Wacka Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 He's not a hypocrite. He's a lawyer. 611966[/snapback] What's the difference?
KRC Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 No nice work jumping on Mickey to avoid dealing with the actual issue at hand. Classic partisan hack responses. 611995[/snapback] Mickey has proven that he is incapable of having an honest discussion on issues. BiB tried that this week and gave up. Until that changes, there is no reason to give any of his posts any serious consideration.
KRC Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 He's not a hypocrite. He's a lawyer. 611966[/snapback] I have known lawyers who can have a very reasonable discussion and you do not have to worry about your words being manipulated (or fabricated). There are some on this board who are lawyers who you can have discussions with on issues. Mickey is not one of them. It is very apparent that he is dishonest and cares more about twisting things to suit his own purposes than he is in having honest discussions.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 What's the difference? 611997[/snapback] Professionalism.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 So dismissing Mickey's statement and pure partisanship misses the point. [...] No nice work jumping on Mickey to avoid dealing with the actual issue at hand. Classic partisan hack responses. 611995[/snapback] Mickey's statements ARE pure partisanship, however. Mickey discusses issues only in that they are partisan. Hell, this thread is a perfect example. Mickey chose the topic "William F. Buckley". He intentionally made the subject not the occupation of Iraq, not the ultimate outcome of the occupation, not ANYTHING about Iraq. He chose to make the subject a conservative columnist espousing a "liberal" point of view..."and how do you like them apples, evil neo-cons!" in an effort to once again demonstrate that he's not only "smarter" than everyone else, but more of a victim than everyone else as well. Partisanship in and of itself isn't that bad...hell, Johnny Coli's probably one of my favorite posters, and he's as partisan as they come. KTFABD isn't exactly "fair and balanced", despite his screen name. You're no paragon of centrism yourself. But all three of you can distinguish between issues and partisan sniping and actually discuss things like rational human beings; Mickey digressed from that a long time ago, and he's well into "tennesseeboy" land now.
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 I thought you are a lawyer? Aren't you familiar with witness biases and credibility? You use Buckley's background as a conservative as a central reason for selecting his article for the post. You admitted that serveral times. However, when I bring up other parts of his background that make his stance completely non-news worthy, you cry foul and say "woe is me the liberal being oppressed by the mean old conservatives". His rather dramatic experience facilitating the overthrow of the Mexican government when employed by the CIA makes him less than credible in this area. He may be right, but you can't tout his background in one breath and dismiss it in another. Unless you don't mind being intellectually dishonest. 611868[/snapback] If you can't defeat his argument, go after his credibility. Exactly what makes political discourse these days such a waste of time. How many posts do you have in this thread already and you still haven't addressed any point beyond "Buckley is not a fan of GWB". His argument is simple, sectarian violence beyond the ability of our 130,000 troops to control has led to failure in Iraq. Have you challenged his assertion that there is sectarian violence? No. Have you challenged his assertion that our troops have not been able to control that violence? No. Have you challenged his assertion that these issues have prevented us from reaching our objectives in Iraq? No. If I had posted Howard Dean's position on this (quite similar but reached 3 years ago), it would have been dismissed because he is a political partisan hack liberal pansy etc., etc. Buckley may not be GWB's biggest fan but Cindy Sheehan he aint. I had hoped that maybe the points he raised might be addressed on their merits by the far right wing so amply represented on this board rather than avoided in favor of an attack on his credibility as would surely have been the case if the same views from a different source were cited. So much for that. I guess the "ignore merits, attack credibility" response is too deeply ingrained in the far right at this point to ever expect anything different. Buckley is right, there is violence, we aren't controlling it and it is leading to failure. Is it a done deal? I hope like hell that it isn't but for things to change, either the people in charge need to do something different or we need different people in charge. Whether Buckley tortures hamsters in his spare time, shares loofah stories with Bill O'Reilly or writes dreary poetry about having lost his virginity to the maid, doesn't effect whether or not he is right.
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 Mickey's statements ARE pure partisanship, however. Mickey discusses issues only in that they are partisan. Hell, this thread is a perfect example. Mickey chose the topic "William F. Buckley". He intentionally made the subject not the occupation of Iraq, not the ultimate outcome of the occupation, not ANYTHING about Iraq. He chose to make the subject a conservative columnist espousing a "liberal" point of view..."and how do you like them apples, evil neo-cons!" in an effort to once again demonstrate that he's not only "smarter" than everyone else, but more of a victim than everyone else as well. Partisanship in and of itself isn't that bad...hell, Johnny Coli's probably one of my favorite posters, and he's as partisan as they come. KTFABD isn't exactly "fair and balanced", despite his screen name. You're no paragon of centrism yourself. But all three of you can distinguish between issues and partisan sniping and actually discuss things like rational human beings; Mickey digressed from that a long time ago, and he's well into "tennesseeboy" land now. 612044[/snapback] That wasn't the intention CTM. I figured that the same point of view from the left would be simply dismissed or the credibility of the source attacked. To get anyone around here to take it seriously, I figured I needed the point to be raised by a conservative. That was why I used Buckley, hoping he wouldn't be simply dismissed as a Sheehanesque lunatic and emphasized the point that whatever he is, he is no liberal. I thought that would force a discussion of the issues he raised, that the sectarian violence is out of control, our 130,000 troops can't contain it and it is leading to disaster. That reality has to be embraced before it can be fixed, I think that is his point anyway and it is worth discussing. Of course, the response was that A. Mickey suks and B. Buckley is anti-Bush. Lastly, to paraphrase Bentson, I know Tennyboy, I am a friend of Tennyboy and me sir, I am no Tennyboy, he is waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy smarter.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 That wasn't the intention CTM. I figured that the same point of view from the left would be simply dismissed or the credibility of the source attacked. To get anyone around here to take it seriously, I figured I needed the point to be raised by a conservative. That was why I used Buckley, hoping he wouldn't be simply dismissed as a Sheehanesque lunatic and emphasized the point that whatever he is, he is no liberal. I thought that would force a discussion of the issues he raised, that the sectarian violence is out of control, our 130,000 troops can't contain it and it is leading to disaster. That reality has to be embraced before it can be fixed, I think that is his point anyway and it is worth discussing. Of course, the response was that A. Mickey suks and B. Buckley is anti-Bush. Lastly, to paraphrase Bentson, I know Tennyboy, I am a friend of Tennyboy and me sir, I am no Tennyboy, he is waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy smarter. 612054[/snapback] And let's review the original post... Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And further, that the challenge for the President is to: "...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy." And lastly, "...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat." I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success. Chalk up another defeatist. Funny...I don't see you offering any opinions or discussion about Iraq. I see you offering them about Buckley and conservatives in general. You didn't even attempt to discuss Iraq in the original post...you used Iraq as the context to discuss Buckley and present your partisan viewpoint. Of course, in later posts, you did try to discuss Iraq...which is just typical of your posting style of "bait and switch" martyrdom: you start with discussing one topic in a given context (Buckley and his views on Iraq), and the very moment you're called out on your idiocy, you swap topic and context (Iraq in the context of Buckley) and play the innocent victim. It may not have been your intent...but it is what you did. And I have a very hard time believing it wasn't your intent, considering you do it ALL THE !@#$ING TIME. Though I will admit it's at least possible - though unlikely - you haven't the slightest idea what the meanings of "topic" and "context" are. Either way, the end result's the same: it's impossible to discuss anything with you, because ultimately you'll "bait and switch" any discussion you're involved in. But it's everyone else's fault. Sure...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Well, I guess my hinting that Iraq is an example of a larger problem sort of slipped by. Once again, Iraq is being focused on only as Iraq without discussing the possible policy philosophies behind it. Pre-emption vs. reaction? Probably anyone can figure out that things aren't going well in Iraq. Why is open to a lot of arguments too. On the surface without even looking into it, it seems someone on our side really missed the boat on sectarian divisions, but I don't know. It could also be anticipated growing pains. Hasn't been that long. So, is maybe the real issue that we abandon a policy of trying to effect changes to our benefit in favor of reacting to changes caused by others without any attempt at influence? Mickey this, Mickey that. We all know his point, and the point of the post. Whatever. I think there are deeper issues that need to get figured out by us voters before the next elections. I personally think that the US is being pushed aside in many ways for a lot of reasons. It's been going on for years, and a lot of it centers on things going on in the middle east. I'm likely very wrong in my views in the earlier post, but even if I'm 25% right, we have a big problem. What are we going to do about it? Mickey? Any thoughts? Are we going to complain about now, or look ahead?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Excellent point Captain Pyrrhic. Haven't more soldiers died since we "won it" than did in winning it? How many soldiers do we have there? 130,000? I guess since the war is over, they must be on an extended and unusually lethal training exercise. 611599[/snapback] Exactly, just like everywhere else in the world where America puts brave people in harms way (in other administrations even more so), for America's interests and safety. On this very board, we're even concerned about the south pole, or the curvature of the earth. Who are you trying to impress? Your rants are for argument only. Not to be taken seriously.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Part of my original post called Mickey a rambling fool, too. He's not rambling, neither is he a fool. But since I know that he actually has looked into the details of a lot of things, and knows better, I really have to question maybe not the arguments, but the motives and tactics. I think Mickey is a pretty smart guy, and as I said, is probably pretty well read on a lot of the issues. We've more than once traded tips on references. Mickey, if you are trying to present what it is YOU think about things, argue your interpretation of what you have learned and processed, don't "post links" and speak lawyer speak version of "Bush Bad", and insult our intelligence. Don't assume everyone here is stupidly uninformed, because they are not. You know exactly who are legitimate "adversaries", and who are not. I really don't think anyone is fighting you because you are "wrong", it's your presentation. A few years ago, I never figured you for one to pander to the masses. Just don't know why you are doing it now. Mostly not my business anyway, but you seem to have sunk to different tactics if someone doesn't agree with your POV, and you guise it in "I have to speak up for the downtrodden". Oh, BTW. I'm a Bush appologist neo-con war mongereror.
cromagnum Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 The war on drugs is a never ending battle, to much money involved. Take the money out of illegal dealers hands, half the battle is over. Now if we could elect politicians who want to keep the money out of middle east oil rich countries, by pushing a serious goal of alternative fuel. The cold war ended by bankrupting the soviet union. Just a thougt.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 The war on drugs is a never ending battle, to much money involved. Take the money out of illegal dealers hands, half the battle is over. Now if we could elect politicians who want to keep the money out of middle east oil rich countries, by pushing a serious goal of alternative fuel. The cold war ended by bankrupting the soviet union. Just a thougt. 612146[/snapback] Just a thought. Look at the world. It's easier to get rid of tanks than it is the fuel to feed them. I think you did a disservice to youself, by linking those arguments. But that's just me.
X. Benedict Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Just a thought. Look at the world. It's easier to get rid of tanks than it is the fuel to feed them. I think you did a disservice to youself, by linking those arguments. But that's just me. 612149[/snapback] A stranger thought still: In theory you could run a tank on biodeisel, couldn't you?
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 A stranger thought still: In theory you could run a tank on biodeisel, couldn't you? 612158[/snapback] You can run an M-1 on French perfume. It would be sort of expensive, though.
Scraps Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 No one has ever been banned for their stance on any issue or party affiliation. To claim otherwise is whining, plain and simple. One only needs to see a list of those banned to debunk your hypothesis. 611903[/snapback] Are you a moderator of this forum?
X. Benedict Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 You can run an M-1 on French perfume. It would be sort of expensive, though. 612162[/snapback] Your enemies would probably never forget the smell of Depleted Uranium mixed with Channel no. 5.
cromagnum Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Just a thought. Look at the world. It's easier to get rid of tanks than it is the fuel to feed them. I think you did a disservice to youself, by linking those arguments. But that's just me. 612149[/snapback] I thought of the global need for fuel, and by other countries buying into the technology and benifiting, thier money will not also go to the mideast. They can call it the North Atlantic non oil Treaty Organization. I remember Thomas friedman selling the idea, the iraq war a as plan to diminish the money that fuels terrorism, by turning iraq into a democracy. And other oil producing countries will follow. I would keep killing the terrorist in afghanistan, and think about iraq and the mideast as a whole, and find a way to starve em of cash.
Mickey Posted February 27, 2006 Author Posted February 27, 2006 Well, I guess my hinting that Iraq is an example of a larger problem sort of slipped by. Once again, Iraq is being focused on only as Iraq without discussing the possible policy philosophies behind it. Pre-emption vs. reaction? Probably anyone can figure out that things aren't going well in Iraq. Why is open to a lot of arguments too. On the surface without even looking into it, it seems someone on our side really missed the boat on sectarian divisions, but I don't know. It could also be anticipated growing pains. Hasn't been that long. So, is maybe the real issue that we abandon a policy of trying to effect changes to our benefit in favor of reacting to changes caused by others without any attempt at influence? Mickey this, Mickey that. We all know his point, and the point of the post. Whatever. I think there are deeper issues that need to get figured out by us voters before the next elections. I personally think that the US is being pushed aside in many ways for a lot of reasons. It's been going on for years, and a lot of it centers on things going on in the middle east. I'm likely very wrong in my views in the earlier post, but even if I'm 25% right, we have a big problem. What are we going to do about it? Mickey? Any thoughts? Are we going to complain about now, or look ahead? 612084[/snapback] Reality is the overarching thing here. You are right, there are larger problems at stake. However, the reality is that we are failing in Iraq. So whether we should be there, shouldn't have gone there, whatever, doesn't really matter. We are not achieving our goals in Iraq. Lots and lots of lives have been lost and lots and lots of our national wealth in the process. For what? For Iraqi's to fight another round of the same civil war they have been fighting for ages? If there is a way that a civil war achieves a strategic goal for us, I admit that I don't get it. The larger problems, the longer term strategic interests, how are they effected by Iraq? We can decide to influence events all we want rather than to react to them but the reality is that if you decide to act and then fail, the result isn't much better than doing nothing in the first place. Arguably worse. I was using Buckley as an alarm bell because somewhere out there is a person, likely a conservative, whose credibility can't be deligitimized in a hail of or posts. Somewhere maybe there is someone the right will listen to despite how emotionally they are tied to supporting this war and this President. Democrats don't control anything, they are a non-factor in foreign policy right now. Who can influence policy, who can make some changes maybe that would make a difference? It has to come from the right because they have all the buttons that can be pushed at their disposal. They are the ones that have to do something if this thing is going to have a prayer at a good outcome for our interests. Who will they listen to? Along came Buckley so I gave him a shot. Turns out he is anti-Bush and apparently as big an idiot as me so no need to worrry about anything he has to say. So much for that.
Lori Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 I was using Buckley as an alarm bell because somewhere out there is a person, likely a conservative, whose credibility can't be deligitimized in a hail of or posts. Somewhere maybe there is someone the right will listen to despite how emotionally they are tied to supporting this war and this President. Buckley's actually been fairly consistent on the topic: July 2 2004"A special strain on Bush is the absorbing of what has gone wrong in Iraq, in order to plot a course of action which is guided by what has gone wrong. The planted axiom, of course, is that we are in Iraq because we needed to be there. If we argue retrospectively that the venture was doomed at the outset, commentary would focus only on the question, Why did we take it on? But whatever public thought Mr. Bush gives to the Iraq venture in the days ahead, he does well to acknowledge the weaknesses in the course of action we took." November 3 2004"Added to what this columnist doesn’t know is: What exactly will President Bush do about the Iraqi mess? He has said over and over that a president must be prepared to make decisions, however difficult, and stick to them. But surely one decision he can have arrived at during the political purgation is that things are not going well in Iraq. It is one thing to reiterate during a political campaign that a president must make hard choices and stick to them, quite another to say that a president cannot draw back and recalculate at very basic levels." Hence the lack of surprise regarding his most recent comments.
Recommended Posts