>> ^honkeytonk73:

What I got from his Morse code message was 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in use', not 'torture'.


Ya... I wonder what the Gitmo detainees call their little home-away-from-home.

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.


@Yogi,

not my opinion, i rolled over and let your mom get a few words in, she's the expert/professional

>> ^packo:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources


This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.


technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate

accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"

civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context

all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual

and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

>> ^packo:

@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation


Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

@Yogi

again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...

its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions

and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead

again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

>> ^Crosswords:

Is that Lincoln on one side of the room and Regan on the other? One man the current republican party shares almost nothing with except for being in the same party and the other a man they remember as much greater than he actually was. Oh wait I see, its an analogy between Ron Paul and Herman Cain.


Actually, I'd argue that Lincoln is a great representational embodiment of the Republican Party. In fact, Dubya Bush and Lincoln shared a lot of the same traits. For one, they both suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln also imprisoned thousands of citizens without due process, and Bush imprisoned detainees in Gitmo in the same way.

In that way, Lincoln and Bush and Obama are all cut from the same cloth.

>> ^bobknight33:

Bush was correct.


No. Obama's just also wrong.

>> ^smooman:

a lot of those techniques are quite similar to krav maga gun defense. there's a reason we are trained to be at a maximum distance when securing detainees.
but to the nay-sayers: there are no badasses, there's only the trained and the untrained


but what about the trained and untrained badasses?

a lot of those techniques are quite similar to krav maga gun defense. there's a reason we are trained to be at a maximum distance when securing detainees.

but to the nay-sayers: there are no badasses, there's only the trained and the untrained

Manning is not only held under maximum custody, he is held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch. He's checked upon by guards every five minutes and has to be responsive. At night, they check up on him every fifteen minutes and if they can't see him properly, they wake him up. No pillows, no sheets, no personal items, no phyiscal exercise. One hour a day outside his cell in shackles, no interaction with any other detainees.

PFC Manning has been held under POI watch since his arrival at the brig, except for a few days of even stricter suicide watch. The attending forensic psychiatrist has recommended to take him off maximum custody and off POI watch at the end of August -- and everytime since --, yet Manning's condition remains unchanged.

Again, Glenn Greenwald wrote about the conditions of Manning's -- and others' -- detention over and over again

Examples:
-- The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
-- U.N. to investigate treatment of Bradley Manning
-- America's treatment of detainees

*promote

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.