What I implied, I-S, is that Stenger has a motivation for using force to suppress religious belief, not that he has an advocated using it. Christianity doesn't teach that violence should be used to suppress opposing beliefs, but it is quite true that people who think that there is a great deal of stake in maintaining a particular religion have a motive for using force if the opportunity presents itself.
Christianity also, it seems to me provides the basis for arguments against using force on its behalf.
Of course, I can't be sure what people would do in a situation that they do not in fact find themselves in. Stenger seems to think unbelief is winning, so violence won't be necessary, as it was not necessary in the European countries that serve as his example. But I hear from people like him a kind of urgency about winning people for unbelief that goes like this:
"We are on the cusp of history. We can either abandon faith and embrace science, or we can hold on to faith and retreat to a new dark age. Everything depends on which way we turn at this critical time in history. That is why we have to work hard to achieve the end of faith, so the new Golden Age can be inaugurated, as opposed to a retreat into the benighted past."
When someone talks like this, I have to wonder what they would NOT do to make sure we turn the right way, if they were given the opportunity. On what basis would they refuse to use whatever power they had at their disposal to make sure we abandon faith. It seems to me that such people have the motive in spades. What would happen if they had the means and opportunity, to become the atheist equivalents of Grand Inquisitors? The fact that they don't advocate the use of force is not very comforting, since they don't have the means to use force if they wanted to. The fact that some of them already advocate treating those they disagree with in ways that remind me a lot of the schoolyard bullies I dealt with in grade school is even less reassuring. If the end is so important, what means will not be justified?
85 comments:
We've similar concerns, which we raised here:
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/faith-simple-lessons-for-new-atheists/
"Boghossian seemed to be targeting the faith of violent religious extremists with his comment that faith is a virus of the mind. He also pointed out that unbelievers are offended when they hear evangelists warn them that they are guilty hell-deserving sinners. So Christians are hypocritical if they complain when their faith is compared to a disease.
But Boghossian misses the point. I do not mind the insult at all. I do rather worry, though, that his rhetoric could carry some rather serious consequences for public policy if anyone of importance took it seriously. The Christian believes that the state cannot save anyone from God’s judgement. It cannot make people Christians because the law can at most create outward conformity to a set of rules. God is not interested in our religious acts if they are compelled because he “looks on the heart”. We need to be transformed by God inwardly, because if we are to truly worship God we must worship him willingly. This means we must choose God freely. A theocracy would just multiply the number of religious hypocrites in the land and make it more difficult for people to come to genuine faith. True faith requires free choice. As Tertullian argued: “It is no part of religion to coerce religious practice, for it is by free choice not coercion that we should be led to religion.”
However, the state can eliminate a disease. Indeed, if this disease leads to terrorism and oppression the state ought to eliminate the disease. Boghossian’s rhetoric is not without historical precedent, and its ancestry is far from honourable. If we look to central Europe in the mid-Twentieth century, we will find political parties referring to various communities as bacteria and parasites which needed to be eliminated from the body of the nation. Today we have secularist activists referring to faith as a virus which needs to be excluded from the public square. Now, I don’t for one minute think that Boghossian has sympathy for totalitarians of any stripe. In fact, secularists and evangelicals in the UK often find ourselves fighting in the same trenches against the state’s advance against free-speech. I just wish New Atheists would stop describing faith as a virus, or religious instruction as child-abuse, before someone with political power starts to listen."
We also said something similar here:
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/why-atheism-gets-a-b/
"While their quest for political tolerance is admirable, we also have to ask if “Atheism +” is only interested in giving secularists freedom from religion. Crucially, “Atheism +” needs to provide rational grounds for religious freedom. This is significantly more than the freedom to one’s own private opinion under one’s own roof. Religious freedom includes the right to express our religious views in public life, to live out our life in accordance with the truth, to meet with others in acts of worship and to raise our family in our faith.
Religious freedom does not imply that any one religion is true or that all religion is good for society. It simply acknowledges that humans are religious by nature and should be allowed to pursue religious truth without harassment. The problem is that the New Atheists can give no grounds for religious freedom. If religion is a delusion, we have no moral or intellectual right to indulge it. If a religious upbringing is as abusive as paedophilia, then society has a duty to protect children from it.
Religious persecution will be one of the greatest problems of the twenty-first century. The New Atheists have no answer if their solution to religious conflict is to eliminate religion. What will “Atheism +” have to say? So far, they have not addressed this issue in depth. When that changes, and when it clarifies its relationship to scientism, this new movement might be worth listening to. Until then, we can only give it marks for effort."
"What I implied, I-S, is that ..."
Why not just openly acknowledge that some people have a finely honed talent for "misunderstanding" what they don't want to honestly engage?
Hey, Ilion,
Since the topic "Repent of your religious beliefs, or you are going straight to......the kid's table" has scrolled off the bottom of this site, you may have missed the reply I made to your comment (B.Prokop won't tell us why I-pretend's lie about The One True Bureaucracy was so egregious.) as to why I refuse to allow im-pigheaded to get away with slander, so I'll repeat it here, in toto:
People! Before you dismiss Ilion's latest comment as something of no importance, think again. Ilion (rightfully) equates im-gullible's slander against the Early Church with a lie about what he terms the "One True Bureaucracy" (a.k.a., the Catholic Church). In other words, Ilion acknowledges that the Early Church is synonymous with Catholicism.
Thank you, Ilion, for that valuable clarification. See? We do agree on some things!
I reply.
Oh, you mean did miss your lie?
What I *still* haven't seen is a explanation for why his lie (and lying) is so much than yours.
I reply.
No one cares. ;)
This is the key line: The fact that they don't advocate the use of force is not very comforting, since they don't have the means to use force if they wanted to.
Appealing to the supposed good behavior of the tremendous anti-religious minority (even among irreligious) in a country where the religious population is in comparison not just populous, but a substantial portion of whom are associated with things like 'being well-armed' is no endorsement of militant's good behavior. It's not even surprising.
I don’t think the question is nearly as hypothetical as you write. We are given the opportunity to examine ourselves (and others) by how we use what authority and power we are given. I sometimes cringe when looking back at my immaturity as a 21 year old SSGT, or as worldly wise man at 24 with a beautiful, admiring, blonde-haired blued-eyed bride. Even a few years ago, when business was good, I think about the surge of power I sometimes felt.
Jesus offers parables about this fallen nature of ours so we can examine ourselves and others. It is evident to all what people do with the power given to them. If only atheists would heed his warnings.
Another nicely reasoned, critical, balanced and insightful observation from Skep into Dr Reppert's apologetics-suffused perspective that should atheism become the accepted community norm, state-controlled suppression of religion will inevitably follow. Reppert's perspective is silly, of course. because he cannot for the life of him get past the idea that people can indeed live good, decent, moral, ethical and fulfilling lives without even the suspicion of a smell of a god in the equation, without religion full stop. And that is what incenses him so much. His religiously-informed philosophy must necessarily inflate atheism to a full-blown belief system, in competition with christianity, in order to compare and contrast the 'two' systems, his philosophical argument so predictably and unsurprisingly falling on the side of and in congruence with theistic belief. He is incapable of understanding that atheism per se does not pose the kind of existential threat to christianity he imagines. Atheism is simply the by-product, the outcome of religious belief taken to its logical conclusion, a result of the largely counter-productive attempts at reconciling ancient and medieval 'truth' claims and thoughts with, or rejecting the myriad of contemporary studies, research, information and knowledge that exposes the lie in theological metaphysical reasoning. Indeed the contemporary operant social paradigm, christianity, is itself the progenitor of atheism, the unintended consequence of a flawed epistemology, faith. The age-old religious tradition of modifying community behavior by the reinforcing or inhibiting effect of its own consequences (instrumental conditioning) has failed dismally to derail or halt the increasing acceptance of genuinely derived epistemological knowledge and understanding that drives the inexorable divergence of conventional religious claims about our existence, based as they are, on supernatural superstition, from the emergent and incalculably more cogent, compelling and naturalistic scientific narrative about life, a narrative with far greater explanatory power that meshes much closer and seamlessly to the evidence and facts understood..
It is a rather disingenuous and spurious trope to inflate atheism to the status of a belief system. It is a fanciful and stupendously imaginative conflation of atheism as simply another rival belief and value system, in antithetical competition with his beloved christianity. This is the fundamental flaw in Reppert's reasoning.
Skep/Papa
You're missing the point. If you think that religion is a "mental virus", or child abuse, or that it always tends towards intolerance, irrationality and conflict, then how do you justify religious liberty? How can a liberal state tolerate religion? Shouldn't it oppose religion just as it opposes racism?
GV
"Reppert's perspective is silly, of course. because he cannot for the life of him get past the idea that people can indeed live good, decent, moral, ethical and fulfilling lives without even the suspicion of a smell of a god in the equation"
Linton,
How many times does this have to be said? Of course atheists are capable of leading "good, decent, moral, ethical and fulfilling lives". No less than Saint Paul himself said so, when he wrote "what the law requires [i.e., what it takes to be good] is written on all people's hearts, while their conscience also bears witness." (Romans 2:15)
"[Victor] is incapable of understanding that atheism per se does not pose the kind of existential threat to [C]hristianity he imagines."
Ah, but that cute little "per se" does cover a multitude of sins, does it not? Granted, it may not be atheism that directly causes a person to embrace inhuman ideologies such as Bolshevism or Ayn Randianism, but when you fire the gatekeeper can one really complain if the house is plundered? As C.S. Lewis (I think) once pointed out, the opposite of good theology is not no theology, it's bad theology.
Absent Faith in God, you're going to have faith in something else. There's no getting around that. So there's little wonder that, every time in history when atheists have taken control of a society (such as Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.), some sort of ideology steps forward to fill the void. It's inevitable.
Oh, I forgot to say...
Welcome back, Linton. That was quite an absence. Were you "fasting" from the internet as I do once or twice a year?
"As C.S. Lewis (I think) once pointed out, the opposite of good theology is not no theology, it's bad theology."
Even one of the Huxleys, no Christian he, made a similar observation. To paraphrase: "The question isn't whether or not we engage in metaphysics, but whether we will engage in sound metaphysics or unsound".
I'm not an atheist because I used my brain and realized it is utterly illogical. So I guess thinking is a virus now?
Hi Bob. No, no break. I have read the comments each day as they were posted. There was little of any significance posted over the past few months sufficient to induce me to respond.
You say: "Absent Faith in God, you're going to have faith in something else."
Absolutely correct. It is called humanism, naturalism, secularism, the triumphirate of human salvation. What's interesting about your list of historical notes is the misconstrued trope and conflation of atheism and communism. Equally, you present a very jaded, apologetical and clichéd potted history of atheism that has little bearing or relevance to defining and illustrating the social evolution taking place in our respective countries today. Every atheist I know and read about are all lovers of democracy, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, the rights of the individual, the democratic institutions that define our way of life. What's missing in your list is the contemporary understanding of Atheism and Democracy, the growth of atheism [or more broadly, the Nones] as we work towards a post-Christian society. [A post-Islamic society will take a little longer]
Fortunately, erstwhile scholars have been busy, 'filling the void', as you put it.
This 2012 conference at Yale Law School captures the change that is happening in the Americas, Brazil, Mexico. the US etc [all countries that share a common religious bent], and how those societies are best navigating their democracies away from religious hegemony. Read all the presentations. They are excellent.
Of particular note relevant to our discussion [and it would answer Saints and Sceptics question to me and Skep] is the Saturday, 9 May, session, "Panel 4 – Liberalism and the Limits of State Regulation:"
Marcelo Alegre – Secularism, Atheism and Democracy (Spanish) (English)
Lucas Grosman – Drugs under the Constitution (Spanish) (English)
Commentator: Daniel Markovits
Marcelo Alegre provides a sterling overview of contemporary atheism and democracy HERE.
HERE is an academic snapshot of Marcelo Alegre
Well, next time don't scare us, Linton. I was afraid something awful had occurred.
You're as wrong as wrong can be, but I'd hate to see anything happen to you.
I respond to Graham
I respond to Graham
And still, no one cares. ;)
Karl,
Speaking of things of little or any significance, let's play Ignore the Dictators for the ten thousandth time.
I suppose we must also ignore Dawkins' and Harris' alleged misogyny, sexism, and hate speech - as claimed by other Cultists of Gnu in their ever-schismastic "movement".
Let's ask Amanda Marcotte about the rationality of the CoGs:
Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas.
So much for, as Victor said, that coming golden age. New Atheist leadership is rife with deeply sexist ideas - oh, and don't get them started on Dawkins' Islam comments.
Of course, they could be wrong. But that would mean that the lesser CoG leaders are irrational, prone to seeing deeply sexist, misogynist and other such things where they do not exist.
Let's face it, gents. The Golden Age of Atheism already came and went once: it was in Stalinist Russia. That is precisely what a Golden Age for atheist militants look like, and if one were to come again, it'd look much the same - just as it looks in North Korea.
Other irreligious golden ages are possible - but they would be non-militant, and quite likely non-atheist as well. And the Cultists of Gnu actively work against such possibilities, because their militancy against all things theistic is what they value most.
Crude,
Speaking of Islam comments, seen how Bill Maher and Sam Harris got into it with Ben Affleck over moderate Muslims? The liberal media outlets rightly condemned Maher and Harris for their bigoted comments, but guess who lept to Maher and Harris's defense? The Five at Fox News. You know when you claim to be liberal (like Skeppy), regularly condemn Fox News for neo-conservative bias and Republican party propaganda (like Skeppy), claim Sam Harris isn't neo-conservative or has Republican sympathies (like Skeppy), and the only mainstream media outlet that is regularly defending Sam Harris when he shot his mouth off is Fox News, you got problems.
Karl,
Interesting observation.
Churl Grunt: "Speaking of Islam comments, seen how Bill Maher and Sam Harris [schooled] Ben Affleck over [his belief in unicorns]?"
Oh, noes! Maher and Harris actually said something both true and sensible, for once.
Churl Grunt: "The [bed-wetting] media outlets [knee-jerkedly] condemned Maher and Harris for their [honest] comments...."
They would, wouldn't they? "Liberal" as so devoted to their leftist lies, and so determined to see through the leftist summum bonum of destroying the West (and especially America), that even when the Moslems are hacking off their own heads with a dull knife, they'll still be blaming us "evil" conservatives.
Churl Grunt: "... but guess who lept to Maher and Harris's defense? The Five at Fox News."
How *dare* those "evil" conservatives (as if!) acknowledge that a atheist-and-leftist said an actual truth that goes against today's version of the Hivemind's truthiness!
Churl Grunt: "... You know when you claim to be liberal (like Skeppy), regularly condemn Fox News for neo-conservative bias and Republican party propaganda (like Skeppy), claim Sam Harris isn't neo-conservative or has Republican sympathies (like Skeppy), and the only mainstream media outlet that is regularly defending Sam Harris when he shot his mouth off is Fox News, you got problems."
You know, Churl, it's too bad we can't make a deal with the Moslems (as if they honor their word, ha!) to chop you first.
B.Serious: "Interesting observation."
But then, you do have a weakness for the sort of "reason" Churl regularly employs: "conclusion" first, "reasoning" after (if ever)
Ilion,
Thanks for reminding me of those comments. I'm actually kinda proud of my end of that particular conversation.
Liar-Lunatic-Idiotic-Obstinate-Nitwit:
Oh, noes! Maher and Harris actually said something both true and sensible, for once.
The right-wing bigot has endorsed the right-wing bigots; what a surprise. And no, it ain't true and it ain't sensible; in fact, it is very easy to disprove, Gallup polling data shows that Muslims reject attacks against civilians (78%). The same data also shows that nearly all Muslims (92%) have no sympathy for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. And according to scholar Charles Kurzman, global terrorists have only succeeded in recruiting less than 1 in 15,000 Muslims in the past 25 years, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 since 2001. Wow, that is a literally stampede there.
They would, wouldn't they? "Liberal" as so devoted to their leftist lies, and so determined to see through the leftist summum bonum of destroying the West (and especially America), that even when the Moslems are hacking off their own heads with a dull knife, they'll still be blaming us "evil" conservatives.
You know, you and Skeppy are a lot alike when it comes to having a persecution complex. You also endorse the same comments by the same assholes; makes me think you were both cloned from the same batch of toxic waste.
And let's see, the Bush invasion of Iraq created the conditions for ISIS to come into being (to give just one example of this many ISIS soldiers are ex-Saddam Hussein Republican Guard, what do you think caused them to look for a new job?); conservatives have continually pushed for the arming and training of Syrian rebels that eventually joined ISIS and are still continuing to do so; in fact you even had that darling of conservatism John McCain fly to Syria and have a photo-op with rebels that later became ISIS field commanders; and these same conservative commentators that sold us on the Iraq war (which put all this shit into motion), like old Krauthammer, have been continually calling for us to destroy the Assad regime despite the fact that Assad's army has been one of the most effective forces fighting ISIS and has suffered over thirty-thousand casualties doing so... Oh, the list could go on and on and on Idiot. Considering that conservatives that you love, like those "geniuses" at Fox News, supported and demanded for the actions that made Iraq and Syria into an ISIS playground and have continually called for actions that would strengthen ISIS; who exactly here is "destroying the West" as you put it?
You know, Churl, it's too bad we can't make a deal with the Moslems (as if they honor their word, ha!) to chop you first.
So I say something you don''t like and you wish me bodily harm and death? I think your talk about "bloodthirsty, genocidal leftists" is simply projection of your own violent tendencies and fantasies.
Karl,
darling of conservatism John McCain
McCain's long been considered an asshole by most "conservatives". He was a darling of the media, largely for his repeated opposition to "conservatives".
And let's see, the Bush invasion of Iraq
Before I even go on, just tell me one thing.
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion. The lady is a hawk.
Do you hold her accountable for the war as well?
and these same conservative commentators that sold us on the Iraq war (which put all this shit into motion), like old Krauthammer, have been continually calling for us to destroy the Assad regime
Obama and Kerry did the same as recently as last year, and would have gone through with it were it not for (among other things) the fact that they got outmaneuvered by Vladimir effin' Putin.
Crude,
McCain's long been considered an asshole by most "conservatives". He was a darling of the media, largely for his repeated opposition to "conservatives".
Yet he is still one of the go-to voices for Republican talking points and keeps getting elected.
Before I even go on, just tell me one thing. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion. The lady is a hawk. Do you hold her accountable for the war as well?
Yeah, I do. Just as I hold her protege Victoria Nuland responsible for the situation in the Ukraine.
Obama and Kerry did the same as recently as last year
Yeah and they are dumb for doing so. How does this excuse Krauthammer and crew at Fox News for advocating actions that made Iraq and Syria the mess it is today or Ilíon being willfully blind to that fact?
Karl,
Yet he is still one of the go-to voices for Republican talking points and keeps getting elected.
If by this you mean 'he's repeatedly interviewed', yep. Like I said - media loved him for a long time, precisely because he bashes the other republicans.
He is an unrepentant hawk, no question.
Yeah, I do. Just as I hold her protege Victoria Nuland responsible for the situation in the Ukraine.
Splendid. I love consistency.
Yeah and they are dumb for doing so. How does this excuse Krauthammer and crew at Fox News for advocating actions that made Iraq and Syria the mess it is today or Ilíon being willfully blind to that fact?
Who's excusing? I was against the FIRST Iraq war, to say nothing of the second. My sympathies lie in the direction of Pat Buchanan and the Pauls when it comes to foreign policy.
But it means that it's not exclusively - or even largely - 'the conservatives' who have made this mess, unless you're about to call Obama and the Clintons 'conservative'.
Or, put another way - Krauthammer and Bush made serious mistakes. How does this excuse Hillary, Obama and the political left for advocating actions that made Iraq and Syria the mess it is today?
Crude,
He is an unrepentant hawk, no question.
Agreed, the man never met a war he didn't like. However, he isn't the only one like that in the Republican Party (Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham both spring immediately to mind).
I was against the FIRST Iraq war, to say nothing of the second. My sympathies lie in the direction of Pat Buchanan and the Pauls when it comes to foreign policy.
What a coincidence, same here.
But it means that it's not exclusively - or even largely - 'the conservatives' who have made this mess, unless you're about to call Obama and the Clintons 'conservative'.
Never said it was. Obama and Clinton bear a large chunk of the responsibility for the current situation; maybe not quite as big of a chunk as the second Bush Administration but sizable non-the-less. But, of course, the truth of the matter is both parties, Republican and Democrat, have marched in lock-step on foreign policy issues for quite some time now.
Or, put another way - Krauthammer and Bush made serious mistakes. How does this excuse Hillary, Obama and the political left for advocating actions that made Iraq and Syria the mess it is today?
Did I ever say it did, Crude? What I am pissed about is Ilion turning a blind eye towards Krauthammer, Fox News as whole, Bush and the Republican Party's hand in making the current mess in the Middle East and the same ideological biases that motivated the crew at Fox News to advocate and defend those actions that gave birth to the current ISIS war are motivating them to defend Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Along with with being pissed about the bigoted generalizations of 1.5 billion people who never done me or anybody in the US any harm.
Karl,
Agreed, the man never met a war he didn't like. However, he isn't the only one like that in the Republican Party (Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham both spring immediately to mind).
Cruz's foreign policy stands out as a major problem I have with him, yep.
That said, it's not like the Democrats are anti-war. They're simply anti-Republican. (The fact that the anti-war movement has completely goddamn melted during Obama's years is pretty telling.)
Did I ever say it did, Crude? What I am pissed about is Ilion turning a blind eye towards Krauthammer, Fox News as whole, Bush and the Republican Party's hand in making the current mess in the Middle East
You've been painting all of the problems in the Middle East as being the result of Bush and the Republicans, despite Obama's absolute bungling, attempts to take out Assad, talking about how ISIS was amateur hour, completely mishandling Egypt and the - ha ha - 'Arab Spring'.
Along with with being pissed about the bigoted generalizations of 1.5 billion people who never done me or anybody in the US any harm.
That reminds me. I have one issue with your poll numbers.
Have a look here. Are these stats bullshit in your view? Or at the least, are they not 'worrying' / do they give no evidence to the critics you're targeting?
Karl,
Oh please, there wasn't much of an anti-war movement in the Bush years.
I kind of remember a whoooooole lot of very loud protests. Sheehan, etc. That shit is long gone. In fact, Sheehan fell off the radar the moment she became bipartisan in her blame-laying.
And 'the public turned against war' is not the same as saying 'there exists an anti-war movement'. If it is, you may as well say the Republican Party is ground zero for the anti-war movement, insofar as Ron and Rand Paul have been banging that drum for ages.
Either way, it's like the Patriot Act. Horrible, terrible encroachment on our civil liberties when Bush is in power. When Obama's in power? Not so much.
Now please point to the sentence where I said Democrats and Liberals bare no responsibility for the current state of affairs.
I'd rather point to the sentence where you said liberals bear quite a lot of responsibility for the current state of affairs, in that same conversation.
Let's not forget Libya. How's that nation-building going? I recall it being a big 'now THIS is how you do foreign policy!' thing with the left side of the populace, until it completely melted.
For example, when they say 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003, 41% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2007 56% of Jordanians support Osama bin Laden in 2003 and they link to a Forbes article; this is the relevant paragraph for those statistics
I'm not sure 'Sure, it's 41% of Indonesians - but man, it used to be over 50%!' is all that useful a defense against the claim that there's a problem with muslim sympathies.
Also - are you seriously calling Bill Maher and Sam Harris 'right-wing'?
Speaking of polling percentages, don't forget that almost 25% of Americans would like to see their state secede from the Union. Not at all sure what that means. Plus we have those weird (yet weirdly accurate) polls which say that a large percentage of self-identified atheists pray regularly. (???)
I guess the take-away from that is that you can use polls to say whatever you want them to say.
Though, speaking of atheists praying, here's an example of Chief Gnu Richard Dawkins, caught praying live on the air (at 1:55 into the discussion).
Crude,
I kind of remember a whoooooole lot of very loud protests. Sheehan, etc. That shit is long gone. In fact, Sheehan fell off the radar the moment she became bipartisan in her blame-laying.
Me and you seem to have different definitions of a "whole lot".
Either way, it's like the Patriot Act. Horrible, terrible encroachment on our civil liberties when Bush is in power. When Obama's in power? Not so much.
Does the fact that a Democratic President continues to use the Patriot Act and Democratic Congressmen voted for it change the fact that it was crafted by a Republican Administration?
I'd rather point to the sentence where you said liberals bear quite a lot of responsibility for the current state of affairs, in that same conversation.
Excuse me, why should I have said it in that paragraph? The whole point of that paragraph was to list examples to counter Ilion's claim. When you inquired about it I readily admitted that Democrats share responsibility for the current state of affairs in the Middle East.
And if we are going to talk about things we would rather point to in this conversation, I would rather point at the sentence where you condemned or criticized Ilion, who is also a self-proclaimed conservative, where he said he would love to hire people to chop me up because I voiced sympathy for a viewpoint he don't like as opposed to pointing at you getting worked up because you felt that I might have unfairly tarred some conservatives with my rhetorical brush. The problem is I am having trouble finding it.
Let's not forget Libya. How's that nation-building going? I recall it being a big 'now THIS is how you do foreign policy!' thing with the left side of the populace, until it completely melted.
And I opposed the Libya intervention too. And let's get one thing straight Crude; I'm not liberal, I'm more of a centrist and a moderate. I regularly criticize both conservatives and liberals on a variety of issues. Now I have already admitted, more than once, that Democrats share quite a bit of responsibility for the current situation, about as much as the Republicans do. And as far as I am concerned they both fucked up and are continuing to fuck up on this issue. What more do you want me to say?
I'm not sure 'Sure, it's 41% of Indonesians - but man, it used to be over 50%!' is all that useful a defense against the claim that there's a problem with muslim sympathies.
Depends, I would like to know how the questions where worded. From another link on that site shows that only 15% of Indonesians supported Al-Qaeda's attacks on Americans and supported its goals in 2007. This dropped to 9% in 2009.
Also - are you seriously calling Bill Maher and Sam Harris 'right-wing'?
They are right-wing on this issue.
Me and you seem to have different definitions of a "whole lot".
Care to show me the anti-war anti-Obama protests spawned by his bombing campaigns in Iraq, his "efforts" in Libya, and otherwise?
I'm game for links. Let's compare them to the Bush-era anti-war protests.
Does the fact that a Democratic President continues to use the Patriot Act and Democratic Congressmen voted for it change the fact that it was crafted by a Republican Administration?
Not just 'continue to use', but 'do so enthusiastically' and even go beyond it. Much to the apathy or even endorsement of most of the left, might I add. What was a damnable offense when Bush did it is a 'very complicated issue, let's discuss this calmly, it's not all that important anyway' issue when a leftist is in power.
If Hillary's the nominee, I fully expect the left to talk about how she was a voice of sanity when it came to war in her party.
The problem is I am having trouble finding it.
Yeah, I think saying 'it's too bad we can't make a deal with the moslems to chop you first' was a shitty move on Ilion's part. I think he'd call it a joke when pressed, but it was a bad joke. Not a serious threat, but the conversation doesn't need that all the same. I criticize it thus.
So there, I was called out, and I took a stand. I look forward to your blaming the left and liberals for their continued role in these wars and excesses, to this very day.
Now I have already admitted, more than once, that Democrats share quite a bit of responsibility for the current situation, about as much as the Republicans do. And as far as I am concerned they both fucked up and are continuing to fuck up on this issue. What more do you want me to say?
I'm not interested in party condemnations - it's the left and liberals I'd like to see you hold accountable here.
They are right-wing on this issue.
What issue? "Really disliking Islam"? That makes no sense.
Can I therefore regard people who really, really like Islam - say, suicide-bombers - left-wing based on that alone? Even 'left-wing extremist'?
Crude,
Care to show me the anti-war anti-Obama protests spawned by his bombing campaigns in Iraq, his "efforts" in Libya, and otherwise?
USA Today 3/20/2011
More than 100 anti-war protesters, including the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, were arrested outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. In New York City, about 80 protesters gathered near the U.S. military recruiting center in Times Square, chanting "No to war" and carrying banners that read, "I am not paying for war" and "Butter not guns." Similar protests marking the start of the Iraq war also were organized Saturday in San Francisco, Chicago and other cities.
In California, hundreds of people marched in downtown San Francisco. Hundreds more, including students from more than 40 high schools and community colleges, marched in Los Angeles in protest of the U.S. presence in Iraq, organizers and police said.
Anti-war protesters crash US Senate hearing about a month ago
Syria strike protesters arrested at White House two weeks ago.
Anti-war protests sprout up across the US, also from two weeks ago
Anti-War protesters greet Obama in San Francisco, three days ago
Anti-War protest in Minnapolis three weeks ago.
Yeah, I think saying 'it's too bad we can't make a deal with the moslems to chop you first' was a shitty move on Ilion's part. I think he'd call it a joke when pressed, but it was a bad joke. Not a serious threat, but the conversation doesn't need that all the same. I criticize it thus.
Thank you.
I look forward to your blaming the left and liberals for their continued role in these wars and excesses, to this very day.
Haven't I already said that Democrats are also responsible? Four times or so?
I'm not interested in party condemnations - it's the left and liberals I'd like to see you hold accountable here.
Uh, that doesn't make sense since the Democratic Party is the mainstream liberal and left in American Society. Criticizing Democrats is criticizing the mainstream left. Care to explain why party condemnations are not good enough?
What issue? "Really disliking Islam"? That makes no sense
The policies they want enacted against Muslisms are right-wing. For example, Sam Harris promotes racial profiling against Muslims the same thing Daniel Pipes articles do in the site you linked to. He also made a rather revealing statement in one article: The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists and that he feels most at home amongst them. And, of course, the fact that left-wing media condemned him in his tussle with Affleck and right-wing media defended him also points to the fact he is right-wing on this issue.
Anti-war protesters crash US Senate hearing about a month ago
All of these examples are absolutely puny, piecemeal shit compared to the US anti-war movement against Bush, and they're barely anti-Obama at that.
Haven't I already said that Democrats are also responsible? Four times or so?
Liberals != democrats, just as conservatives != republicans.
Care to explain why party condemnations are not good enough?
See the above. And, for the same reason you've been hitting 'conservatives' and 'the right-wing' and not just Republicans, I'd imagine.
I didn't hesitate when you asked me to be clear with my view of what Ilion said. Why not simply place blame on liberals and the left when it's clearly correct to do so? If they're equal, it's simple - call them out.
The policies they want enacted against Muslisms are right-wing.
That wasn't what was central on the Maher show. They were making anti-Islam comments.
Again, by your reasoning, pro-Islam terrorists are left-wing automatically - if 'really disliking Islam' is right wing, then 'really supporting Islam' has to be left-wing.
And, of course, the fact that left-wing media condemned him in his tussle with Affleck and right-wing media defended him also points to the fact he is right-wing on this issue.
Bill Maher is a firm Obama supporter, and apparently Harris is largely leftist as well. Why shouldn't I take their support, and the general left-wing atheist support of them, as evidence that their views are left-wing?
Are you going to tell me Pete Boghossian is left-wing too?
Pete Boghossian is left-wing too?
Right-wing, that is.
Crude,
All of these examples are absolutely puny, piecemeal shit compared to the US anti-war movement against Bush, and they're barely anti-Obama at that.
The anti-war demonstrations against Bush were puny to start with too. Hell, if you were an average American you didn't want to be caught near an anti-war demonstration in 2001-2003. It wasn't until about 2005 they got regularly above a couple of hundred people. Things like this take time to build momentum and also since Obama prefers airstrikes, drones and letting allies and proxies do the fighting to American boots on the ground, there is less bodies coming home via air freight (which is one of the main reasons Americans tend to protest wars).
See the above. And, for the same reason you've been hitting 'conservatives' and 'the right-wing' and not just Republicans, I'd imagine.
I didn't hesitate when you asked me to be clear with my view of what Ilion said. Why not simply place blame on liberals and the left when it's clearly correct to do so? If they're equal, it's simple - call them out
You are worried about semantics? Fine, liberals and the left-wing are just as guilty as the conservatives and the right-wing.
That wasn't what was central on the Maher show. They were making anti-Islam comments.
So the policies they want enacted because of their bigoted views don't count, just the comments they made on the show? Everything else they say and do on this issue doesn't count? Jesus Christ, you are starting to sound like Skeppy with his mercurial standards on blogs and peer-reviewed articles.
Bill Maher is a firm Obama supporter, and apparently Harris is largely leftist as well. Why shouldn't I take their support, and the general left-wing atheist support of them, as evidence that their views are left-wing?
Are you going to tell me Pete Boghossian is left-wing too?
What does that Boghossian asshole have to do with a discussion about Maher and Harris's views on Muslims? But if you want to play this game, fine, let's play. Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary Clinton over John McCain back in 2008; does that make her left-wing? Does that make Hillary right-wing?
Because I have been around this world enough to know most people often hold both liberal and conservative views on different issues and even dedicated liberals have supported right-wing causes on occasion and vice-versa.
Crude and Karl,
Serious question: What makes a particular issue right or left wing? Why is ecology regarded as left, while conservation is thought of as right? Why is anti capital punishment said to be left, but anti abortion is right? Why is health care reform considered left, when practically 100% of what makes up "Obamacare" originated with "right wing think tanks"?
I can make no sense of these labels.
Bob,
What makes a particular issue right or left wing? Why is ecology regarded as left, while conservation is thought of as right? Why is anti capital punishment said to be left, but anti abortion is right? Why is health care reform considered left, when practically 100% of what makes up "Obamacare" originated with "right wing think tanks"?
I am guessing it is because of which side supports it the most in the public square. Mainly its simplistic rhetoric to help people, because most people like things simple, to grasp complex issues.
The anti-war demonstrations against Bush were puny to start with too.
Yeah, it was when it became a means of fighting against the broader Republican party that it really picked up. Go figure, right?
You are worried about semantics? Fine, liberals and the left-wing are just as guilty as the conservatives and the right-wing.
There we go.
So the policies they want enacted because of their bigoted views don't count, just the comments they made on the show?
When we're talking about the comments they made on the show, yeah actually, their policies are another subject. And even the policies aren't clear-cut left/right wing. If China has some strong policies that single out Islam for particular scrutiny and discouragement, is that right-wing?
Jesus Christ, you are starting to sound like Skeppy with his mercurial standards on blogs and peer-reviewed articles.
Considering my main position here is that claims of left- and right-wing for this sort of thing is just an asinine way to frame it, I doubt it.
I think you made a mistake in trying to frame it that way. Why do it? What did it gain you?
What does that Boghossian asshole have to do with a discussion about Maher and Harris's views on Muslims? But if you want to play this game, fine, let's play. Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary Clinton over John McCain back in 2008; does that make her left-wing? Does that make Hillary right-wing?
I'm pointing out why your own standard doesn't work here - you're the one who said 'Look, a Fox News show was supportive, that shows they're right-wing!' Your response is that if we keep using the standard we get equally shitty results. Well... yeah. It's a bad standard. Rather my point.
I think I've shown here that saying 'being anti-Islam is right-wing' obviously doesn't work out. Or, I suppose, 9-11 was an act of left-wing terrorism.
Because I have been around this world enough to know most people often hold both liberal and conservative views on different issues and even dedicated liberals have supported right-wing causes on occasion and vice-versa.
And I have, sadly, noticed that for many people, what determines a given view being left-wing or right-wing is A) their own perception of themselves on the political spectrum and B) the perception of the rightness or wrongness of the issue.
Why you decided to label the Harris/Maher shit 'right-wing' is beyond me, as amusing as it is to imagine the Cultists of Gnu, largely leftists, suddenly being told they're a bunch of conservatives.
"Cultists of Gnu, largely leftists"
I don't think so. A sizable number of gnus are devotees of Ayn Rand - about as right wing as you can get.
Crude,
Yeah, it was when it became a means of fighting against the broader Republican party that it really picked up. Go figure, right?
Actually, that's about the time everything really started going to hell in Iraq, bodies started piling up and the political rats started jumping ship.
Considering my main position here is that claims of left- and right-wing for this sort of thing is just an asinine way to frame it, I doubt it.
I think you made a mistake in trying to frame it that way. Why do it? What did it gain you?
A couple of hours of fun and a little distraction from the fact that BE's launch is still twelve days away. And I did it mainly because that is the language Ilion uses and understands. I mean somebody regularly spouts shit like "Liberal" as so devoted to their leftist lies, and so determined to see through the leftist summum bonum of destroying the West has trouble grasping more nuanced concepts.
Your response is that if we keep using the standard we get equally shitty results. Well... yeah. It's a bad standard. Rather my point.
You are preaching to the choir here. Crude. See my response to Bob just prior to your last comment. You can't debate complex issues with vague blanket statements like left-wing and right-wing; as much as Skeppy, Paps and Ilion think otherwise. But it is fun to play with.
Why you decided to label the Harris/Maher shit 'right-wing' is beyond me, as amusing as it is to imagine the Cultists of Gnu, largely leftists, suddenly being told they're a bunch of conservatives.
Yeah, it seems almost like I was dangling bait to see if anybody would be willing to take a bite, doesn't it? Though Harris takes after Ayn Rand more than he does Marx so the label might be warranted in his case.
Bob,
A sizable number of gnus are devotees of Ayn Rand - about as right wing as you can get.
Good luck backing that up - they are comparative rarities, which is why you'll notice the Cult of Gnu is firmly left-wing, and one of their main subdivisions was 'Atheism+' - which just elevated "progressive" politics to equal footing with atheism.
Karl,
Actually, that's about the time everything really started going to hell in Iraq, bodies started piling up and the political rats started jumping ship.
And what a surprise - the anti-war activists absolved the Democrats and attacked the Republicans. I had more than one tell me that of -course- the Democrats voted for the war - why, it was popular at the time. What were they supposed to do, hurt their re-election chances?
There was never an anti-war movement in any meaningful sense, Karl. There was only an anti-GOP movement. There were anti-war intellectuals, right and left, and I was and remain fans of them. They were, and are, few in number.
And I did it mainly because that is the language Ilion uses and understands.
I will fight Ilion repeatedly when I find him in the wrong. I see little value in baiting him.
As for Harris, he's largely echoing Hitchens, who I recall was a good ol' Marxist. Really, it's not as if the political left is allergic to genocide and profiling. To be dead fucking honest, that's pretty much their major 20th century legacy, despite how we now pretend that socialists were conservatives, and atheist communists were really religious.
"they are comparative rarities"
Hm! Maybe I just know more of them than you. If I had a nickel for every time someone quoted Atlas Shrugged at me...
"Hitchens was convinced that American capitalism was "the only revolution in town", and that it would be "a step up" for the countries exposed to it by armed occupation."
Did Hitchens really say that? Wow. Reminds me of the people who defend slavery by saying their descendants are better off today in America than in Africa.
And a Republican administration sold us a war under false pretenses. I have trouble determining which is worse, voting for something solely to improve your re-election chances (something the Republicans are also guilty of doing quite a bit); or invading a country, destabilizing an entire region and getting a few hundred thousand people killed under false pretenses.
How about voting for invading a country under false pretenses, destabilizing an entire region and getting a few hundred thousand people killed, solely to improve your election chances? ;)
Now I understand you got a big chip on your shoulder concerning Democrats, Progressives and the Left (I have read your blog, you know) that you want me to message
You apparently don't read closely, since I hardly ever mention Democrats - the last time I did it was in a particular context - and I expressly differentiate between liberals and progressives. Liberals, I can like. I can reason with them. I can merely disagree.
Progressives? Oh yes, they are savages. I have no respect for them. Speaking as a moderate and centrist, since apparently I can do that, what with the words meaning nothing.
Let me ask you a question before I respond to this. Ever read CS Lewis Mere Christinity?
Yep.
Well, when somebody says they would love pay somebody to chop you up, even jokingly, for voicing an opinion they don't like, I think they deserve to be baited a little bit.
You were baiting before the act. Do what you will.
Does a fairly good job of pointing out that Hitchens had largely embraced the neo-con worldview,
I think you'll find a number of neo-cons are ex-marxists. What a shock - having failed to push their globalist image one way, they found another way to advance it.
Hitchens was a neo-con insofar he was a socially liberal, economically liberal, anti-religion nutbar who had no problem advancing his aims through violence. As I've said, I'm quite fine calling that right-wing, so long as muslim radicals are called left-wing. Let us be consistent.
Karl,
Once you start a war under false pretenses I think the reasons for doing so become inconsequential due to the magnitude of the act.
You realize that 'starting a war' in this case involved those votes, right? You couldn't have one without the other.
And why do you consider them savages?
Because they are exactly that. These are not merely people with whom I disagree. These are people who regard disagreement with hate and contempt, and who will literally eschew reason itself if reason leads to a conclusion they dislike. Calling them 'savage' is an insult to savages, but the savages will have to deal with it.
Good. Now don't you think you are wanting to see to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black where anti-war protests and Muslims are concerned?
Not at all. Hell, I'm sympathetic to muslims. Insofar as they think of Western influence as filled with morally reprehensible people who wish to destroy them, their religion, and their way of life, they are as near as I can tell correct in large part. Insofar as they see a history of western (at least European) nations invading them, treating them like shit, and playing them off each other - yep, seems about the size of things. Not that they were any better, of course, but if you punch an asshole, he doesn't turn into a non-asshole, nor is the fact that you punched him suddenly incorrect.
So Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Paul Wolfwitz, Charles Krauthammer and even Daniel Pipes, whose articles are quoted so liberally in that Religion of Peace site you linked to, are secretly Marxists
Who said they were secretly Marxists? I said you'll find a number of neo-cons are ex-marxists. Are you really denying this?
If I told you a number of Catholics were ex-atheists, would your response be to demand I produce evidence that Padre Pio was an atheist?
And that he and Harris served as wind-up dolls for the Bush Administration.
Wind-up dolls for the pro-war party, which went and goes far beyond Bush. You may well be voting for one of their number come 2016. I'm sure you'll have a good excuse at hand if so.
Really, with their focus on traditional values and wanting to turn back the clock for Muslim society, I think they would be better classified as extremely conservative.
And there it is. Are you extremely opposed to Islam, a militant atheist with heavy leftward political leanings? That's right-wing. Oh, but are you extremely supportive of Islam and wish to see it spread? That, too, is right-wing. I suppose the communists, seeing as they too wanted to "turn back the clock" for society, were also tremendously conservative.
Everything you dislike becomes right-wing to you, and everything you endorse becomes left-wing.
Because you're so fuckin' moderate, right? ;)
Crude,
You couldn't have one without the other.
Yeah, I said I hold both parties responsible and am equally disgusted with both of them how many times now?
These are people who regard disagreement with hate and contempt, and who will literally eschew reason itself if reason leads to a conclusion they dislike.
Sounds a lot like Ilion there; these are not traits unique to people of the progressive persuasion and I doubt all progressives share them.
but if you punch an asshole, he doesn't turn into a non-asshole, nor is the fact that you punched him suddenly incorrect.
Yeah but we punched a lot of people in that neck of the woods who don't exactly fit the criteria of asshole. And what of the anti-war groups?
Wind-up dolls for the pro-war party, which went and goes far beyond Bush....I'm sure you'll have a good excuse at hand if so.
Really, so you know my voting record and how I am going to vote in 2016. Impressive feat considering we don't even know whose going to get the party nominations yet.
I said you'll find a number of neo-cons are ex-marxists. Are you really denying this?
Oh, you will find a few ex-Marxists in their ranks, I already pointed out Hitchens was one. Whither or not they are the majority or even a sizable minority is what I got doubts about.
If I told you a number of Catholics were ex-atheists, would your response be to demand I produce evidence that Padre Pio was an atheist?
Actually, I would ask you if their atheism continued to motivate their actions as Catholics; since the implication of what you are saying with statements like having failed to push their globalist image one way, they found another way to advance it is that Marxism continues to motivate Neo-Cons despite being an opposing ideology. That is the only way them being ex-Marxist actually has any bearing on their actions as Neo-Cons. So how much of Catholicism is motivated by Nietzsche?
Yeah, I said I hold both parties responsible and am equally disgusted with both of them how many times now?
Then what's objectionable about what I said?
Sounds a lot like Ilion there; these are not traits unique to people of the progressive persuasion and I doubt all progressives share them.
Where did I say it was unique? It is, however, emblematic of the progressive, just as 'ranting fury' is emblematic of the Cultist of Gnu. The moment you say 'Wait, maybe religious people have good points - maybe they're even right', you are out of the cult - and you're out of the progressive movement too.
Really, so you know my voting record and how I am going to vote in 2016. Impressive feat considering we don't even know whose going to get the party nominations yet.
Call it a hunch on both counts.
That is the only way them being ex-Marxist actually has any bearing on their actions as Neo-Cons.
Marxists aren't the only globalist game in town.
I think you are having a little projection issue here, Crude.
Considering I'm on record as a protectionist who opposes "free trade" among other things, and who has spoken with sympathy of liberal (not progressive) inclinations, I think not. Let's hear about the self-described 'right wing' policies you endorse, and the 'left wing' ones you condemn, eh?
You went after me for throwing his rhetoric back in his face; which is a rather telling move.
Hahaha! You think I was defending Ilion? That is rich. I even criticized his 'joke'.
I went after your political bullshit, and if you think it was only poorly thought out to Ilion, guess again. And what he said was a poor little joke. Do you think he was seriously trying to invite assassins? Jesus Christ.
Just the same way you condemn progressives as savages for being people who regard disagreement with hate and contempt yet have to be prompted to criticize Ilion, a conservative
I am specifically silent unless directly addressed with Ilion. We don't get along. You know why, Karl?
Go ahead. Ask. Get some more egg on your face.
By the by, notice that I had little to say to Skep either. Newsflash: I don't give a shit what he says, despite being a prog. He's very slow, and minor.
Also, you are very predictable in a debate.
I am. You can count on me getting right to the point, along with a helpful dose of pressing buttons and twisting knives. It's as if I keep a public record of what I do, right? I have no need of being sneaky or duplicitous - I'll leave that to the progressives.
So do you feel you have your gotcha moment yet? Something you can post on the hall of fame yet?
Sorry, Karl - I only post noteworthy discussions on my blog. What, exactly, are you giving here that's worth highlighting? You'll notice Linton and Skep don't show up much in posts either. 'The low-level CoG looked like a moron again' gets old fast.
What's noteworthy here? 'Leftist snarls at Bush, feigns being moderate and centrist, is wildly inconsistent'? Yeah, that's not dime a dozen. If I want to take shots at that, I'll go for Mark Shea. Bigger target, and more entertaining. ;)
Crude,
Then what's objectionable about what I said?
What's objectionable is that you really don't believe that I hold both parties equally responsible for the debacle in the Middle East and that you cannot take my repeated assertions to the contrary at face value. That's why you keep trying to get the last word in, saying things like invading a country under false pretenses, destabilizing an entire region and getting a few hundred thousand people killed, solely to improve your election chances? ;) to try and paint the Republican side as a lighter shade of gray. Hoping that it will piss me off and make me reveal my "true" colors as you see them. You have been trying to do that for the last three days, the thought never once passing through your mind that maybe I meant what I said.
Sorry, I meant exactly what I said and the fact that Democrats like Clinton voted for the war doesn't change the fact that Bush went before Congress asking for it in the first place and got the ball rolling.
It is, however, emblematic of the progressive, just as 'ranting fury' is emblematic of the Cultist of Gnu. The moment you say 'Wait, maybe religious people have good points - maybe they're even right', you are out of the cult - and you're out of the progressive movement too.
And do you ever say that progressive people have good points? Probably not. In fact, considering how you are trying so damn hard to lump me in with progressives (you ain't even reading what I am saying, you are just letting your preconceived biases run on auto-pilot) I think you have trouble distinguishing progressivism from just general criticism of your ideological biases.
Call it a hunch on both counts.
It's a wrong fucking hunch.
Marxists aren't the only globalist game in town.
The fact that Marxists and Neo-Cons both had/have global aspirations is about the only thing the two ideologies have in common. I wanna hear exactly how Marxist ideology continues to influence a convert to an opposing ideology.
Considering I'm on record as a protectionist who opposes "free trade" among other things
What a coincidence, so am I. Every nation that successfully built up its economy did did so behind a wall of tariffs, trade barriers and capital controls (such as we did from about 1850-1945, along with Japan in the same time period and what China is doing now).
Let's hear about the self-described 'right wing' policies you endorse, and the 'left wing' ones you condemn, eh?
Well amongst other things I am pro-military. I just have this thing about unnecessary wars, "let's resort immediately to military force and fuck diplomacy" attitude and incompetent leadership, both Republican and Democrat. I also support the development of nuclear power, fracking and think the entire climate change /global warming movement is full of shit. Your turn; let's hear some liberal policies you approve of.
I went after your political bullshit, and if you think it was only poorly thought out to Ilion, guess again
Of course it was poorly thought out; that was the fucking point. It was Ilion's typical bullshit with the wording switched around.
Do you think he was seriously trying to invite assassins? Jesus Christ.
No, I am just curious as to why you have gone after other people for less.
I am specifically silent unless directly addressed with Ilion. We don't get along. You know why, Karl?
Why should I ask you? I have been commenting on this blog for about...oooh, four fucking years shithead. I saw your and Ilion's interactions first-hand. Did that fact somehow escape your damn mind, Crude? I know full damn well you don't like him. Now why do you think I would insinuate that you do in an argument?
But during that time you should have noticed A) I spent a lot of damn time defending Republicans from Progressive assholes B) I am sarcastic and C) I love throwing people's rhetoric back in their face. Those three facts should have entered your mind the minute you butted into my conversation with Ilion. They didn't because you increasingly see the world through a hatred-of-progressives lens.
I have no need of being sneaky or duplicitous - I'll leave that to the progressives.
The problem is that you think other people are being sneaky and duplicitous when they are not.
What's noteworthy here?
Nothing, just your hypocrisy and your ideological blinders. Worthless shit you know. Right-wing radical masquerading as a moderate couldn't generate one iota of interest these days.
Leftist snarls at Bush, feigns being moderate and centrist, is wildly inconsistent
So any criticism of Bush pegs you as a leftist? Make a sarcastic comment about the Bush Administration and you no longer a moderate/centrist? Boy, that is some standard you got there. Almost reminds me of the Cult of Gnu and their infatuation of the word "faithiest". And where was I "wildly inconsistent"?
How cool is this? Crud-for-brains apparently thought to win brownie-points with the likes of Churl by attacking (and lying about) me because I won't wink at *any* leftist lies, and now he's reduced to "arguing" with Churl on the basis of leftist lies. And getting nowhere if his goal is to get Churl to admit *any* truth.
Thus we, descending to the fourth steep ledge,
Gain'd on the dismal shore, that all the woe
Hems in of all the universe. Ah me!
Almighty Justice! in what store thou heap'st
New pains, new troubles, as I here beheld!
Wherefore doth fault of ours bring us to this?
E'en as a billow, on Charybdis rising,
Against encounter'd billow dashing breaks;
Such is the dance this wretched race must lead,
Whom more than elsewhere numerous here I found,
From one side and the other, with loud voice,
Both roll'd on weights by main forge of their breasts,
Then smote together, and each one forthwith
Roll'd them back voluble, turning again,
Exclaiming these, "Why holdest thou so fast?"
(i.e., "why do you conservatives not care about the poor?")
Those answering, "And why castest thou away?"
(i.e., "why are you tax-and-spend liberals who just want my hard-earned money?")
So still repeating their despiteful song,
They to the opposite point on either hand
Travers'd the horrid circle: then arriv'd,
Both turn'd them round, and through the middle space
Conflicting met again. At sight whereof
I, stung with grief, thus spake: "O say, my guide!
What race is this? Were these, whose heads are shorn,
On our left hand, all sep'rate to the church?"
He straight replied: "In their first life these all
In mind were so distorted, that they made,
According to due measure, of their wealth,
No use. This clearly from their words collect,
Which they howl forth, at each extremity
Arriving of the circle, where their crime
Contrary' in kind disparts them. To the church
Were separate those, that with no hairy cowls
Are crown'd, both Popes and Cardinals, o'er whom
Av'rice dominion absolute maintains."
I then: "Mid such as these some needs must be,
Whom I shall recognize, that with the blot
Of these foul sins were stain'd." He answering thus:
"Vain thought conceiv'st thou. That ignoble life,
Which made them vile before, now makes them dark,
And to all knowledge indiscernible.
(i.e., "they are all blind partisans, and have eschewed all independent thought")
Forever they shall meet in this rude shock:
These from the tomb with clenched grasp shall rise,
Those with close-shaven locks.
Dante, Divine Comedy, Inferno, Canto VII
crude,
So your real name is Ian Bibby?
Now all we need to know is Skep's real name.
"So your real name is Ian Bibby?"
That guess (?) hard to credit.
I got that information from HERE, where crude says, "I'm Ian Bibby, fwiw."
'The Deuce' is Ian Bibby.
Whoa, Missed that! Well, back to the drawing board.
So until otherwise enlightened, I'll just go on assuming crude is a pseudonym for //hidden behind pay wall//.
Hold on a moment, Karl. Something else has just caught my attention.
Bob Prokop - did you just try to fucking "out" me?
Now, while I await an explanation from Bob, back to our little discussion.
What's objectionable is that you really don't believe that I hold both parties equally responsible for the debacle in the Middle East and that you cannot take my repeated assertions to the contrary at face value.
Yep, I don't think you hold them equally responsible. By the by - when you follow it up with this:
Sorry, I meant exactly what I said and the fact that Democrats like Clinton voted for the war doesn't change the fact that Bush went before Congress asking for it in the first place and got the ball rolling.
...You're pretty much proving my point.
'I hold by sides equally accountable... but THIS side is worse!', ain't equal accountability.
And do you ever say that progressive people have good points? Probably not.
Liberals, sure. Atheists, sure. Progressives? Progressives are to liberals what the Cult of Gnu is to atheists. They do not trade in 'intellectual points'. They trade in hysteria and lunatic attitude.
I think you have trouble distinguishing progressivism from just general criticism of your ideological biases.
Considering you've not criticized any of my "ideology" here aside from my finding your criticisms silly, I'm going to take your criticism with a grain of salt, before laughing at the whole thing and dumping it.
It's a wrong fucking hunch.
Guess we'll see, won't we?
The fact that Marxists and Neo-Cons both had/have global aspirations is about the only thing the two ideologies have in common.
Nah. A general lust for stamping out dissent wherever it is, forever mingling their personal desires of the moment with the stuff of global import, depersonalization of the other, a generally leftist/pseudo-enlightenment culture war angle... there's a lot of overlap. They even tend to mix business and state interchangeably.
Your turn; let's hear some liberal policies you approve of.
I'm sympathetic to localized welfare schemes, some amount of control over corporations that wish to relocate willy-nilly to whatever nation is the lowest bidder, and I value multiculturalism so long as the cultures are largely separated by borders. I'm sympathetic to pot legalization, reform of copyright law, de-militarization of the police, and more.
To your satisfaction?
No, I am just curious as to why you have gone after other people for less.
Who do I 'go after' and what is 'less'? I let go people who 'do' vastly more. I comment when I please, I'm not the Dangerous Idea police.
Did that fact somehow escape your damn mind, Crude?
What apparently escaped your masterful observation skills is that, as a rule, I fucking ignore Ilion unless directly provoked. So if you've been here for four years, scanning every thread like a hawk like you believe I should know, I've got some bad news for you Clouseau.
They didn't because you increasingly see the world through a hatred-of-progressives lens.
No, I pointed out obvious inaccuracies in your comments. 'But I was trolling Ilion!' isn't much of a defense.
Nothing, just your hypocrisy and your ideological blinders.
No hypocrisy on display here, but do continue to melt down if you please. As I said: you're not giving me much of note here.
So any criticism of Bush pegs you as a leftist?
That'd be a trick, considering I'm highly critical of Bush, and showed as much in this thread. I think he was a shitty president, and on more fronts than foreign policy - he was also a disaster on spending, on trade, and otherwise, with little to redeem him.
And being 'leftist' doesn't concern me. I treat leftists with respect. Progressives? Different behavior, and different story.
As for your inconsistencies, I've already pointed them out. See: start of this comment.
Karl,
And just to push it further...
When you repeatedly equate being 'pro-war' with 'The Bush Administration', when you get irritated when I point out that the left-wing has had its hands in war after war (and that one of their Iraq War proponents is likely to be the 2016 nominee), when you keep circling back to the Bush Administration in your criticisms such that anyone who was 'pro-war' was serving the Bush Administration, when you insist that hating Islam is 'right-wing' but being an Islamic fanatic is ALSO 'right-wing', and suggest that forced marriages, clit-chopping and more are 'traditional values', as is "turning back the clock on society"?
Yeah, pardon me if I start seeing a whole lot of similarities between yourself and what passes for "progressive' nowadays. I've said flatly I'm not a fan of W, but the key difference is I don't fetishize my dislike, nor do most people. One political group is known for that, now aren't they?
"Bob Prokop - did you just try to ... "out" me?"
No, I thought I was repeating something you yourself had written. Ilion pointed out my (honest, although sloppy) error.
That said, I really do wish that everyone on the Internet (at least, those of us not in China) would use their real names. It would lead to greater civility, which would be a hugely good thing.
Meanwhile, you and Karl continue to demonstrate the sad truth behind the quote from Dante that I posted.
Bob,
No, I thought I was repeating something you yourself had written. Ilion pointed out my (honest, although sloppy) error.
So, can you walk me through the thought process where you went - 'Oh I think Crude may have posted his real life name somewhere else! I think I'll post it right here for all to see!'?
That said, I really do wish that everyone on the Internet (at least, those of us not in China) would use their real names. It would lead to greater civility, which would be a hugely good thing.
Let me tell you something, Prokop. I've had more than one person try to 'out' me before, drop hints about my RL identity, alluding to how they think "my employers" may react to my opinions on such things, and implying I may get fired and my family may be fucked over thanks to people offering payback for daring to object to gay marriage, etc.
So again, I'm going to ask you: why did you feel the need to share what you thought were my private RL details, in a thread where that subject wasn't coming up whatsoever?
If someone went, 'Oh hey, Bob, I see your children are named (X, Y and Z) and they work in (cityname)!' out of the blue, let me ask - don't you think sharing details like that, unannounced, would be the sign of a tremendously shitty person, not someone who should be quoting Dante and acting high and mighty?
"can you walk me through the thought process"
See my comment to Ilion at 11:32 AM. That's how. I failed to keep accurate track of who was writing what, and thought you had written "I'm Ian Bibby, fwiw.", when it was the Deuce who had done so. My error.
"what you thought were my private"
I didn't think they were private, since I had (erroneously) thought you yourself had posted them.
See my comment to Ilion at 11:32 AM. That's how. I failed to keep accurate track of who was writing what, and thought you had written "I'm Ian Bibby, fwiw.", when it was the Deuce who had done so. My error.
That's not what I asked, Prokop. I didn't ask you how you made a stupid fucking mistake.
I asked you to tell me why you thought this would be a good idea, a great move to spontaneously engage in, blurting out my RL details out of the blue completely without warning.
If someone here named your children, what they work as and where they live - in a thread where you were denouncing gay marriage, for example - would you regard that as non-suspicious, totally fair, and merely civil-minded?
I didn't think they were private, since I had (erroneously) thought you yourself had posted them.
Well gosh, you're writing under the name Bob Prokop. Clearly if someone can google up the names and details of your children, well, there's nothing outrageously shitty about sharing that information out of the blue, with the allusion that maybe having that information out there would lead to more civil contributions on your part - right?
What? What the heck are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about children?
What? What the heck are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about children?
Stow it, Bob.
I was having a less than civil conversation with Karl. But not once with him did I ever namedrop RL details. Not once did the thought even cross my mind to go 'Oopsie! Hey everyone, did you know Karl works at (more RL details)?' I've never tried to dig up who Skep was, a guy who I have an absolutely low opinion of. Nor have I with Ilion. And if someone posted a quoted comment by them in one of their comment boxes containing what I mistakenly thought was their RL details, my reaction wouldn't be 'I better show up and drop this info in public! Heeehee, THAT'LL make him shut up!'
Because I'm not a complete low-life fink. I actually, you know - respect people's privacy, as well as their anonymity. The only time I ever 'outed' someone was when BDK was grossly misrepresenting himself through a sock puppet for the purposes of defamation - and even then, I just outed his alternate nom de plume.
You are low. What you just did here is lower than anything Ilion has uttered, lower than the relatively small-shit argument I've gotten into with Karl, and lower even than Linton's plagiarism and lying, or yes, even BDK's long-term masquerade.
You just tried to fuck with my RL self, because you don't like my tone or my political opinions.
I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, but frankly, shame is one thing you don't have. Now, piss off.
Karl, have whatever last word you wish to take. Chances are, I won't see it. Whatever disagreement I had with you pales compared to the shit Prokop just clumsily tried to pull.
"RL self"
Not familiar with that term.
"compared to the ... Prokop just clumsily tried to pull"
Huh? I wasn't trying to anything. We're on the same side, remember? I fail to see where all this is coming from.
How could I have been trying to "pull" anything, when I had mistakenly thought that you yourself were the source of the info, and had made it public all on your own?
crude,
Heck, if you're that terrified of people discovering your true name, then you ought to be thanking me for (accidentally) leading them astray!
Crude,
...You're pretty much proving my point.
'I hold by sides equally accountable... but THIS side is worse!', ain't equal accountability.
I said that because you keep making comments like anti-war activists absolved the Democrats and attacked the Republicans.I had more than one tell me that of -course- the Democrats voted for the war - why, it was popular at the time. What were they supposed to do, hurt their re-election chances?
Or this little gem: How about voting for invading a country under false pretenses, destabilizing an entire region and getting a few hundred thousand people killed, solely to improve your election chances? ;)
You have consistently tried to paint the Republican Party as a lighter shade of gray in getting us into the current fuck-up. That the Democrats have less scruples, the Democrats are more duplicitous; that ain't equal accountability either but you want me to agree with those statements.
Considering you've not criticized any of my "ideology" here aside from my finding your criticisms silly
I said ideological biases.
A general lust for stamping out dissent wherever it is, forever mingling their personal desires of the moment with the stuff of global import, depersonalization of the other, a generally leftist/pseudo-enlightenment culture war angle... there's a lot of overlap. They even tend to mix business and state interchangeably.
So Bush, Cheney etc... were more Marxists than Conservatives by that standard. Is that what you are seriously saying? You know between that and your McCain comments I think you took a little trip to Scotland and now feel free to judge who is a true Scotsman.
To your satisfaction?
How about I flip a coin to decide if it is? After all, mine wasn't to yours.
What apparently escaped your masterful observation skills is that, as a rule, I fucking ignore Ilion unless directly provoked. So if you've been here for four years, scanning every thread like a hawk like you believe I should know, I've got some bad news for you Clouseau.
But if the purpose is to press your buttons because you are directly provoking me, though....
No, I pointed out obvious inaccuracies in your comments. 'But I was trolling Ilion!' isn't much of a defense.
What inaccuracies? Do you deny that Krauthammer and crew at Fox News has called for the overthrow of Assad? Or do you deny that Bush wasn't Commander-In-Chief during the Iraq Invasion or that he went before Congress asking for their approval to invade? Do you deny that that invasion destabilized the region and created the conditions for ISIS to thrive?
No hypocrisy on display here, but do continue to melt down if you please.
Meltdown? If your little reaction to Bob's mistake is any indication, I ain't the one melting down.
That'd be a trick, considering I'm highly critical of Bush, and showed as much in this thread.
But you are going after me for being critical and sarcastic where Bush, Krauthammer, etc.... are concerned. So much for loving consistency.
Far more importantly, now that my beloved O's have gone down in flames before the Royals, I will just mope for the rest of October...
But wait 'til next year!
When you repeatedly equate being 'pro-war' with 'The Bush Administration',
Really? Where did I say that? Especially since I readily agreed that Hillary is a hawk along with one of her proteges. But now that you mention it, I fail to see how an administration that invaded two countries (though one of which, Afghanistan, was justified), turned northern Pakistan into a war zone, flirted several times with declaring war on Iran and Syria, etc... could be classified as pro-peace?
the left-wing has had its hands in war after war
I have not denied this.
and that one of their Iraq War proponents is likely to be the 2016 nominee
Very likely, dovish candidates don't make it too far in the elections.
when you keep circling back to the Bush Administration in your criticisms such that anyone who was 'pro-war' was serving the Bush Administration
Really? If I recall when I answered an affirmative to your first post, that yes I do also hold Democrats responsible for the current state affairs, you weren't satisfied and kept pushing on the issue.
when you insist that hating Islam is 'right-wing' but being an Islamic fanatic is ALSO 'right-wing', and suggest that forced marriages, clit-chopping and more are 'traditional values', as is "turning back the clock on society"?
Yeah, it's kind of like suggesting Neo-Conservatives have more in common with the Bolsheviks than with the Tea Party. Don't like it when people hold up mirrors, Crude?
I've said flatly I'm not a fan of W, but the key difference is I don't fetishize my dislike, nor do most people.
Oh, so I make one comment, the first one in four years that pissed you off, and suddenly I made a fetish of my dislike? You're pathetic you know that?
Karl,
You have consistently tried to paint the Republican Party as a lighter shade of gray in getting us into the current fuck-up.
Lighter than normally depicted, yeah. I'm not holding The Bush Administration accountable for the Iraq war, as if the majority of democrats in the Senate didn't vote for the war. 'But he pushed for it initially!' means about as much as the originator of the Vietnam war does.
but you want me to agree with those statements.
On pain of what? Me saying I think your position sucks? Oh Lordy, the horror.
I said ideological biases.
Potaytoh, potahtoh, here.
So Bush, Cheney etc... were more Marxists than Conservatives by that standard. Is that what you are seriously saying?
Insofar as the subject of war is considered? Absolutely. Even culturally, they're typically big on spreading 'Enlightenment values' around the world. You'll recall that Bush wasn't exactly an economic conservative.
What inaccuracies? Do you deny that Krauthammer and crew at Fox News has called for the overthrow of Assad?
Considering 'anti-islam' a right wing position, painting 'calling for Assad's ouster' as some right-wing issue, and more. Yeah, that's horseshit.
But you are going after me for being critical and sarcastic where Bush, Krauthammer, etc.... are concerned.
I've bashed Bush worse than you have in this thread. I object to how you've painted the right/left ownership of the issue.
Really? Where did I say that?
With regards to Iraq.
If your little reaction to Bob's mistake is any indication,
Bob's mistake didn't, and doesn't, seem like one. I give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not the first time someone fumbled with that card. I'd flip out if he tried it with you too.
Very likely, dovish candidates don't make it too far in the elections.
Yeah, keep watching. Just as I said I'd laugh my ass off when Obama eventually started bombing the middle east, I'll laugh my ass off when the GOP by a miracle matches a Paul against a Clinton. And she's not getting in there because she's pro-war, but because she had the fortune to marry Bill.
Yeah, it's kind of like suggesting Neo-Conservatives have more in common with the Bolsheviks than with the Tea Party.
Tea Party's a whole other convoluted topic that I've said zero on. Check your mirrors.
Oh, so I make one comment, the first one in four years that pissed you off, and suddenly I made a fetish of my dislike?
How are those two things even related? And it's not 'one comment', even in this thread.
Also, calm the fuck down. I'm disagreeing with you strongly, not rendering your entire intellect and person as shitty, even after the exchanged fire.
Crude,
Lighter than normally depicted, yeah.
That's still trying to white-wash one side responsible for the debacle.
I'm not holding The Bush Administration accountable for the Iraq war...
He didn't just push for the war, his administration oversaw the day-to-day activities and strategy in Iraq from the start in 2003 to January 2009. Unless, of course, you want to argue Congress voted on every action that occurred in Iraq on a daily basis.
On pain of what? Me saying I think your position sucks? Oh Lordy, the horror.
Well, obviously you do. Otherwise you wouldn't keep pushing and come back here after making the statement Karl, have whatever last word you wish to take. Chances are, I won't see it. Obviously, you did it see it and felt the need to respond.
Absolutely. Even culturally, they're typically big on spreading 'Enlightenment values' around the world. You'll recall that Bush wasn't exactly an economic conservative.
So, in other words you don't criticize Conservatives because anybody who deviates from your party line isn't a "true" Conservative. I'll tell you what, Comrade Commissar, I'll email my future posts to you so you can scan them for any potential thought crimes and intellectual deviancy. Don't want to go against the Party, after all.
Considering 'anti-islam' a right wing position, painting 'calling for Assad's ouster' as some right-wing issue, and more. Yeah, that's horseshit.
That ain't answering the questions I asked you (especially since I already told you I was throwing Ilion's rhetoric back in his face) . I'll ask again, Do you deny that Krauthammer and crew at Fox News has called for the overthrow of Assad? Or do you deny that Bush wasn't Commander-In-Chief during the Iraq Invasion or that he went before Congress asking for their approval to invade? Do you deny that that invasion destabilized the region and created the conditions for ISIS to thrive? Yes or No.
I've bashed Bush worse than you have in this thread.
Only because he's not a real "Conservative" according to you and you view him as a closet-leftist.
With regards to Iraq.
That's funny considering I acknowledged the Democrats voted for the war, quite freely, and only turned against it when shit went down the tube. And nowhere in my posts did I say the Democrats were predominately anti-war or the Republican were universally pro-war.
Bob's mistake didn't, and doesn't, seem like one.
Is that merely because he lives in the "bluest of the blue states"? Or are you using to same physic powers...sorry, hunch that you used to determine my voting record?
I'd flip out if he tried it with you too.
I am posting under my real name, so that should tell you my opinion on that.
Tea Party's a whole other convoluted topic that I've said zero on. Check your mirrors.
And I didn't say any thing about the anti-war movement to begin with either. I merely listed strategic blunders and incompetent foreign policy decisions the people Ilion was defending endorsed that helped get us into this mess. That ain't the same thing as being anti-war; yet for some reason you felt the need to bring the anti-war movement into the discussion in your post on October 12, 2014 10:39 AM. How about you check your mirrors? Best of luck, since I hear bullshit streaks glass something bad.
How are those two things even related? And it's not 'one comment', even in this thread.
Because you have implied that I have made a fetish of my dislike for holding Bush accountable for his actions and by one comment I am referring to my post to Ilion, which you felt the need to respond, which got all this shit going.
Also, calm the fuck down.
I am calm. You think simply because I throw around few curse words that I'm angry? You must have lived a sheltered life.
That's still trying to white-wash one side responsible for the debacle.
So in your world, claiming straight out that Bush shared responsibility for the Iraq war, but he doesn't bear near-exclusive responsibility as is commonly depicted (since the majority of dems voted in favor of said war) is 'whitewashing one side'.
It's amazing I think you have some weird anti-Bush fetish, eh?
He didn't just push for the war, his administration oversaw the day-to-day activities and strategy in Iraq from the start in 2003 to January 2009.
No shit. Who voted to authorize that again?
Oops, wait. There I am, holding people accountable for what they vote for and support. But I'm not saying 'Bush is the REAL villain here, others' sins aside' so in Karl's world, I'm whitewashing.
Otherwise you wouldn't keep pushing and come back here after making the statement
I ditched due to Bob's actions, expressly. Bob came to my blog, explained himself, and I chose to take him at his word while admitting I jumped the gun on him. That removed my reason for vacating the thread.
So you're stuck with my charming self for now.
So, in other words you don't criticize Conservatives because anybody who deviates from your party line isn't a "true" Conservative.
On spending? Absolutely not in general. On other issues? He was, and I still had criticisms of him. I think he mishandled issues I agreed with him on. I think his bank bailouts were conservative, and a complete fucking mistake. I think his free trade commitments were conservative, and likewise a mistake. I think he, and most other conservatives, went from middling-to-bungled on social issues in terms of performance. This, using the left-right metric I think is largely fucking useless.
I did say that already, but shit, you're so desperate to get as many 'gotchas' on me as I have on you that you're reaching for anything. You may want to be more careful. ;)
That's funny considering I acknowledged the Democrats voted for the war, quite freely
With your refrain on this front always becoming, 'But BUSH...'
Holy shit, it's like saying Obama is the REAL reason for the current immigration fiasco and the buck stops there. It's simplified thinking, but man, that makes it easier doesn't it?
Do you deny that
No, no, and no, which I've made clear multiple times during this conversation. You seem to think 'Bush was president!' automatically throws him the lion's share of the blame, and that 'Krauthammer favored ousting Assad' makes that therefore a 'right-wing' issue. Pardon me if I don't take part in your delusion.
Is that merely because he lives in the "bluest of the blue states"?
Mmm, dishonesty. I never criticized Bob for where he lives, but what he celebrated - and then, because I reject 'yay party' thinking. No, I think when someone blurts out mid-conversation someone's RL details and opines about how they think everyone would be more polite if said details were revealed, it's suspect.
I am posting under my real name
Doxing ain't limited to real names, and I'd oppose it if someone started dropping irrelevant RL details about you with the intention of pressuring.
How about you check your mirrors?
Are yours working? Can they identify irrelevant non-seqs? I haven't said shit about the Tea Party, pro or con. Left-right associations of being pro/anti-war were already on the table when I brought that up.
I am calm. You think simply because I throw around few curse words that I'm angry?
Yeah, generally when someone's ranting and name-calling, their buttons have been pushed. In your defense, I'm very good at that. ;)
We done yet, Karl? You want to keep at this? Or would you like to de-escalate this so we can talk like human beings again?
"it's suspect"
Crude, have you ever heard about how people see faces in oncoming cars, and all sorts of patterns that aren't really there? That's precisely what you're doing here.
I will repeat the following over on this site, since I believe I've only posted this to yours.
I had no political motivation whatsoever in my unfortunate and poorly-thought-out comment on Wednesday. At this point, I care not whether you believe me or not (I'm over it), but the only thing I was thinking about at the moment was happiness. I was glad to be able to put a name to a conversation partner. That's all. And I was under the mistaken impression that you yourself had revealed the name, so I never in a million years would have imagined you would object to more people knowing it.
That's all. No evil intent. No hidden agenda. No "progressive ethics" or whatever you called it over on your website. No politics whatsoever. Nada. Zilch. Zip. None. Nichego. Zero. Furthest thing from my mind. Just a freindly "Hi!" meant with the best of intent (and a fair amount of carelessness).
Bob,
Crude, have you ever heard about how people see faces in oncoming cars, and all sorts of patterns that aren't really there? That's precisely what you're doing here.
And I've already said I think I jumped the gun - as well as why I jumped it, and why taking you at your word, in context, was not the obvious choice.
Crude,
So in your world, claiming straight out that Bush shared responsibility for the Iraq war, but he doesn't bear near-exclusive responsibility as is commonly depicted (since the majority of dems voted in favor of said war) is 'whitewashing one side'.
The problem here is that I already admitted, multiple times, that Bush is not solely responsible. Your response to that has been, without fail, to say something that is designed to darken the role of Democrats and lighten the role of Republicans; all the while claiming that I don't treat both parties fairly and then double-down when I comment on that trend. So exactly who has a weird political-hate fetish here?
No shit. Who voted to authorize that again?
The majority of Democrats in Congress (along with the majority of Republicans also), which I have already acknowledged over a half-dozen times now, but you insist on beating this dead horse.
But I'm not saying 'Bush is the REAL villain here, others' sins aside' so in Karl's world,
Really and where did I say Bush is the real villain here?
So you're stuck with my charming self for now.
That's a laugh in more ways then one.
did say that already, but shit, you're so desperate to get as many 'gotchas' on me as I have on you that you're reaching for anything.
You're projecting again. You started this little pissing contest hoping to get a gotcha moment to try and prove that I am not a “real” moderate. In fact, you are so desperate to grab that moment that you keep crawling back here after five days of zero progress at getting it and a not so little blow up at Bob trying to be friendly. What's the matter? Persecution complex and paranoia won't allow you to admit to a failure or a stalemate?
With your refrain on this front always becoming, 'But BUSH...'
Only because your refrain has been from your very first post in this “discussion” has been 'But the DEMOCRATS...' I mean, really, it's like a broken record:
it's not like the Democrats are anti-war....Horrible, terrible encroachment on our civil liberties when Bush is in power. When Obama's in power? Not so much. ...destabilizing an entire region and getting a few hundred thousand people killed, solely to improve your election chances? ;) ...
You stop trying to ram the Democrats' failings down my throat (of which there are many) and I'll stop ramming the Republicans' (of which there are also many). Simple as that.
You seem to think 'Bush was president!' automatically throws him the lion's share of the blame, and that 'Krauthammer favored ousting Assad' makes that therefore a 'right-wing' issue.
You know, I keep telling you I was throwing Ilion's rhetoric back in his face. You ain't listening. Bob's right, you want to see patterns where there is none.
Mmm, dishonesty. I never criticized Bob for where he lives, but what he celebrated
Dishonesty? Do you deny typing that sentence in your knee-jerk rant about Bob's attempt to be friendly over on your blog? Because it was lifted from this paragraph:
It should come as no surprise that Bob Prokop is, of course, a progressive. A nice little 'Gosh I am just so happy to live in the bluest of the blue states because God and the DNC are basically operating hand in hand in my lunatic world' sort.
I mean, why else did you feel the need to remind everybody that Bob lives in a Blue State?
I haven't said shit about the Tea Party, pro or con. Left-right associations of being pro/anti-war were already on the table when I brought that up.
Uh no, you brought them up. I brought up specific strategic fuck-ups and foreign policy screw-ups: invasion of Iraq created the conditions for ISIS to come into being...the arming and training of Syrian rebels that eventually joined ISIS and are still continuing to do so... calling for us to destroy the Assad regime despite the fact that Assad's army has been one of the most effective forces fighting ISIS
I didn't label anybody a hawk or a dove in that paragraph, I described the actions they supported that got us into this mess (a fact that you already acknowledged). The first mention, and labeling, of someone being pro-war or anti-war occurred in your post on October 12, 2014 8:55 AM with the sentence: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion. The lady is a hawk.
And you call me dishonest? ;)
Yeah, generally when someone's ranting
You think I am ranting? Sorry, what I am doing here ain't ranting. This is ranting.
In your defense, I'm very good at that. ;)
At what, ranting or pushing buttons? On ranting I'll readily agree you do a superb job of that.
We done yet, Karl? You want to keep at this?
Hey, I thought we were done once before but somebody came back started posting again after they said they weren't going to.
But on second thought I am growing bored of this; so yeah, we're done. Feel free to have the last word.
Splendid, the last word. Thanks, Karl!
The problem here is that I already admitted, multiple times, that Bush is not solely responsible.
The problem isn't with 'solely', but with the lion's share of the blame, a kind of singling out. As I've said, multiple times. And which you've engaged in, multiple times.
That's a laugh in more ways then one.
It was a joke, Karl. Why so bitter? Blog conversations aren't so serious, you know.
You started this little pissing contest hoping to get a gotcha moment to try and prove that I am not a “real” moderate.
Oh, I got multiple gotchas on you. The latest:
You stop trying to ram the Democrats' failings down my throat (of which there are many) and I'll stop ramming the Republicans' (of which there are also many).
That's the key difference here. I knock the Democrats, and you get defensive. You knock the Republicans, and I... agree, but point out Democrat failings as well. Which apparently suffices to bait you, just as bashing conservatives baits others.
So thank you for following through. Sowwy I attacked the Democrats. ;)
Do you deny typing that sentence in your knee-jerk rant about Bob's attempt to be friendly over on your blog?
Knee-jerk? Not at all. If I posted your RL address here, Karl, spontaneously and out of the blue - shit I'd never do, by the by - I -may- just be inviting people to send you free cupcakes, without you realizing it. If you reacted poorly to such a maneuver, it'd hardly be knee-jerk.
I mean, why else did you feel the need to remind everybody that Bob lives in a Blue State?
And once again, I didn't 'remind everybody Bob lives in a blue state'. My reference - which you, oh unblinking eye of Dangerous Idea - was to a post Bob made in the past, which I've referred to more than once to illustrate his past party loyalty, which for a period he denied or said 'it's a joke!'
And you call me dishonest?
To be fair, 'has trouble following reasoning' may well be in the running here. Once again: I said zip about the tea party, and war eagerness was already on the table. Ah, but you know that.
Sorry, what I am doing here ain't ranting.
Oh, don't get me wrong - it's a poor specimen of it, flaked with snarling, namecalling and amateur deflection. But ranting, it is.
Thank you again for the last word. I look forward to your next contribution, where you *ahaha* 'bait' people. Then call them shit-for-brains or the like when they tell you off. Because you're totally not worked up and are just so, so calm about this shit. ;)
Post a Comment