Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Just as it's not surprising that no one here seems to agree with you - and we do have other conservatives on these boards.>> <Who are few and far between, and who are apparently unwilling to risk the personal attacks that come upon those who disagree with the liberals here.> They really aren't few and far between. DlDug, DAR, vbdad55 and others post here all the time, and don't seem so delicate about what you rather broadly term as a "personal attack." And I don't see any of them defending the administration's latest "creative accounting" scheme. <<But considering the reaction other conservatives with some integrity have had to this transparently dishonest tactic (like Dan Quayle's former speech writer), it's not surprising either that a conservative with integrity would be embarrassed by this, or that you would not be.>> <Like this one. > I'm noting that it perfectly fits your by now well-established pattern. Just as being embarrassed by the misactions of one's own party (be it Republicans embarrassed by this shameless move, or Democrats embarrassed by the antics of Al Sharpton) fits the pattern of most people here from both parties who have some integrity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't see any of them defending the administration's latest "creative accounting" scheme.> I don't see them attacking it. <I'm noting that it perfectly fits your by now well-established pattern.> Yes, it fits my pattern of thinking for myself instead of automatically believing liberal talking points. Just as your post fit your pattern of attempting to denigrate me by claiming that just because every conservative isn't saying the same thing I am, I must be an extremist.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA My spirit is sky high [clap - clap] My spirit is sky high [clap - clap] My spirit is sky high [clap - clap]
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I don't see any of them defending the administration's latest "creative accounting" scheme.>> <I don't see them attacking it.> Which proves what, again? Perhaps, like the Quayle speech writer, they didn't feel the need to criticize what had already been criticized, but pointedly didn't defend it either. <<I'm noting that it perfectly fits your by now well-established pattern.>> <Yes, it fits my pattern of thinking for myself instead of automatically believing liberal talking points. > That they are not counting car bombs in the death totals is not a liberal talking point. It's a fact. But you've shown (for the umpteenth time) that you'll parrot conservative talking points no matter how nonsensical. <Just as your post fit your pattern of attempting to denigrate me by claiming that just because every conservative isn't saying the same thing I am, I must be an extremist. > I didn't say you were an extremist. I said this was an example of lacking integrity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which proves what, again?> That your argument is a faulty appeal to authority. <That they are not counting car bombs in the death totals is not a liberal talking point. It's a fact.> Well, no. Again, they are still counting car bombs. That's how the author of the story knows how many car bombs went off last month, and how many people they killed. What they are not doing is pointing to the car bomb statistic as a measurement of how well the surge is working, because they do not believe it is a good indicator. The liberal talking point comes in when someone completely ignores the explanation and simplifies what has happened to make the administration look dishonest. <I didn't say you were an extremist. I said this was an example of lacking integrity.> Either way it's wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Which proves what, again?>> <That your argument is a faulty appeal to authority.> Actually, it came as a reaction to your faulty - what shall we call it? - appeal to "doug is the only authority who counts" "argument." You insisted that other people agreeing with me could be discounted because they were mere "usual suspects." I only pointed out no one here cared to defend the indefensible other than you. An "appeal to authority" would be saying that and then saying "therefore I'm right." I didn't say that. I only pointed out you were in a minority of one here so that you might think about your position and perhaps reconsider. Paused for a second and wondered "why are none of the other conservatives defending this?" Should have known better. <<That they are not counting car bombs in the death totals is not a liberal talking point. It's a fact.>> <Well, no. Again, they are still counting car bombs. That's how the author of the story knows how many car bombs went off last month, and how many people they killed. What they are not doing is pointing to the car bomb statistic as a measurement of how well the surge is working, because they do not believe it is a good indicator. The liberal talking point comes in when someone completely ignores the explanation and simplifies what has happened to make the administration look dishonest. > Because the administration's creative accounting is itself inherently dishonest, this is a distinction without a difference. They have decided to take car bombs out of the equation of whether the surge is working. The surge is supposed to quell sectarian violence. That's the reason for it, as stated by the administration itself. "If we can quell sectarian violence in Baghdad, we can move ahead with a political solution." But, car bombs are a huge part of the sectarian violence in Iraq. If a Shia sets off a car bomb in a Sunni neighborhood or market in order to kill as many Sunnis as he can, is that not sectarian violence? Of course it is. Not counting car bombs as a measure of the surge tamping down on sectarian violence is inherently dishonest, and all the GOP talking points and spin can't change that. Though you, true to form, buy into whatever they're selling. <I didn't say you were an extremist. I said this was an example of lacking integrity.> <Either way it's wrong.> I only wish it were. I'd prefer debating someone with integrity. Like, say, someone who doesn't read my argument that nowhere included the word "extremist" and claims I called him an extremist. But, as Rumsfeld might say, "you debate with the oppostion you have."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So, you mostly repeated your earlier arguments, and threw in a new personal attack for good measure. You're still wrong.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So, you mostly repeated your earlier arguments, and threw in a new personal attack for good measure. You're still wrong." Personal attack ad nauseum. In your dreams.
Originally Posted By ecdc While Douglas and his ilk sit in their cozy offices and den's pecking away at their keyboards to tell us how great the Bush administration is, real people are being killed by real car bombs in Iraq. Here's 33 more: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.torture/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/ meast/05/06/iraq.torture/index.html</a> It sickens me that some people discuss this with the same casual attitude they discuss Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter. But at least we don't have to factor these dead people and their grieving families into whether or not the surge is working. The spin, that's all that matters - who cares if people are dying, right?
Originally Posted By ecdc Oh, and according to a CNN.com alert, 8 more U.S. soldiers were killed today in a roadside bombing. Let's hope it wasn't a car bomb, otherwise we'll have to tell their families it wasn't as important because they aren't part of the administration's plan to sell the surge. Of course, this administration has been utterly shameless in how it treats the troops and uses them (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch). What's eight more dead men? Lip service is easy - we support the troops, let's lynch any democrat who says anything we can twist into being negative about the troops - but this administration has been the absolute worst thing that could happen to American soldiers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I guess you'd rather let the insurgents win, and spread their hatred and violence further. They won't stop at the Iraqi borders, you know.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I feel personally attacked for that last remark somehow. I can't pinpoint it, but my feelings are hurt.
Originally Posted By ecdc Taking some more out of Cheney's playbook, Douglas? No intelligent response so just fall back on the retort my 4 year old might us? "You want us to lose!" How mature and thoughtful.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No intelligent response so just fall back on the retort my 4 year old might us?> If you'd like to see an intelligent response, try making an intelligent post.
Originally Posted By ecdc I see Dabob making intelligent posts all the time while you're parroting Rush and Hannity. Doesn't stop you from playing semantics games, copping out with "I disagree", crying personal attack when there was none, and otherwise derailing threads where everyone else is trying to have a conversation, something you're largely incapable of these days (though it must be tough to defend the ineptitude of Bush on a daily basis - I'm suprised you just don't say "no habla ingles" half the time). So what about these dead Iraqis, Douglas? 33 of them. Tough beans, right. They have brown skin, so they had it coming anyway? No skin off your nose, regardless. You can just go to work tomorrow, listen to Rush, and defend the deaths of thousands as part of the genius of George W. I think I'll just channel Cheney's tactics too - you must really hate our soldiers to want them to die in Iraq. Yup, that logic works for me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So, you mostly repeated your earlier arguments, and threw in a new personal attack for good measure.> Well, no, there was some new stuff in there, particularly an amplified point that I'd like you to respond to, if you can. (Every time someone makes a good point lately, you have been taking your ball and going home, sniffing "you're still wrong" as you go.) "They have decided to take car bombs out of the equation of whether the surge is working. The surge is supposed to quell sectarian violence. That's the reason for it, as stated by the administration itself. "If we can quell sectarian violence in Baghdad, we can move ahead with a political solution." But, car bombs are a huge part of the sectarian violence in Iraq. If a Shia sets off a car bomb in a Sunni neighborhood or market in order to kill as many Sunnis as he can, is that not sectarian violence? Of course it is. Not counting car bombs as a measure of the surge tamping down on sectarian violence is inherently dishonest, and all the GOP talking points and spin can't change that." So how about it, Douglas? How is it honest to take car bomb attacks out of the equation of sectarian violence - which is what the surge is designed to quell - when they constitute a large chunk OF the sectarian violence?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh While most of ecdc's most recent post is just an unintelligent and factually incorrect personal attack, I will respond to his one question. <So what about these dead Iraqis, Douglas?> Every death is a tragedy. I hope their killers are caught, and prevented from murdering others. There is a much greater likelihood of that happening if we stay engaged. If we pull out of Iraq, it's extremely likely that that kind of violence will spread, and more people will be murdered.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Every time someone makes a good point lately, you have been taking your ball and going home, sniffing "you're still wrong" as you go.> Well, no. I'm just would rather not waste my time trying to engage in a debate with those who keep repeating the same mistaken opinions and being insulting. That said, I will try once again to enlighten you. <But, car bombs are a huge part of the sectarian violence in Iraq.> The Bush administration does not believe this is true. Rather, they believe that car bombs are being set by those, like foreign al queda agents, who trying to incite sectarian violence. If you can show that they are wrong, please do so. Otherwise, your argument is based on a flawed premise. You may not agree with the idea that sectarian violence is not the primary factor causing car bombs, but there is nothing inherently dishonest in that belief.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, no. I'm just would rather not waste my time trying to engage in a debate with those who keep repeating the same mistaken opinions and being insulting. That said, I will try once again to enlighten you." No thanks. I've had my share of pomposity elsewhere today.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>While most of ecdc's most recent post is just an unintelligent and factually incorrect personal attack, I will respond to his one question.<< In other words, I have no response, so I'll do just as Dabob predicted, pick up my ball, go home, and tell mommy everyone's been mean to me. These people are dead, Douglas. But it's all a game to you. Be it semantics, derailing, whatever. Being right is more important to you than doing what is right. It's a sad commentary, and everyone sees it for what it is.
