Nice. Declaring victory in the face of defeat. Reminds me of some information minister or something...
Good thing they don't give out iq tests before handing you your Fascist r****ds 'R Us membership card eh johnheath?
I just don't get this thing...jh seems to think he's one some debate every time he posts another mythical find by someone that agrees with him, will when called on each one usually admit that it might have turned out worng, but look at this next one, and by the way i admitted this one was wrong, and later will refer to the sum of them as X number of reports as evidence, including as he does this all the ones which have been dismissed. The thing is though, this throw a bunch of things at the wall hoping that some of it sticks or at leasts the sheer volume will wear them into submission has a familiar ring toit, doesn't it? jh's style comes stright from the top... But I personally find DD's assumption that he's somehow won the argument because we went to and won the war even more troubling, because someone I respect more seems to get it even less. He honestly seems to think that those of us who opposed the war thought that either we wouldn't go, which was completely the opposite of what we thought, that I'm aware of, or that we'd lose, which had nothing whatever to do with our objections...But he still says it almost daily, and coming from someone I otherwise like, it's disturbing.
I understand respecting and liking someone but being puzzled when they don't understand arguments and evidence presented them, or apparently what you're trying to say. Often being in the minority in my political opinion growing up in Suburban Houston, I quickly learned not to ever take anyone's political belief personally, or their apparent inablity in that one area to even listen to what you are saying, and come back by accusing you of arguing something different. I haven't figured out why it happens from time to time, but it does. The only thing I can think about is that Mary and George have vastly different views when it comes to governing but they seem to have a happy marriage. So I guess everyone just has a different understanding of events, the thought that went into them, and what their results hold for the future. We can argue, and discuss, and no matter how distasteful the subject we argue about are one's beliefs on them shouldn't detract from the person who made them(unless they are a policy maker or elected official). That's also easier said than done. A personal example if anyone cares to read on: My father-in-law is from Korea. He lived through the Japanese occupation where he was forced to give up his own name, and take on a Japanese name(After Japan was defeated he, of course used his own name again). He fought in the Korean war, nearly froze, and had some very close life threatening situations to escape from. He is extremely greatful to the U.S. for their role in defeating both the Japanese and the N. Koreans, as well as the U.S. presence which keeps the N. Koreans from wiping out S. Korea. In general he is a very kind man, who's totally sentimental. He was a doctor president of the W. Va. medical association, a respected surgeon and an educator. He and his wife recently moved to LA. He refused to throw away any of the papers that his medical students handed in. He wouldn't throw one of them out no matter how old or how many he had. He's just that kind of sentimental. He's totally in favor of the Iraqi war, believes it was necessary, doesn't believe even a small bit of it was because of oil. IMO, it's partially because of love for the U.S. that he believes they are incapable of having anything less than the purest motives. I think even more it's because he has such faith in people, and always believes people are so wonderful, honest, well intentioned humans, that he can't get is mind around the fact that some governing officials may have less than honorable intentions with this war. It's almost like it would crush his kind gentle spirit to be able to admit that the administration is full of any kind of greed, corruption and dishonesty, because his whole being is about believing in the good in people, and the best about people. I can't even debate with him, because after a certain point, he'll just declare that the conversation has ended and walk away. But also because I don't want to discourage his belief in the best. Now all he watches is Fox, and I'm slightly troubled by his inablity to even listen to factual accounts, like the ABC article posted about the real main reason for the war in Iraq. He's a great person and if something in his makeup and past prevents him from ever looking at a balanced view of the issues, then I won't hold it against him no matter how much I disagree with him. I think in part perhaps Treeman, who's serving in the army has to believe the way he does, because it might crippling in a sense if he felt that the beliefs that I and some others hold were to be true, rather than the beliefs he holds on too. It's almost like he needs to believe the way he does. Everyone might have their own stories about why they believe the way they do, including those leaning to the left. I just know that no matter how hard it is, I try never to let discussions on politics affect any other areas of discussion, respect, and opinion about a person.
Yes I did add one line in there about people who lean to the left too, but I should have made more clear that it goes both ways. I guess I focussed on the reverse, because I can totally empathize with what MacBeth is feeling... at least in this thread
The home of the free and the land of the fascist? The answer to all questions concerning WMD? You hate America.
