I'm so curious: why do you bother doing that, Pomeroo?
Why seek out the nuttiest people to get angry at? I don't get the point.
I do it for the same reason I confront the 9/11 conspiracists. Sorry if the following sounds like preaching, and I do realize that you already understand the point I'm about to make, but political discourse, the exchange of serious ideas, is vital to a democracy. We can--and should--argue with one another about various issues that affect our lives. When we marshal our evidence and attempt to persuade the other side, we are engaging in civilized debate. For people committed to the promotion of extreme, irrational views, civilized debate is a losing proposition. They must demonize the opposition, grotesquely distorting all opposing views, and in the process, they tend to develop a lynch-mob mentality. For conspiracy fantasists and the America-hating far left, their kangaroo courts have already convicted the villains and they don't want any evidence muddying the water.
The presumption that I'm angry is, as you know, a tactical device. By characterizing me as a choleric sort, you hope to convey the impression that my arguments lack intellectual rigor.
That's amazing to me that you didn't get the joke. I don't know the poster either, but it was patently obvious it was a gag. I wonder how many jokes you've missed and taken seriously because you're so eager to assume so many people are rabidly nuts. It does take a certain level of sophistication to get sarcasm and wit. Not a lot, but some. I'll bet you have it. Just relax. You'll laugh more.
Maybe the poster
was joking. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing. That we are arguing over the question, incidentally, suggests that the technique of our aspiring satirist, assuming that's what he is, could stand sharpening. When you write that his intent "was patently obvious," you really can't expect to fool many people. How was it obvious? The statement that he is a Democrat who thinks that Bush is like Hitler can either be taken at face value or we can invest it with irony.
Lacking any objective basis for making a judgment, we will tailor our interpretations to suit our respective stakes in the outcome. Frankly, it serves my interests if I can point to another Democrat who embraces the Bush-as-Hitler trope. You, on the other hand, want to demonstrate that the sentiment I rail against is shared by just a few wackos. I continue to contend that you're fighting a hopeless battle. What is, in fact, patently obvious is that a disturbingly large slice of leftist opinion gives voice to this particular slander of Bush (is it necessary for me to direct your attention to a post on this very page?).
You are trying to sanitize people who are saying that they don't want your help. They are only too happy to proclaim from the rooftops that Bush is a Nazi.
You may be embarrassed by the excess, but
they are not--they should be, but they aren't.
If you knew something about the poster, your opinion of his intent would outweigh mine. You acknowledge that you don't know any more than I do, and yet you manage to project confidence. Is it real, or are you blowing smoke? Forgive me, but I'm not yet persuaded that your level of sophistication dwarfs my own.
You're mistaken about how eager I am to assume that people are "rabidly nuts." I am dismayed that so many really are.
I wasn't just quoting Blitzer, by the way, it was the various people who've checked it out with the CIA and found Wilson was correct.
No, Wilson was not correct. He didn't conduct any sort of investigation and was caught lying about documents he could not have seen.
And moreover, I was pointing out that the SOURCE for the claim about Plame/Wilson was quite biased: 3 GOP senators attaching a thought to the end of the official report. It wasn't part of the report proper. They didn't do their homework.
I don't know what the Hayes piece has to do with Hitchens' lack of hard evidence or misinformation about Plame/Wilson.
