Bush's supreme court pick

[Dru]

Snaffle pickin' supremacy

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It is not worth arguing with him, catbird. The guy obviously hasn't read a newspaper in five years.

 

"debate over global warming" ring a bell?

"imminent" or "gathering" threat?

"tax credits" for the poor?

"social security crisis?"

"the death tax causes closure of family farms" (hint: they could not come up with a single example)

the party of "small goverment" sound familiar?

"leave all children behind"

"enemy noncombatants"

"the nominee deserves an up or down vote"

"healthy forest program"

"clear skies initiative"

"support the troops" but cut services, pensions, even burial benefits?

they are not "private savings accounts" but "personal savings accounts"

 

None of those top these two:

 

"I voted for the 87 billion... before I voted against it"

 

"It depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yes, that may be true but we are not nearly as good at putting forth unsupported assertions with the same glib aplomb that you conservatives do.

 

"unsupported" is just another word used by the left in their semantic games (along with "no proof", "no evidence", etc). There is plenty of support for these "conservative assertions", but you refuse to acknowledge them. The game gets old quickly, and the discussion deteriorates into the expedient and more efficient "this is how it is, now f*** off".

[mattp]

It is not worth arguing with him, catbird. The guy obviously hasn't read a newspaper in five years.

 

"debate over global warming" ring a bell?

"imminent" or "gathering" threat?

"tax credits" for the poor?

"social security crisis?"

"the death tax causes closure of family farms" (hint: they could not come up with a single example)

the party of "small goverment" sound familiar?

"leave all children behind"

"enemy noncombatants"

"the nominee deserves an up or down vote"

"healthy forest program"

"clear skies initiative"

"support the troops" but cut services, pensions, even burial benefits?

they are not "private savings accounts" but "personal savings accounts"

 

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!"

 

HAVE you read a newspaperin the last five years?

[olyclimber]

ya! its intelligent design! you idiots just don't believe.

[chucK]

Depends on what your defintion of "read" is.

[mattp]

"I voted for the 87 billion... before I voted against it"

 

Have you read the actual sources for this mis-quoted and distorted representation of what he said?

 

"It depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

 

I was just about willing to say "you got me there," except I just ran a quick google search and I found that the distinction may have been (I say may, because I'm not wasting time researching any further) whether the word "is" includes the past tense "was." Thus, it may not have been as trivial a distinction as all the right wing talk show hosts have been maintaining. (Though, I'm still inclined to say "maybe you got me there" because, clearly, it was a manipulative dodge.)

 

Bottom line, though: your stratospherically silly statement about how it is the liberals who distort things remains the nuttiest joke we've seen on this site in years.

[catbirdseat]

Matt, I really like that phrase, "stratospherically silly". You might want to copyright that.

[mattp]

Well, I just thought he really hit the ball out of the park with that one. I mean, that is why the right wingers are so proud of this bunch: they have mastered the art of spin unparalleled in American politics and the manipulation of the supposed free press.

[Peter_Puget]

"imminent" or "gathering" threat?

 

It is interesting that you bring up this example. I say interesting because this is an example I would use to illustrate to folly of the left. I suggested quite strongly to ChucK a couple years ago that his insistence on bringing up the "imminent canard" revealed either his capacity for not telling the truth, mindless sloganeering or a simply an incapacity for understanding the plain truth. I continue to belive this.

 

The administration never argued that it was acceptable to attack Iraq because it was an imminent threat. Had it done so it would be operating well within the confines of “international law?” What the administration argued was something new and outside of traditional international law. One of the primary assumptions underlying its argument was that the threat from Iraq was not imminent and yet was potentially of such great consequence that it required action. The US argued that the threat of WMDs changed the playing field and consequently the rules as well. Several years ago I posted links to the legal opinions of the US and Australia regarding this.

 

The "imminent threat" canard has been one of the main talking points of the left ever since. It is an obvious tactic whose purpose is to mislead the public as to the administrations true arguement.

[mattp]

What kind of nonsense are you speaking here, PP? They clearly said that Iraq had nukes or was seeking to obtain them and that that we might see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before any arms inspectors could do their work. By the way: what is a canard? Is that some kind of duck?

 

The "gathering" vs "imminent" business was just a BS dodge to try to divert attention from the fact that they lied or at least distored so that others would spread a lie that would frighten the American public (and Congress) into going along with their deception.

[Peter_Puget]

What kind of nonsense are you speaking here, PP? They clearly said that Iraq had nukes or was seeking to obtain them and that that we might see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before any arms inspectors could do their work. By the way: what is a canard? Is that some kind of duck?

 

The "gathering" vs "imminent" business was just a BS dodge to try to divert attention from the fact that they lied or at least distored so that others would spread a lie that would frighten the American public (and Congress) into going along with their deception.

 

Wow Mattp --You do seem testy today. Your venom and vitriol simply do not sustain any sort of argument. What's up with the attacks?

 

I would add that the US had a broader arguement concerning the lagality of its invasion I was limitin gmy repsonse to the part of the argument related to the "I" word.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Peter_Puget]

Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat. … We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. … The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

 

link

 

[chucK]

Peter,

I just don't get your continual arguments about "imminent" versus italics-highlighted stuff.

 

Are they meant to in some way minimize the more and more obvious deceptive marketing practices used by the Bush adminstration to lead us into a disastrous foreign-policy blunder?

 

Or are they merely semantic pedantry?

[Stefan]

Peter,

 

How do you reconcile the difference between the U.S. owning and potentially using nuclear weapons as a "defense strategy", and North Korea also using the same explanation for their nuclear weapons?

 

I remember when the U.S. did not want Pakistan or India to possess nuclear weapons either. When the U.S. found out about it, I think we were all kind of shocked....but now we live with it and it appears fine.

[Fairweather]

Peter,

 

How do you reconcile the difference between the U.S. owning and potentially using nuclear weapons as a "defense strategy", and North Korea also using the same explanation for their nuclear weapons?

 

 

Easy. Just because you, a law abiding, hard-working citizen own a firearm does not mean you should tolerate your mentally ill, alcoholic, drug-house neighbor down the street arming himself. You go to the authorities....or take other 'preemptive' measures.

[JoshK]

I will give you law-abiding (I assume, at least) but "hard-working" hardly describes you two, or any of us that post here many times daily.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well, I just thought he really hit the ball out of the park with that one. I mean, that is why the right wingers are so proud of this bunch: they have mastered the art of spin unparalleled in American politics and the manipulation of the supposed free press.

 

Maybe you could find a classic Rumsfeld quote for me?

 

Remember, I admitted that all politicians engage in this, but maintained that NON politicians on the left are much more prone to it than conservatives. Listen to the liberal spinmeisters on television, liberal lawyers, und so weiter. Catbird's response was a closer characterization of the conservative approach to debate: "I'm right because it just is, it's obvious, a tautology, end of argument".

[Fairweather]

Speak for yourself, Josh. I work 55-60 hrs/week and have never posted - or even viewed this site from my office terminal. You'll note my absence here between the hours of 6am and 5-6 pm.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wow Mattp --You do seem testy today. Your venom and vitriol simply do not sustain any sort of argument. What's up with the attacks?

 

his side is losing. badly. all over the country.

 

and there's some worrisome initiatives in WA that are likely to pass soon too.

 

[Fairweather]

Doctors versus lawyers. I wonder how Matt will vote? I haven't had this much fun since Mackaw Tribe v Sea Shepherd.

[JayB]

That was classic. "There's really no need for them to kill marine mammals, but our relativistic stance with respect to all morals and values, coupled with our reflexive loathing of Western civilization and our patronizing indulgence of all-things-native makes it impossible for us to make a coherent argument against it."

[JayB]

The only thing that I find funnier is watching the Volvo set attempting to curtail their 4-year old's tantrums with ad-hoc pop-psychology lectures.

 

"Mine!!!!WHAP!!!!"

 

"Now Solstice, we don't hit mommy..."

 

"WHAP!"

 

"Ouch. Now Solstice, it's very important that you understand that..."

 

"WHAP!"

 

 

An unintentional sitcom served up every day at your local PCC.

[EWolfe]

[mattp]

Keep on swinging, KK. Liberals spinmiesters outdo the rightwing talk show crowd?

 

“My side” is losing? Well there you may have me. For now at least. There is no viable liberal party – I’ll give you that.

All the Dems do is wait and hope that the Repubs fall apart on their own. That does not a liberal party make. (Of course, at the momemnt they seem to be well-founded in thinking the Repubs might fall apart on their own...)

 

(Meanwhile, if you want to google the examples of hypocritical wordsmithing that we exchanged above, I'm waiting for your comment...)