Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[pomeroo]

If He Didn't Exist, I'd Have to Invent Him

[=articulett;2300737]So, everyone who disagrees with pomeroo and his beloved president is evil leftist bush bashers bent on destroying America?

Your debating technique is quite sophisticated. I'll bet you love Air America.

Wow, that is some heavy propaganda you've been seeping your mind in. I haven't heard much of the Bush being Hitler analogy,

I don't believe you.

though pomeroo assures us it is everywhere, though I do remember the brouhaha about how if the left was in charge, we'd be speaking German.

Funny that you should allude to World War II. The idealists of the American Communist Party organized a "peace" march (sound familiar?) in New York City back in 1940. Stalin and Der Fuhrer had signed a pact, and those lovable liberals-in-a-hurry, as they were styled, wanted to make sure that FDR wouldn't aid the imperialist nations of Europe. When Hitler stabbed Uncle Joe in the back and invaded Mother Russia, why, they turned on a dime and couldn't get America into the war fast enough.

I think there's a world of people who have huge problems with this president and Hitchens warmongering

I know lots of people who have a problem with preposterous charges of American warmongering in the light of a decade of jihadist attacks.

...and they don't even live in America or vote. I think there are plenty of people in his own party. I think you have to be completely brainwashed to sound like Pomeroo. I suspect that you can plug in other names or regimes and get identical statements coming from Stalinists, North Koreans, Muslim Extremists, and Aryan Supremecists. They all think they are the good guys keeping their holy group from being weakened and destroyed by silencing dissent and destroying others. You are one sick puppy, pomeroo...

Don't worry. I don't question your patriotism (that statement, snide though it may be, is literally true).

I don't even think the drunken Hitchens is besotted with Bush and as blinded to his very impeachable offenses as you are.

Hitchens agrees with Bush on a single issue, and that is the struggle against Islamofascism. Incidentally, Bush has committed zero impeachable offenses.

It would be nice if you had some facts behind your weakening and destruction of America fear tactics, but I fear people like you more than all those "evil others" out there that we are supposedly being protected against. I think countries should provide for their own before fighting the battles of others who didn't ask for and don't want their help. I think it behooves us and our President and the brainwashed to learn to hear others instead of aiming weapons at them and shouting them down and telling them how wrong they are to dare and disagree or not trust inane claims. I can't tell one "faith based" radical from another...rather it's faith in your political party, god, some ideal or something else.

I can, however, tell Muslim fanatics from civilized Westerners with the greatest of ease.

[/quote]

The weird thing is, if Muslim extremists were saying the same things you are, but putting the "US" in place of all your derogatory terms and fighting to save Islam--you'd see how horrific such "I'm right no matter who I kill" thinking is.

They attacked us. I wonder why the people I meet at "peace" marches never seem aware of that fact.

You ought to read Mein Kamf. I have a feeling you'd actually find it an insightful book. If they didn't tell you who wrote it, I bet you'd find him a respectful author on par with the President. Really.

[/quote]

Yeah, I guess I learned from this thread that I tend to exaggerate the BusHitler stuff.

 

[pomeroo]

[=SkeptiKilt;2301320]If you choose to believe that moveon.org "constantly" equates Bush with Hitler despite considerable evidence to the contrary, you'll have to allow me to take that statement with several pounds of salt -- especially since you are quite the mimic of her rhetorical style, viz.

If I concede that MoveOn doesn't constantly compare Bush to Hitler, can we acknowledge that the two ads were not anomalies and that people who should know better are far too indulgent of such excesses?

1) Was that a sledgehammer or a mudpie?

Neither.

2) One wonders if the neocons considered the possibility of the Shia majorities in both countries aligning before they decided to muck with the balance of power in the powderkeg commonly known as The Middle East.

Saddam was a murderous ratbastard, but there are lots of murderous ratbastards running countries around the world. Was deposing him and stirring up a hornets' nest in the ME worth the cost we have paid and will pay in blood and treasure?

Saddam was no ordinary ratbastard. Unless we lose our nerve, deposing him and changing the dynamic of the Middle East might well justify the costs to us.

Yes, it was.

[/quote]


I think you understand that no American President of either party would have acquiesced in the Iranians sweeping across the region, provoking Israel to use its nukes. We made the best of a bad situation and achieved the stalemate we sought.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

You got one thing right; we have definitely changed the dynamic of the Middle East. If your last line is a reference to the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake, I think you might want to look up what started the Iran/Iraq war.

​

DNFTEC

 

[articulett]

Y


They attacked us. I wonder why the people I meet at "peace" marches never seem aware of that fact.

Are you an idiot? Actually Al Quaeda attacked us--they killed innocent people because they felt our government was evil and corrupt. Al Quaeda is not Iraq. We killed innocent people in much greater numbers than Al Quaeda because we supposedly believed the Iraqi government was evil, bent on destroying us on our land, and because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Amidst all your mudslinging do you ever address facts? How about photos like the one skeptikilt provided. Or are these people evil leftist propagandaist peaceniks that can't seem to realize that we were attacked first too?

Yeesh, I hope nobody thinks you a representative of most Americans-- Does anyone think you make sense or aren't a rabid warmongering blowhard with poor arguments all around. Anyone? Do you have friends that understand you? To me, you sound like Fred Phelps for a different ideal. Extreme, angry, and unable to reason when it comes to your pet delusions.

Yes, I do love my country. And I'm embarrassed that other countries think that people such as you are representative, when you are clearly (and thankfully) in an increasingly small minority. Your hatred and continual use of the word "leftists" makes it real clear what your politics are--I just think you're an embarrassment to anyone who would normally consider themselves conservative. Kind of the way most religious people don't want to be aligned with the fundies and most Muslims don't want to be aligned with the extremists. Every faith/authoritarian entity has it's wackos--it's just that your party seems to have an embarrassing influx of them lately. And you guys are only right, noble, and good in your own heads--just like the people you want to blow up.

Is there any respected intelligent person who relates to you? And I'd say you have to be the most brainwashed of boobs if you think that Bush hasn't committed an impeachable offense. Lying about a blow job is an impeachable offense if you recall. Bush has lied about much worse--repeatedly--and on tape--much of his cabinet and cronies have been indicted. And why would I care if you believe me. It's you who has a credibility problem--in almost every statement you make. I'm more than willing to provide evidence for what I say, accept evidence to the contrary and acknowledge an opinion for what it is. But I'm not the one saying asinine things. And you are the person who seems to take issue with everyone. I get along with most people--the people I don't get along with are often people like you who don't seem to engage well in dialogue with anyone --I don't go to protest marches or involve myself in politics much, mostly because I think people like you are crazy and scary. I did read the Downing Street Memo and stay abreast of the news--but since I read that John Stewart's audience are better informed and accurate when it comes to current events than Fox news viewers per an independent study, I've avoided Fox news.

You're the one that seems to have a lot of opinions that don't really coincide with the facts--and no matter what facts people show you, it only strengthens your allegiance and certainty of your rightness. How is that different than being brainwashed? Is there anything that could possibly make you think that this particular war is a really bad thing that has accomplished more harm than good? Why do opinions and facts asserted by others send you into tizzies of ad-homs and conspiracy complaints about the left. I really can't tell the difference between you and Ann Coulter; perhaps you can illuminate it for us, or point to someone who can.

And I must find out what you look like so I can avoid you at future TAMS as well.

 

[Glenn]

Pomeroo, Glad the quote thing is working for you. Much easier.

Look: I do not hear all this supposed "Bushitler" stuff you keep going on about. I really don't. If you call me a liar like you suggested Articulett is, you will further prove you have zero interest in a rational, fair-minded discussion. Listen to (read) what I have to say, I am telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a damn strong liberal. I don't listen to much AM talk radio, I can't take Limbaugh for more than 43 seconds at a time, but now and then I'll tune in to Ed Schultz or Al Franken -- and have never once heard a Bush=Hitler statement. I was at the last Democratic convention (and the 3 prior), and never heard it. I go to many Democratic political candidate speeches, and never hear it.

I do not go to anti-war rallies, where I'm sure I'd see some of the stuff you've seen. And I don't read posts on political blogs, where again, you can find all kinds.

Once in a great while I have heard people make comparisons to Nazi fascism, usually as hyperbole to make a point, as I described above, or as a satiric joke. Once in a great while.

That's FAR less often than I hear some rightwingers make inane, antagonistic claims about liberals -- like that we hate America (one of the stupidest things I've ever heard) or that we want to lose a war, or that we want the economy to tank, or that we're trying to destroy this "Christian nation," or that we're trying to destroy families, etc.

I could go on and on about all the bile that comes out of some on the right about the left. But see, I don't focus on that. There's plenty bile and rhetoric to go around. You honestly think the right is more subtle in their rhetoric? Ha! And better at distancing themselves from the nuts in their ranks? Ha! How beholden to the religious right has most of the GOP been? How afraid are they to distance themselves? You know the answer.

There is a reason why so many conservative pundits write about this reprehensible practice

You keep saying that your best evidence for proving that the left constantly compares Bush to Hitler is that so many conservative pundits keep talking about it. That's just flawed logic, Pomeroo. Has it occurred to you that the rightie talkers have a vested interest in constantly talking about it? In making mountains out of molehills, and manufacturing a controversy? It's their job. It makes the left look bad. It gets people in a frenzy. That's good for the pundits. It's no different from the "war on Christmas" b.s.

Your alleged joke was pointed out by someone who has an interest in maintaining the fiction that the reprehensible practice of linking Bush to Nazism is not widespread. I don't read minds,

Pomeroo, you may now apologize for your obnoxious and wholly inaccurate accusation.

You claim you don't read minds but you're trying to read mine. You think I have "an interest" in "maintaining [a] fiction"?! You accuse me of lying? Your effrontery and lack of decency is terribly offensive. I hoped we could have a rational and respectful discussion, but clearly you're not interested in that. It's not worth the effort. Good luck, dude.

 

[pomeroo]

Are you an idiot?

No.

[/quote]

Actually Al Quaeda attacked us--they killed innocent people because they felt our government was evil and corrupt.

Inaccurate and misleading. Al Qaeda believes that our society, Western civilization broadly construed, is decadent and impious. Jihadists don't give a rat's patoot about Republicans, Democrats, or Karl Marx, for that matter.

Al Quaeda is not Iraq. We killed innocent people in much greater numbers than Al Quaeda because we supposedly believed the Iraqi government was evil, bent on destroying us on our land, and because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.

Nobody thinks that al Qaeda is Iraq. Stop your puerile lefty deceptions. We heard during the Vietnam era that we were there to kill babies. Of course, none of the oh-so-sanctimonious moralists who bleated about our mostly fabricated savagery ever said a word about the real savagery of the communists. We toppled Saddam Hussein to remove his ongoing threat to the region, using his repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement he signed in 1991 to justify our actions. In the wake of 9/11, the possibility of an avowed enemy of America providing WMD to terrorist groups was alarming to many people.

Amidst all your mudslinging do you ever address facts? How about photos like the one skeptikilt provided. Or are these people evil leftist propagandaist peaceniks that can't seem to realize that we were attacked first too?

The idea that we regarded Saddam Hussein as an ally is false. We have correctly viewed Iran as our principal enemy in the region since the hostage crisis of 1979. A temporary confluence of our interests and Iraq's does not forever taint our policies toward the Middle East.

Yeesh, I hope nobody thinks you a representative of most Americans-- Does anyone think you make sense or aren't a rabid warmongering blowhard with poor arguments all around. Anyone? Do you have friends that understand you?

Yes, many people think I make sense. Coincidentally, those same people find it highly amusing when rabid leftist blowhards are reduced to psychobabble to justify their irrational positions.

To me, you sound like Fred Phelps for a different ideal. Extreme, angry, and unable to reason when it comes to your pet delusions.

Wrong on all three counts. Incidentally, your fellow pop psychologists would call your approach here "projection."

Yes, I do love my country.

I don't much care one way or the other. Many lefties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Marx's vision. Their hatred of our system of relatively free markets leads them to support, insanely, all sorts of totalitarian monsters who have the single redeeming virtue of opposing America's interests.

And I'm embarrassed that other countries think that people such as you are representative,

I'm frightened when I reflect that some jihadists regard people like you as represnetative of all Americans.

when you are clearly (and thankfully) in an increasingly small minority. Your hatred and continual use of the word "leftists" makes it real clear what your politics are--I just think you're an embarrassment to anyone who would normally consider themselves conservative.

There's that projection again. Leftists take a back seat to no one when it comes to spewing mindless hate.

Kind of the way most religious people don't want to be aligned with the fundies and most Muslims don't want to be aligned with the extremists.

You're sure about those elusive "moderate Muslims"? What is the source of your information?

Every faith/authoritarian entity has it's wackos--it's just that your party seems to have an embarrassing influx of them lately. And you guys are only right, noble, and good in your own heads--just like the people you want to blow up.

When did Dennis Kucinich become a Republican?

Is there any respected intelligent person who relates to you? And I'd say you have to be the most brainwashed of boobs if you think that Bush hasn't committed an impeachable offense. Lying about a blow job is an impeachable offense if you recall. Bush has lied about much worse--repeatedly--and on tape--much of his cabinet and cronies have been indicted.

What you're doing here is lying about lying. I recall that perjury is an impeachable offense. You can't point to a single unambiguous lie that Bush has told. You are labeling policy disagreements as lies for your own convenience. I must have missed all those indictments of his cabinet members.

And why would I care if you believe me. It's you who has a credibility problem--in almost every statement you make. I'm more than willing to provide evidence for what I say, accept evidence to the contrary and acknowledge an opinion for what it is.

Well, you display a sense of humor. You present blatant falsehoods, offer no evidence, work up a self-righteous froth, and then pretend you're the voice of reason.

But I'm not the one saying asinine things.

You should see yourself from my angle.

And you are the person who seems to take issue with everyone. I get along with most people--the people I don't get along with are often people like you who don't seem to engage well in dialogue with anyone --I don't go to protest marches or involve myself in politics much, mostly because I think people like you are crazy and scary. I did read the Downing Street Memo and stay abreast of the news--but since I read that John Stewart's audience are better informed and accurate when it comes to current events than Fox news viewers per an independent study, I've avoided Fox news.

Have you ever read an actual book? I'd agree that people who rely exclusively on Fox news for their opinions are no better than people who buy into the mainstream media spin. There are people who take the trouble to develop coherent arguments and generally they write books.

You're the one that seems to have a lot of opinions that don't really coincide with the facts--and no matter what facts people show you, it only strengthens your allegiance and certainty of your rightness.

Your falsehoods haven't disproved too much of what I believe. You have failed to show where my opinions conflict with reality.

How is that different than being brainwashed? Is there anything that could possibly make you think that this particular war is a really bad thing that has accomplished more harm than good?

Sure, if Iran establishes a regional hegemony as a result of Iraq's disintegrating into warring sections, then the effort to remove Saddam Hussein will have had a negative outcome.

Why do opinions and facts asserted by others send you into tizzies of ad-homs and conspiracy complaints about the left.

Why do you make up such silly stuff?

I really can't tell the difference between you and Ann Coulter; perhaps you can illuminate it for us, or point to someone who can.

And I must find out what you look like so I can avoid you at future TAMS as well.

Well, you can watch the debate I hosted between Mark Roberts and the Loose Change boys.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2301711]Pomeroo, Glad the quote thing is working for you. Much easier.

Thanks, but I'm not doing any cutting and pasting.

Look: I do not hear all this supposed "Bushitler" stuff you keep going on about. I really don't. If you call me a liar like you suggested Articulett is, you will further prove you have zero interest in a rational, fair-minded discussion. Listen to (read) what I have to say, I am telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I believe that you're telling the truth.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a damn strong liberal. I don't listen to much AM talk radio, I can't take Limbaugh for more than 43 seconds at a time, but now and then I'll tune in to Ed Schultz or Al Franken -- and have never once heard a Bush=Hitler statement. I was at the last Democratic convention (and the 3 prior), and never heard it. I go to many Democratic political candidate speeches, and never hear it.

I do not go to anti-war rallies, where I'm sure I'd see some of the stuff you've seen. And I don't read posts on political blogs, where again, you can find all kinds.

I don't listen to AM talk radio (during the baseball season, I confess that I occasionally phone-in rants to a sports show).
I hear this stuff all the time on political blogs. I make a point of milling around at "peace" protests and "anti-war" rallies (the people in attendance have no problem with war unless it conduces to something beneficial for America) where such rhetoric is rampant.

Once in a great while I have heard people make comparisons to Nazi fascism, usually as hyperbole to make a point, as I described above, or as a satiric joke. Once in a great while.

That's FAR less often than I hear some rightwingers make inane, antagonistic claims about liberals -- like that we hate America (one of the stupidest things I've ever heard) or that we want to lose a war, or that we want the economy to tank, or that we're trying to destroy this "Christian nation," or that we're trying to destroy families, etc.

But, there again is that distinction between liberals and leftists that not enough people are fastidious about. Chuck Schumer is a liberal, Michael Moore is a leftist; Hillary Clinton is a liberal, Cindy Sheehan is a leftist. Liberals don't hate America. While the behavior of most congressional Democrats throughout Bush's tenure has been appalling--clearly, they do want our effort in Iraq to fail-- it is animated less by ideology and more by a shortsighted fixation on political advantage.

Liberal pundits and pols certainly have created the impression that they want the economy to tank.

I could go on and on about all the bile that comes out of some on the right about the left. But see, I don't focus on that. There's plenty bile and rhetoric to go around. You honestly think the right is more subtle in their rhetoric? Ha! And better at distancing themselves from the nuts in their ranks? Ha! How beholden to the religious right has most of the GOP been? How afraid are they to distance themselves? You know the answer.

We agree that there is far too much bile and too little serious thought. The right is objectively better at isolating the nuts. The religious right finds itself in an uncomfortable position. They view the Democrts as their sworn enemies, but complain that they don't really get anything from the Republicans.

You keep saying that your best evidence for proving that the left constantly compares Bush to Hitler is that so many conservative pundits keep talking about it. That's just flawed logic, Pomeroo. Has it occurred to you that the rightie talkers have a vested interest in constantly talking about it? In making mountains out of molehills, and manufacturing a controversy? It's their job. It makes the left look bad. It gets people in a frenzy. That's good for the pundits. It's no different from the "war on Christmas" b.s.

There is some truth to what you say. Obviously, tying the BusHitler loons around the neck of Democratic politicians is comparable to the Jerry Falwell albatross for Republicans. I'd argue that the comparisons of Bush to Hitler and the war on Christmas, although not mountains, rise considerably higher than molehills.

Pomeroo, you may now apologize for your obnoxious and wholly inaccurate accusation.

You claim you don't read minds but you're trying to read mine. You think I have "an interest" in "maintaining [a] fiction"?! You accuse me of lying?

You're growing overheated. It was in your interest to interpret that post as you did, just as my interpretation was in my interest. My point remains that neither of us had any way of knowing the poster's intent. Where do you get the idea that I'm accusing you of lying? You were attempting a debater's trick: insisting that something ambiguous was actually clear. Not what I'd call lying.

Your effrontery and lack of decency is terribly offensive. I hoped we could have a rational and respectful discussion, but clearly you're not interested in that. It's not worth the effort. Good luck, dude.

[/quote]

Your indignation strikes me as a bit overdone. I do not disrespect you.

 

[NotJesus]

I am not insinuating that you are a liar.

Flatly untrue.

I stated unambiguously that my "Bush is like Hitler" post was a joke and you continued to doubt it. That clearly implies that I may be lying. There is no other possible interpretation.

 

[Merko]

If you strongly opposed removing him, you advocated keeping him in power.

No, this is not true. The US, as well as several European states, were for years actively keeping Saddam Hussein in power. It was during this time that his most serious atrocities were committed. I did not advocate that.

Leftists--and I anticipate the anguished howls--are famously indifferent to the bloodbaths caused by the totalitarian tyrants they are so fond of.

You can't really expect to get any sort of respect if you go around claiming that leftists would have been fond of Saddam Hussein. That's like equating Bush with Hitler just because you don't like him. It is vile, disrespectful, distasteful, and above all, fundamentally stupid.

You are pontificating from the comfort and relative safety of a civilized Western nation.

You have to be remarkably blind not to realise that the same applies equally to yourself.

You are willing to allow faceless others to live in constant fear, to endure hopelssness and despair, in exchange for being able to flaunt your exquisite sensibilities to moral poseurs who take comfort for granted.

This is exactly what you do. I do not downplay the cruelty of the Saddam Hussein regime. I compare it with the cruelties of today's Iraq. And that comparison can only end one way: the fear, the hopelessness and despair, and the amount of human suffering, is without the slightest doubt greater today, than it was during the later period of Saddam Husseins regime.

But not one of them accepted any responsibility for the plight of the boat people, for the re-education camps, or the Cambodian genocide.

Every reasonable estimate agrees that the horrors inflicted by the Southern regime/US far surpassed those perpetrated by the north. Additionally, it seems reasonable to assume that the end of US intervention contributed to North Vietnam's ability to direct their forces to fight the Khmer Rouge, ending that genocide. Of course, communist Vietnam has not been a model society, but it has been infinitely better than the horrors suffered during the war.

Iraqis understand the enormous difference between the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib by a handful of American soldiers and the real tortures Saddam's henchmen specialized in.

They do? Tell me how it is so much better to be beaten to death by an American, than by a baathist.

The last poll I saw, about two weeks ago, showed that 80% were glad Saddam was gone. And why should that result surprise anyone?

Which is completely irrelevant. The issue, outside your imagination, was never pro- or anti-Saddam Hussein. The issue was whether Iraq is better off after the invasion, or not. If you have brain cancer and I cut your head off, we will all agree that it is good that you got rid of the tumour. But that does not mean I was justified in beheading you.

It is a very good thing Saddam is gone--good for the nations he will never menace with his weapons programs,

Which weapons programmes? Sorry, but I believe politics should be based on reality, not on your imaginations.

and much better for the people of Iraq, who have the opportunity to create a free and prosperous nation.

I fail to see how they would have a greater opportunity to do that now, than before the invasion. The situation was very bad then, but it is clearly worse now.

 

[Glenn]

We agree that there is far too much bile and too little serious thought. The right is objectively better at isolating the nuts.

Objectively? That's quite a claim. Prove it. Objectively.

I hear this stuff all the time on political blogs. I make a point of milling around at "peace" protests and "anti-war" rallies (the people in attendance have no problem with war unless it conduces to something beneficial for America) where such rhetoric is rampant.

Once again, you really cannot rationally go to political blogs and protest rallies as a source of major pulse-taking. You know full well you're relying on a small, self-selected population, and that anonymous blogs and protest rallies bring out the most hyper and irrational emotions from that self-selected population. You also have no idea whose doing most of the talking on blogs. (You must know that some people do write bogus posts on blogs to make their opponents sound worse and to provide quotes to turn around and attack them with. An often pointless endeavor, given all the hyper irrational emotions already present.)

If you want to make claims of objectivity, point to some respected polls. That's the only way you'll convince anyone you're being objective and rational. By your own claims thus far, you're basing your opinions on a very limited subjective personal survey. And right-wing pundits.

Many lefties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Marx's vision.

Point to the reliable polls that reveal even .001% -- hell, start with .01% -- of Americans feel this way. Point to the reliable polls that show that more lefties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Marx's vision than righties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Christian theocracy. Unless you can do these things, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously with these wild claims.

Inaccurate and misleading. Al Qaeda believes that our society, Western civilization broadly construed, is decadent and impious.

That's the common refrain from many on the right, and while it has some truth to it, it broadly misses the boat. Many Islamists have been mobilized with this sense of indignation, that's true. But the leaders -- Bin Laden et al. -- their motivations and rage stem not from some generalized disdain for the American way of life. That's effective Bush administration PR, to make the enemy a purely evil "other" out to destroy us merely because of our innate goodness. (It's a time-tested story. Make it about pure good and pure evil, 100% black and white, to really sell it.)

The fact is, the leaders primarily hate our bases in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. And a few other things (like Bin Laden's home Saudi Arabia kicking him out and siding with the U.S.), but those are the big ones.

To elucidate this is not to engage in "masochism" or "blaming America," as some like to claim as an evasive debating tactic. If America were wrong or foolish or capricious in these choices, then maybe it would be. But America is right to have bases in Saudi Arabia, and America is right to support Israel, and America will rightly not change its policies no matter how much Bin Laden and his ilk stir up terrorism against us.

The rhetoric of "They just hate our freedom" is ignorantly simplistic, just as is the rhetoric of "We've wrongly provoked them, it's our fault." The accurate assessment isn't sexy. It doesn't sell easily. But "They hate our freedom" is sexy, it's bumper sticker simple, and it sells well. As you've demonstrated.


You have a very interesting style, Pomeroo. You accuse people of engaging in "debating tricks," most of which you yourself have engaged in. You make inaccurate or highly speculative claims that you try to recast once they're disproved. When you disagree with someone, or believe they've said something wrong, you often attack them. Not so strongly as to be overt ad-homs, but close... you claim (inaccurately) that people are only saying things because they have ulterior motives; you insult people with things like "Stop your puerile lefty deceptions," instead of addressing the facts in a reasonable manner; you make jabs like "your fellow pop psychologists" or "Have you ever read an actual book?" as an attempt to belittle those you disagree with... etc.

These tactics stand out because you so keep claiming that others are engaging in mere debating tricks. That makes you sound awfully hypocritical. Just something to think about.

Where do you get the idea that I'm accusing you of lying?

Very simple. You claimed I said something because I have "an interest in maintaining the fiction that the reprehensible practice of linking Bush to Nazism is not widespread."

You accused me of having an ulterior motive (not true) to maintain a fiction (not true).

I think you need to reread yourself a bit more carefully. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you probably didn't realize what you were typing. But your tactic here of making a bold statement and then retreating is yet another debate trick that isn't working very well for you.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

There is no point to engaging Mr. P further, folks. Some places they call them trolls, some places they call them energy creatures. What's the accepted parlance here?

 

[Cleon]

There is no point to engaging Mr. P further, folks. Some places they call them trolls, some places they call them energy creatures. What's the accepted parlance here?

"Twits."

In any event, Glenn just delivered the best smackdown I've seen in a long, long time. My hat is off to you, sir.

 

[pomeroo]

=NotJesus;2302980]Flatly untrue.

I stated unambiguously that my "Bush is like Hitler" post was a joke and you continued to doubt it. That clearly implies that I may be lying. There is no other possible interpretation.

In post no. 239, I wrote:
"If you claim that you weren't serious, I'll take your word for it. I acknowledged in an earlier post the possibility that you might have been joking. Although it was not obvious to me that your intent was ironic, it might have been if I knew you better."

Flatly untrue? Really? Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of "I'll take your word for it" is causing the problem? You seem to be claiming, bizarrely, that I have continued to contend that you were serious after you assured us that you were joking. I never said that I was certain of your original intent, only that I saw no reason to think that you were joking. Considering that I don't know you, I can't begin to estimate the probability that you are lying. You are the only person who can be certain that you're telling the truth, but for me, common courtesy requires that I accept your word. We really can't push this any further.

 

[NotJesus]

In post no. 239, I wrote:
"If you claim that you weren't serious, I'll take your word for it. I acknowledged in an earlier post the possibility that you might have been joking. Although it was not obvious to me that your intent was ironic, it might have been if I knew you better."

Flatly untrue? Really? Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of "I'll take your word for it" is causing the problem? You seem to be claiming, bizarrely, that I have continued to contend that you were serious after you assured us that you were joking. I never said that I was certain of your original intent, only that I saw no reason to think that you were joking. Considering that I don't know you, I can't begin to estimate the probaility that you are lying. You are the only person who can be certain that you're telling the truth, but for me, common courtesy requires that I accept your word. We really can't push this any further.

Post 228 (to Glenn)

I just think you're seeing what you want to see. It's probable that the poster was making a simple declaration.

NOTE: Not "It seemed probable." "It's probable."

And then in post 234 you refer again to my "alleged" joke.

Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of YOUR OWN WORDS is causing the problem?

 

[pomeroo]

[=Merko;2303261]No, this is not true. The US, as well as several European states, were for years actively keeping Saddam Hussein in power. It was during this time that his most serious atrocities were committed. I did not advocate that.

Your statement is incorrect. France and Russia were particularly egregious offenders, undercutting the U.N. sanctions regime by engaging in extensive transactions with Iraq, but Germany was far from innocent. If you want to argue that Poppa Bush betrayed the Kurds and the Shiites by seeming to offer them support and then allowing Saddam to slaughter them, hey, I'm with you. What were Saddam's "most serious atrocities"? His oppression was ongoing.

You can't really expect to get any sort of respect if you go around claiming that leftists would have been fond of Saddam Hussein. That's like equating Bush with Hitler just because you don't like him. It is vile, disrespectful, distasteful, and above all, fundamentally stupid.

Yes, for leftists to side with Saddam Hussein was extremely stupid. It demonstrates the lunatic lengths their anti-Americanism will drive them to.
Jesse Jackson's revolting performance at a London "peace" rally during the run-up to the war set new, hitherto undreamed of standards for moral idiocy. As one speaker after another vilified America, a woman expressed a desire to relate the horrors her family had suffered at the hands of Saddam. Jackson silenced her, saying "We are not here to talk about Saddam Hussein." What a guy!

I thought that in my time I had seen the limits of political insanity, but when a gaggle of American lefties offered themselves to Saddam to serve as human shields, the phrase "too stupid to live" took on a whole new meaning for me.

You have to be remarkably blind not to realise that the same applies equally to yourself.

You have to be remarkably blind not to realize that I am well aware of how fortunate I am to be an American. I would not find much cause for self-celebration in allowing the Iraqis to continue to be oppressed.

This is exactly what you do. I do not downplay the cruelty of the Saddam Hussein regime. I compare it with the cruelties of today's Iraq. And that comparison can only end one way: the fear, the hopelessness and despair, and the amount of human suffering, is without the slightest doubt greater today, than it was during the later period of Saddam Husseins regime.

You write that the suffering in today's Iraq is "without the slightest doubt" worse than before. Without the slightest doubt, you are completely wrong. The mainstream media hypes the violence in Baghdad, but much of Iraq has been pacified and the country's economy, despite the turmoil, is growing nicely.

Every reasonable estimate

Translation: According to thoroughly exploded leftist myth.

agrees that the horrors inflicted by the Southern regime/US far surpassed those perpetrated by the north.

Perhaps a few French Marxists and the usual dotty American academics will buy this claptrap. You will never sell it to any Vietnamese. The Vietcong's terror campaign, which involved public tortures and hangings of village leaders, left lasting memories. After the North's war of conquest proved victorious, the plight of the boat people should have shaken the consciences of the Anointed (Thomas Sowell's perfect description), but, of course, injecting doubt into people who are morally infallible is no easy task.

Additionally, it seems reasonable to assume that the end of US intervention contributed to North Vietnam's ability to direct their forces to fight the Khmer Rouge, ending that genocide. Of course, communist Vietnam has not been a model society, but it has been infinitely better than the horrors suffered during the war.

Your chronology is creative, but you might want to read a history of the Vietnam War.

They do? Tell me how it is so much better to be beaten to death by an American, than by a baathist.

I'd venture a guess that the American guilty of beating someone to death will be punished severely for committing a crime, whereas the Baathist is executing state policy.

Which is completely irrelevant. The issue, outside your imagination, was never pro- or anti-Saddam Hussein. The issue was whether Iraq is better off after the invasion, or not. If you have brain cancer and I cut your head off, we will all agree that it is good that you got rid of the tumour. But that does not mean I was justified in beheading you.

Okay, Iraq is vastly better off without Saddam. Does that mean you've come over to my side?

Which weapons programmes? Sorry, but I believe politics should be based on reality, not on your imaginations.

We can start with the weapons programs noted by the U.N. during the nineties. Understandably, leftists pretend that the Duelfer Report doesn't exist. One its most inconvenient conclusions for the mythmakers was that Saddam could have reconstituted his programs very quickly upon the collapse of the sanctions regime.

By the way, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq intensively for four days in 1998. The official line was that he targeted WMD facilities and Republican Guard barracks. If you want to pretend that he "knew" that no WMD existed, wouldn't he be guilty of a war crime by killing all those Iraqi troops who had no idea they were at war?

I fail to see how they would have a greater opportunity to do that now, than before the invasion. The situation was very bad then, but it is clearly worse now.

Preposterous.

 

[pomeroo]

Close Reading

[=NotJesus;2303828]Post 228 (to Glenn)



NOTE: Not "It seemed probable." "It's probable."

And then in post 234 you refer again to my "alleged" joke.

Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of YOUR OWN WORDS is causing the problem?

[/quote]


When Gerald Ford stated in one of his debates with Jimmy Carter that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union, he could have minimized the damage by acknowledging that he had misspoken. Instead, he insisted for days that he actually meant the nonsense that had slipped past his lips. Now, you can reread my post and reflect on the part where I said I'd take your word for it, or we can continue what promises to be an embarrassment for you. Here is a big hint: posts 228 and 234 came BEFORE post 239. A bigger hint: what did I say AFTER you announced that you weren't serious? That's AFTER, not BEFORE.

 

[pomeroo]

Bloodless Triumph

[=Cleon;2303658]"Twits."

In any event, Glenn just delivered the best smackdown I've seen in a long, long time. My hat is off to you, sir.

[/quote]


It must have been quite a smackdown. I didn't feel a thing. Of course, the conspiracy loons on the tinfoil-hat blogs ALWAYS manage to refute everything I say. They have real science on their side.

Incidentally, going back to my college debating experiences, when I have lost to a sharper, better-informed opponent, I sure as hell realized it.

 

[pomeroo]

Taxonomy

[=SkeptiKilt;2303607]There is no point to engaging Mr. P further, folks. Some places they call them trolls, some places they call them energy creatures. What's the accepted parlance here?

[/quote]

Tough opponents.

 

[NotJesus]

When Gerald Ford stated in one of his debates with Jimmy Carter that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union, he could have minimized the damage by acknowledging that he had misspoken. Instead, he insisted for days that he actually meant the nonsense that had slipped past his lips. Now, you can reread my post and reflect on the part where I said I'd take your word for it, or we can continue what promises to be an embarrassment for you. Here is a big hint: posts 228 and 234 came BEFORE post 239. A bigger hint: what did I say AFTER you announced that you weren't serious? That's AFTER, not BEFORE.

Oh dear.

I said in post 236 that you insinuated I was a liar. That statement clearly refers to posts 228 and 234. It can't possibly refer to post 239. Surely even you can follow this?

Post 239 begins with your disingenuous denial and then you belatedly agree to 'take my word for it.'

I'd prefer an apology for your earlier offensive insinuations, but since you seem to be incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when the facts are against you, I guess I'll just have to let it drop.

 

[pomeroo]

=Glenn;2303486]Objectively? That's quite a claim. Prove it. Objectively.

Where does the left draw the line? When David Duke got the idea of re-baptizing himself as a Republican, Poppa Bush told him to take a hike. Pat Buchanan's increasingly anti-Semitic columns provoked a sharp rebuke from William F. Buckley. Buckley also broke with his old friend Joe Sobran for the same reason. Back in the late fifties and early sixties, Buckley and the National Review tossed the entire anti-Semitic and super-patriot-John-Birch-Society crowd out of the modern conservative movement.

By sharp contrast, the N.Y. Times ran an absolutely disgraceful piece on a group of old commies, still unrepentant Stalinists, the entire mood being, hey, aren't these feisty oldsters just too charming for words. Michael Kelly asked what the reaction would have been to a comparable portrait of aging Nazis. Maureen Down fawns over Mother Sheehan and Michael Moore is given a seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention. Alan Colmes calls Leslie Cagan--Leslie Cagan, for chrissakes--a liberal.
Oh, yes, two words: Al Sharpton.

Naturally, nothing I can say will have slightest impact on you, but, frankly, you must be kidding.

Once again, you really cannot rationally go to political blogs and protest rallies as a source of major pulse-taking. You know full well you're relying on a small, self-selected population, and that anonymous blogs and protest rallies bring out the most hyper and irrational emotions from that self-selected population. You also have no idea whose doing most of the talking on blogs. (You must know that some people do write bogus posts on blogs to make their opponents sound worse and to provide quotes to turn around and attack them with. An often pointless endeavor, given all the hyper irrational emotions already present.)

But one of the major themes of the 2004 campaign, sounded by liberal pundits as well, was the influence of the far-left on the Democratic Party. You act as though I'm making up something. The Howard Dean phenomenon was a chilling hint that a highly energized, well-financed group of extremists just might be able to hijack a major party.

If you want to make claims of objectivity, point to some respected polls. That's the only way you'll convince anyone you're being objective and rational. By your own claims thus far, you're basing your opinions on a very limited subjective personal survey. And right-wing pundits.

Objective claims are based on polls? That's breathtaking. Remarkable results can be produced by imaginative wording. A poll showed that 30% of German university students do not believe that Americans landed on the moon in 1969. Does that mean that almost a third of Germany's future leaders are drooling morons?

Point to the reliable polls that reveal even .001% -- hell, start with .01% -- of Americans feel this way. Point to the reliable polls that show that more lefties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Marx's vision than righties hate America for symbolizing the failure of Christian theocracy. Unless you can do these things, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously with these wild claims.

You have a funny way of attempting to discredit claims that make you uncomfortable. Dozens of essays have appeared in a wide range of journals addressing the question of anti-Americanism. No clear consensus has emerged, but the implacable hatred for America felt by many leftists can plausibly be ascribed to this nation's historic role as the global opponent of the Soviet Empire. America's victory in the Cold War signified a defeat for the communist vision. What makes a reasonable thesis a "wild claim"?

That's the common refrain from many on the right, and while it has some truth to it, it broadly misses the boat. Many Islamists have been mobilized with this sense of indignation, that's true. But the leaders -- Bin Laden et al. -- their motivations and rage stem not from some generalized disdain for the American way of life. That's effective Bush administration PR, to make the enemy a purely evil "other" out to destroy us merely because of our innate goodness. (It's a time-tested story. Make it about pure good and pure evil, 100% black and white, to really sell it.)

When an interpretation of jihadist behavior has to invoke the devil-figure George Bush, it probably misses the mark. Robert Spencer, IMO, explains it well in his scathing review of Dinesh D'Souza's new book: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=26650

The fact is, the leaders primarily hate our bases in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. And a few other things (like Bin Laden's home Saudi Arabia kicking him out and siding with the U.S.), but those are the big ones.

We no longer have any bases in Saudi Arabia.

To elucidate this is not to engage in "masochism" or "blaming America," as some like to claim as an evasive debating tactic. If America were wrong or foolish or capricious in these choices, then maybe it would be. But America is right to have bases in Saudi Arabia, and America is right to support Israel, and America will rightly not change its policies no matter how much Bin Laden and his ilk stir up terrorism against us.

The rhetoric of "They just hate our freedom" is ignorantly simplistic, just as is the rhetoric of "We've wrongly provoked them, it's our fault." The accurate assessment isn't sexy. It doesn't sell easily. But "They hate our freedom" is sexy, it's bumper sticker simple, and it sells well. As you've demonstrated.

They hate our defiance of the will of Allah.

You have a very interesting style, Pomeroo. You accuse people of engaging in "debating tricks," most of which you yourself have engaged in. You make inaccurate or highly speculative claims that you try to recast once they're disproved.

Wishful thinking on your part. Not much of what I've written has been disproved.

When you disagree with someone, or believe they've said something wrong, you often attack them. Not so strongly as to be overt ad-homs, but close... you claim (inaccurately) that people are only saying things because they have ulterior motives;

I call them simply, motives. It sounds less sinister and we all have interests that we seek to promote or defend. Your interpreting that post as a joke didn't stamp you as a bad guy to me.

you insult people with things like "Stop your puerile lefty deceptions," instead of addressing the facts in a reasonable manner; you make jabs like "your fellow pop psychologists" or "Have you ever read an actual book?" as an attempt to belittle those you disagree with... etc.

Well, perhaps I was debating too robustly. I find it irritating when an opponent has nothing substantive to say and attempts, ineptly, to probe my psyche.

These tactics stand out because you so keep claiming that others are engaging in mere debating tricks. That makes you sound awfully hypocritical. Just something to think about.

I try not to accuse people of engaging in trickery when I can't effectively answer their arguments. I like to believe that I restrict myself to calling only actual debating tricks by that name.

Very simple. You claimed I said something because I have "an interest in maintaining the fiction that the reprehensible practice of linking Bush to Nazism is not widespread."

You accused me of having an ulterior motive (not true) to maintain a fiction (not true).

You seem to be arguing that the practice of comparing Bush to Hitler is not widespread. I'll assume that your belief is sincere, but I happen to disagree.

I think you need to reread yourself a bit more carefully. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you probably didn't realize what you were typing. But your tactic here of making a bold statement and then retreating is yet another debate trick that isn't working very well for you.

I'll try to be more careful. I do not, however, regard you as a liar. And I don't recall doing much retreating.