacy. Lots of things can be used to justify the invasion of Iraq to varying degrees, and just because one takes precedence over the other in the court of opinion doesn't mean the others are void.
The strategic location of Iraq, remember, is not just about "holding a strategic lcoation." It's about what you do with it. If by holding Iraq and Afghanistan we can get the pragmatists in Iran to talk deal (which seems to be happening), I'd understand if, say, my brother died acheiving that goal. I would grieve my brother, but I would understand what it was accomplishing.
If holding Iraq gives us valauble inroads to Saudi channels of power after Iran is taken care of, even better. And if holding Iraq gives us the ability to alter Syria (and "alter" is a nicer-sounding word for what we'd really be doing), then all the better.

Right now we're SO close to truer, more liberal democracy in THREE formerly oppressive states. The historical implications of the US being able to do ALL THAT in less than twenty years is incredible.

"The parents of a slain soldier" -- "painfully hollow" arguments -- I can't expect people to understand. This case needs to be made. We are making history; if these people could see what life has been like in Iraq for two decades for the people living there, there would be no end to the sympathy. And we would never stop apologizing for turning our backs on them when they needed us most, betraying their confidence in what we believe to be the greatest country in the world.
George W. Bush's actions in Iraq are one hell of a step up from what Clinton and elder Bush and Reagan did with that country, for their various reasons.

[ September 06, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron Lambert said:

quote:
Sometimes you sound like a pacifist, protesting that too many have died pursuing U.S. policies in Iraq, and then you turn around and sound like a warmonger, saying we should slaughter everyone in sight. How Kerryish of you.
Ron Lambert, I only decry the deaths and maiming and crippling of our soldiers because they are wasted deaths and maiming and crippling -- not because I have any pacifistic tendencies (I definitely do not).

Our proud military is a finite resource, and one should always uses finite resources in their most effective way instead of wasting them on ultimately irrelevant and ineffective endeavors.

I have never flip-flopped at all on this approach to foreign policy, and it is morally bankrupt for you to pretend that I flip-flop on foreign policy when I have always been consistent in my hawkishness in foreign policy.

I am a hawk, but I am not such a stupid hawk that I would waste our precious military in pointless military misadventures that simply distract us from the main threat of Islamic fundamentalism. 1,000 American soldiers dead and 6,500 American soldiers wounded in Iraq symbolically represent the price we are paying for choosing to fight battles at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have always contended that Iraq was the wrong front to open against Islamic fundamentalism (much as the Italian front was a poor front to open against the Central Powers during World War I). And even if you could argue that Iraq was the correct front to open against Islamic fundamentalism, it was executed at the wrong time (much as Hitler choosing to initiate Operation Sea Lion against Great Britain when he could have easily waited to finish off Great Britain at his leisure much later).

Anyhow, Ron Lambert, I entreat you to attack my arguments instead of trying to attack my chracter. It is rather pathetic of you to try to paint me as a flip-flopper when I have been nothing but determinedly (or stubbornly?) insistent on a "paleorealistic hawkish" approach to our Iraq policy.

As of right now, you are just resorting to childish insults.

[ September 06, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So David, saying "how Kerryish of you" was a real deep, personal insult, was it? I never mentioned flip-flopping. But I guess you know what "Kerryish" means. As do we all.

Let me ask you this. If all that matters is achieving military objectives with the least cost in U.S. troops killed or injured, then would you have approved of U.S. pulling back all its forces from the region around Fallujah and then nuking the place? What could be more efficient?

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But I guess you know what 'Kerryish' means."

Or, to be more accurate, he knows what YOU meant "Kerryish" to mean, even if he does not think the description is accurate.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose "Kerryish" might mean something different to you, Tom. (If so, I wonder what it could possibly be.) But as I used it, the term would require no definition for anyone, whether they have ever heard from me before or not. I dare say, "Kerryish" has a known meaning to the American public.

[ September 06, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Translation of Ron Lambert:

quote:
"Blah blah blah, Chris Matthews' interview of Zell Miller was a representation of liberal media bias by a liberal who voted for Bush over Gore...blah blah blah, David Ricardo is a warmonger simply because he proposed killing the terrorists in Fallujah instead of retreating from them...blah blah blah, Kerry is a flip-flopper because I said he was."
That sums up the Ron Lambert position there. What I gather is that journalists who voted for Bush over Gore are tools of the liberal media, people who suggest that we kill terrorists instead of retreating from them are warmongers, and Kerry is a flip-flopper simply because Ron Lambert says so.

[ September 06, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Kerryish" has a known meaning to the American public.

Yeah, and the general public knows that a "Bushism" is something said incredibly stupidly. Ergo, Bush is stupid?
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's an either-or fallacy. Lots of things can be used to justify the invasion of Iraq to varying degrees, and just because one takes precedence over the other in the court of opinion doesn't mean the others are void.

Used by whom to justify? It seems to me we have three different classes of justification:

1. Those used before hand, by the administration, to "sell" the war to the American people.

2. Those used after the fact to justify the war by the administration.

3. Those used by pro-war conservatives to defend the admin's decision.

In the first category, we have, basically, WMDs and terrorist/9-11 contacts. In the second category, I mainly hear liberation theory these days. The third category contains all of the above, as well as more developed neocon theories about what I call "reverse domino effect" (copyright and trademark Adam Masterman [Big Grin] ), whereby a democratic Iraq will cause all surrounding countries to reform through massive social pressures. The "either-or" fallacy you describe comes as a result of the interchange of all these arguments when debating the war.
Initially, those of us oppossed to the war are upset about the switch from reasons in category one to those in the second. Not only is it dishonest, but there remains the question of whether the public would have gone along with the invasion given those reasons (the admin thought not). As for the idea that a democratic Iraq will cause other nations to come around, there are two major problems. One, how close ARE we to a free, democratic Iraq? and two, what evidence do we have that proximity will create the pressures you describe. Didn't work in Cuba. Do you have any historical evidence for this, because to me it seems a pretty tenuous theory to be losing soldiers over.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam -

I personally justified the war to Ornery and people I knew in lots of ways. Before the campaign I talked about WMD (most of which, apparently, the UN misled us on; at this point only the R-400 bombs remain concrete), I talked about us bringing down a destabilizing genocidal dictator; I talked about continuous breach of UN resolutions for over a decade; and as the campaign approached I started to look at the map and realize the greater implications having to do with Iran. Obviously oil always had something to do with our actions there.
Any of those (except, purely oil) I would consider reason to capture Saddam and to put him on trial. But as you hint, others would disagree. The people of this country didn't seem to give a damn (pardon my language) while Saddam gassed and executed somewhere over 100,000 Kurds and forced millions mroe to evacuate, in a systematic cleansing program. The UN didn't seem to care that Saddam was breaching their resolutions, that he had committed genocide, and that he had committed some of the vilest acts of human rights abuses we have laws for.
So if the last two presidents, and the American and European people, and the UN have selectively ignored or pardoned Saddam (and many members of his regime)from being brought to justice, what made you think Bush could make the case any other way than WMD -- the one thing we were allowed to bomb Iraq for over the last decade?

Now you committed an either-or fallacy when you said either one thing had to justify the war or the other; no further options.
I couldn't care less whether Bush tried to justify it to the American public one way or the other, we meted out a justice Saddam and his henchmen had deserved for a LONG time. He did what was practical.

quote:
As for the idea that a democratic Iraq will cause other nations to come around, there are two major problems. One, how close ARE we to a free, democratic Iraq?
You concede that Afghanistan is coming along nicely considering the time frame?
Iraq will require a longer timeframe, but the first elections are coming soon. This will be the first election where people are allowed to dissent in any numbers.

Our presence in Iraq gave Qaddafi a chance to re-enter the international community, and he decided to sieze it, in the meantime trading away his WMD's. There are forces in Iran trying hard to do something similar; they'd be more than happy to trade a couple nukes for stable relations with their neighbors and no US invasion.

quote:
and two, what evidence do we have that proximity will create the pressures you describe. Didn't work in Cuba.
VERY different situation. Can't even apply the same logic, except that via their relationship with the Soviet Union they were able to trade THEIR WMD's away for a promise that the US wouldn't invade.
Iran has a very different domestic climate and the people in power are not Fidel Castros and they don't have a superpower backing them up. Now is the time for them to talk deal, because they consider US/British presence on two borders to be threatening.

[ September 06, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David, those who are honest stipulate what is obviously true, and do not indulge in foolish denial that merely bogs down meaningful debate. Perhaps, unlike you, I know what I am talking about. If you don't like my certainty, that is your problem. You have never proven me wrong at anything. And like the saying goes, "Wisdom is known of her children."
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Perhaps, unlike you, I know what I am talking about."

Ron, you DO realize that your whole post above attempted to associate accuracy with fervor? In other words, it amounted to "I am passionate, insulting, and undiplomatic because I am smarter than you are; in fact, the fact that I am passionate, insulting, and undiplomatic merely proves how right I am." It is with some relief that I say that you're wrong. [Smile]

[ September 07, 2004, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:
quote:

Translation of Ron Lambert:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blah blah blah, Chris Matthews' interview of Zell Miller was a representation of liberal media bias by a liberal who voted for Bush over Gore...blah blah blah, David Ricardo is a warmonger simply because he proposed killing the terrorists in Fallujah instead of retreating from them...blah blah blah, Kerry is a flip-flopper because I said he was."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sums up the Ron Lambert position there. What I gather is that journalists who voted for Bush over Gore are tools of the liberal media, people who suggest that we kill terrorists instead of retreating from them are warmongers, and Kerry is a flip-flopper simply because Ron Lambert says so.


Is that the kind of specious dialogue you are defending Tom?

This is your idea of dialogue?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did not object to David's rather flippant recap precisely because I think it nailed two of the things Ron was definitely insinuating. Ron, on the other hand, erred when he reacted as if David's understanding of what he (Ron) meant by a term indicated an acceptance of Ron's use of the term; I pointed that out. I completely agree that David's use of "blah-blah" probably didn't help him get his point across, for what it's worth.

My most recent post to Ron merely pointed out that his recent claim -- that the force of his words is proof of their truth -- is a weak one. Leaving aside the question of whether anyone has ever "proven" Ron wrong, the idea that he does not need to exercise some restraint because he is perfectly confident of his accuracy is one that can only lead to trouble when involved in discussions with people who do not accept that he is accurate.

[ September 07, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I did not object to David's rather flippant recap precisely because I think it nailed two of the things Ron was definitely insinuating. Ron, on the other hand, erred when he reacted as if David's understanding of what he (Ron) meant by a term indicated an acceptance of Ron's use of the term; I pointed that out.

Of course you don't object. It appears that it doesn't matter to you what the character, or type of attack or even person attacking is, as long as the object of that attack is someone you dislike. You will gladly defend them.


I suggest that you avoid your interpetation of insinuations since you are probably the worst one here for "insinuations".

If you choose to defend that type of dialogue then don't be surprised when people question the content of your character.

[ September 07, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do agree that empassioned responses do not automatically translate to truth. I do believe overt ridicule is wrong though.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If David can make a humorous point without insulting someone, that is fine, otherwise, I think its over the line.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It appears that it doesn't matter to you what the character, or type of attack or even person attacking is, as long as the object of that attack is someone you dislike."

Ron, I don't dislike you in the least. In fact, I think you're a perfectly likeable person who, unfortunately, can't put together an argument to save his life. That said, I think David would have been better served if he had simply pointed out the two points you were making and left it to readers to decide whether they were worthy of ridicule. He wasn't particularly harsh, however, nor insulting; I wouldn't act too hurt, and I don't think it'll help your cause to pretend that his rather mild dismissal cut you to the bone.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, given that in the past you have stated I do put together strong arguments I would find your attack less than credible and little more than a somewhat weak attempt to divert the issue. The fact that you would justify and attempt to justify anyone who attacks people you don't like speaks a great deal to a certain lack of truthfulness in the manner in which you use this forum.

Its not your kitty litter box. Try to be substantive in your arguments and fair in the way you treat people (ie even handed). If you can't then perhaps you need to understand why people question the character which you project on these pages.

You may also want to understand that his dimsissal wasn't directed at me, but Ron Lambert. I was simply pointing out to you that your defense of such actions show a certain expediency over values that you seem to disdain in others.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you can't then perhaps you need to understand why people question the character which you project on these pages."

You know, Ron, there are actually very few people here who question my character; most of those are people who, frankly, have had their character questioned a great deal already. I'm not overly concerned with it, and believe that what I say speaks for itself.

[ September 07, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom said: "...there are actually very few people here who question my character...."

Of course not. We all know that you are a character, Tom. [Smile]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someday I'd love to meet this "we." [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I forgot to take a survey first.

How many believe Tom is a character?

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robertson, Ugly and Nohow
Member
Member # 1375

 - posted      Profile for Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Email Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...(in an attempt to change the subject)... How's the weather?
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bushism: malaprop - If you're a Dem you misunderestimate him. Very rarely does the misuse of language degrade understanding of the content of what is said. The pejoratives assigned to such misuse is a statement in itself. Bushism does not infer not being smart - that is an agenda-based cliché which is untrue. See Lanny Davis' comments to his fellow Democrats about not underestimating Bush's intelligence.
quote:
"This guy is very smart," said Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and a supporter of Al Gore, as well as a fraternity brother of Mr. Bush at Yale. "This notion of lightness is totally missing the point. There are many smart people, intellectually smart as well as street smart, who don't have the energy or motivation at times to act smart, but that doesn't mean they're not smart. There are times when George coasted through Yale courses or through exams or seemed overly facetious. But don't mistake that for not being intellectually acute. 

"My memory of George -- and I've no reason to say nice things about him, because I hope he loses -- is that he was an astute observer of people and had an incredible talent for getting along with people," Mr. Davis said. "I tell my fellow Democrats not to underestimate him."

Kerryism: to reverse an earlier position (flip-flop) -

"...I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

vs.

...Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

As wedge issues encroach in areas that Kerry has already made statements on to help define "who he is," they are readily changed. Complaints on his positional changes are met with personal attack rather than nuanced, complex explanation. This attack can be on members of his own team as well as on the opposition. (The speech writer shouldn't have put that in!)

Mooreism: to conflate a pejorative charge by insinuating conclusions from parts of statements that in their entirety prove exactly the opposite. (Not just being taken out of context - this is about cutting things together and superimposing images over narrations that make a point when all of the facts behind all the pieces say the opposite.)

"Let's say one group of people, like the American people, pay you $400,000 a year to be President of the United States. But then another group of people invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses $1.4 billion dollars over a number of years. Who you gonna like? (video of President Bush and Saudi Prince) Who's your daddy?"

vs.

Saudi Arabian government awarded almost all of their funding to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. Former president Bush 41 didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. Carlyle, itself, since Bush became President, has only had a major weapons system (The Crusader) taken away from them. The "related business" can be argued as not being slander - but the facts are undisputably wrong.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"that is an agenda-based cliché which is untrue."

I would argue, Wm, that all three of these terms are agenda-based cliches, rather than terms that accurately describe tendencies of the people slandered.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bushism: malaprop - If you're a Dem you misunderestimate him.
Is misunderestimate a Bushism? I'm not familiar with that one.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love you Ron's like brothers, but when you're posting on the same thread... maybe one of you could change names. I don't see any "Bert"s here, or I could give you my name - it's a pretty good one, I think.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoverOfJoy, yes that is a Bushism, and it was made into a title of one of the biographies of him.

As for Tom, you can argue all you want, but you are still wrong. And you just slandered me by saying I slandered others.

Do you argue against the facts that Bush is known for his lack of language skills... that Kerry is known for flip-flops (You do recall the GOP convention with all the people clapping bathing thongs together whenever Kerry was mentioned?)... or that Moore is known for creating inuendo of guilt where none exist: Moore’s deceits.

[ September 07, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: WmLambert ]

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't argue against either the idea that Bush is known for lack of speaking skills, or that Kerry is known for flip-flopping.

However, I think Tom's point is that, just because someone is "known for doing something" doesn't mean that he does, in fact, do what he is known for.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Tom, you can argue all you want, but you are still wrong."

Ah. So you're saying that in the case of the word "Bushism," it's an unfair and inaccurate "misunderestimation" of the president based on a political agenda, whereas the altogether less well-known terms "Kerryism" and "Mooreism" are OED definitions that are completely fair and accurate descriptions of certain tendencies of the men so named?

Sheesh. If you're going to be stubborn about something, Wm, I would submit that this is NOT something you should dig in your heels about; it's not a winnable argument for you, and it's silly for you to even try. Just admit bias and move on, 'k?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As for Tom, you can argue all you want, but you are still wrong. And you just slandered me by saying I slandered others."

To prove that Tom is slandering you, Wm, you first have to show that you have stated Bush, Kerry, and Moore, use language badly, flip flop, and assign evil motives where none-exist, rather then simply having defined the terms. You then have to show that they are in fact guilty of those "crimes." You then have to show that Tom is accusing you of slander, rather then making the argument that the definitions are themselves slanderous. Then you have to show that him saying you are slandering people damages your reputation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1