It's unfortunate that your use of directed expletives made an otherwise well thought-out, reasonable response so easy for him to dismiss. Cheers to the good post though.
Yeah, look. After the tenth or hundredth time being told I love to kill babies, I'm pally with Saddam and I hate freedom, I'm likely to get a little sharp. And he would have dismissed it anyway, reminding us the results of the 04 election in place of any thoughtful response. He apparently has to, because he apparently has no thoughtful response. basso: I actually think I've been unusually even handed in my significantly limited posts here these days. You responded to a long, detailed post with a wisecrack and then posted later promising a more thoughtful response, which you said my post deserved. What you came back with instead was the usual hyperbolic, intellectually bankrupt accusations the lowest of your clan's been selling since 9/11. It's beneath you, it's offensive and it's tired. Worse, you know that. And anyone reading this thread can see that I spent a stupid amount of time talking to you like an adult capable of having a reasoned debate and you came back with Jorge style crap. One of these days I should learn my lesson about that stuff. I like you a lot personally and I do think you're a hell of a smart guy, but in this forum, lately at least, you're a waste of time. Answer my posts substantively like you said you would and I'll happily change my mind about that. I'm not holding my breath.
Issues I covered in detail that received no response (dumbed down to the core and not to be used for response - in the unlikely case that some Bush supporter wants to argue these points, please respond to my detailed posts from page two): 1. Response to basso's tired old swipe at Kerry, explaining how the majority of Americans - and not just Dems - now oppose the war on the same grounds Kerry came around to doing and that I always maintained -- that we were swindled with willfully bogus intel. 2. The Bush admin as biggest supporter of big government since FDR. 3. The Bush admin as biggest supporter of "strong" federal government -- in direct opposition to long held GOP principle of moving the power away from Washington -- in modern history and maybe ever. 4. The Iraq war was not a defensive war even by the broad standards outlined back when we were being lied to with cooked up intel. 5. The Patriot Act does in fact threaten civil liberties and freedom of privacy. 6. A desire to redraw maps on another continent is imperialism. 7. The relative base of morals and ethics, and the history thereof, in our two parties and Bush's cynical co-opting of that base even while he legislates (and even wages wars) against his faith and presides over the greatest crimes against religious faith in our lifetimes, holding no one accountable for those crimes. 8. Debunking of the bogus charge of flip flopping on Kerry's 87 billion vote. ============================================= basso's reply to the above issues: 1. Batman's a negative cynic. 2. Batman's insincere in his beliefs which are purely partisan. 3. Batman and his party are devoid of ideas except baby killing, Saddam loving and opposing Democracy and freedom. ============================================== My response to that is too long and detailed and frustrated (after making basically the same response to the same hollow charges for, literally, years now). It's on page two. Read it if interested. ============================================== basso's response (along with some positively weird insinuation that I'm not getting laid, which is baffling since I am): 1. We won the election. ============================================== And again, all that came after this post from basso: What do you think, fellas? Did he hold up his end?
Excellent post. I think that it is indicitive of many conservative posters on this board, and not just Basso. They rarely match substance with stubstance. Giddyup usually sticks and fights the good fight, and Hayes will too, most of the time. But not since the old days of Treeman et al will people sustain and meaningful debate. There are always exceptions, but it is frustrating. We won, name calling, and accusations of not supporting the troops, does little to foster a quality debate around here. What has become of this place?
FB: I agree about Hayes and treeman. I miss treeman and I'd like it if Hayes got into this thread. I miss mrpaige and Cohen around these parts too. I also agree about giddyup, even if his tireless devil's advocate thing wears me out. He doesn't disappear when challenged and that's to his credit. I'd also love to know what happened to Mr. Clutch. I spent about half an hour providing a detailed response to his posts and he hasn't responded. Maybe he just hasn't visited this thread in a while.
or perhaps he found your witless personal insults mitigated against whatever "substance" might be found in your posts. and i might add, perhaps you're not the best judge of the quality of your own work. while you lament the absence of certain posters, perhaps you should go back and re-read some of your epistles to see if they contributed in any meaningful way to a poster's sabbatical from the D&D, and examine whether current tactics might have a similar effect.
basso: I've been snide here and I've even been a total *******. I try not to be an ******* these days and I even try not to be snide, but when confronted with the crown prince of snideness (Jorge has you beat on some things, but no one has you beat for snideness) I will respond in kind. The difference between us here is that I will also respond with substance and I will not resort to unsupported (and even previously and thoroughly debunked) hyperbole. You have not responded to any of my posts here in the thoughtful manner you promised. In fact, you have not addressed a single one of the points I listed above with anything approaching substance. You have accused me of opposing freedom, liberty and democracy and of liking to kill babies. As such, you have a lot of nerve lecturing me. The worst thing I said about Mr. Clutch was that his last post here cracked me up. I did that after thoroughly explaining why. That, after he called concerns about the Patriot Act laughable without explaining why. Answer my posts substantively, admit defeat on every topic you continually refuse to address or disappear. Or accuse me again of horrible things you know are not true and remind me Bush won again. Your choice. But anyone reading can plainly see you've had two days to hold up your end here and you have flatly refused to do it. It's disappointing, that's all. I know you're capable of having a reasoned debate and I have no idea why you refuse to do it.
p.s. If my post to Mr. Clutch was witless and lacked "substance," why did you post this -- "batman, you post deserves a longer, more thoughtful response, of which i promise to give" -- before you opted instead to insult my character, disregard the substance and resort to the 'we won' stuff.
your original post did merit a longer, more thoughtful response, which i provided. you didn't like my answer and resorted to personal insults, which i attempted to deflect, rather than respond in kind. in fact, i was stunned the thread wasn't locked after one particular post of yours. the "we won" stuff, as you call it, is in direct response to this odd obsession you have with polls, as if a poll that supports your arguement is somehow proof of its validity. i've argued many times that one of the things that i admire most about GWB is his refusal to be swayed by the poll-of-the-week, unlike his predecessor who was constantly tilting at zogby inspired windmills. as for the rest of my post, i stand by it. despite your claims of greater mroality, both personal and for your party, the prime animating factors in democratic politics today are abortion (vide the current judicial appointments fracas) and hatred of george bush. ...and condesending to anyone who might disagree with you. how many times have you, other liberal posters here, and your party as a whole, wondered outloud how people can be so stupid as to vote for george bush. your whole" bush lied about intel" arguement is essentially based on this premise, as if republicans aren't capable of examining the evidence for themselves and deciding whom to support. you toss around third-hand hearsay "evidence" such as the british memo as if it were gospel, with no critical thought whatsoever, and charge those of us who have the temerity to question its validity with being too stupid to think for ourselves. this is the type of attitude that leads to fiascos such as the current newsweek scandal. when, oh when, did your party abandon all sense of fairplay, of proportion? when did yours become the party of despair?
You addressed zero of the points I outlined above, which were the substantive ones. Your "more thoughtful response" boiled down to two things: saying I was negative and a cynic and the completely out of line hyperbolic attacks on my character (and the character of the Dems) while tossing in that I wanted to war on freedom. That was before I "personally insulted" you. Hilariously, I only insulting you for insulting me. And you were amazed I didn't get us locked for saying you were an ******* for continuing to say I hated freedom, loved Saddam and loved baby killing? Calling you an ******* for saying those things is nothing compared to saying them in the first place. Especially since I maintain that there is no way you could believe those things about me. If you do sincerely believe those things about me, I have no idea how you could have sat down to drink with me. And if you sincerely believe those things about me, let me know so we can just put each other on ignore and stop talking to each other. If you believe those things, there is no hope at all for us being civil to each other. I cite those polls for one reason and one reason only. Here it is. Please pay attention this time. You and the GOP call Kerry a flip flopper for the exact same thing the American people have done. If Kerry's a flip flopper on Iraq, so are the American people. If you look at the time the "flip flopping" occurred, you'll find it is consistent with the American people (and Kerry) learning they were duped about WMD's. You have still not responded to the empirical evidence the polls provide. Instead you continue to call Kerry a flip flopper and willfully ignore the reasons for the "flip flop." If you stand by the rest of your post, I stand by calling you an ******* for impugning my character and spreading lies about me and my party. The stuff you posted in that thread is the lowest, most hateful, most cynical stuff that ever gets posted on this board. Shame on you for it. The prime animating factor for my opposition to Bush is outlined in the eight points above. You still refuse to address any of them. They are substantive. You refuse to address the substance and instead call me a hata. That's not debate. Thoughtful Republicans should also be capable of debating the issues. Start doing that and I'll stop condescending to you. Incidentally, I didn't call anyone stupid in this thread and I didn't condescend to anyone. I posted substance which you ignored in favor of character bashing. And you respond in kind by dismissing any such evidence. Several people addressed the credibility of the British memo in the other thread. You can dismiss any evidence as hearsay if you have your heart set on it. And you clearly do and have done, with various other pieces of evidence including such from various ex-White House staffers. When you and yours began to systematically lower the level of policy debate in this country as blatantly evidenced in this thread. Address the substance without calling D's anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-life, anti-democracy, pro-terror and pro-dictator or expect more of the same.
Let me make it a little easier for you to reply, basso. Repeat that you really believe the things you said about me and I can go ahead and put you on ignore with the other people with whom I am incapable of having a civil political discussion and we can be done with this. Or, if you don't reall believe those things, apologize for going over the line. After that, feel free to address any of my substantive points or not. But before you do one of the above, there's little point in us continuing this conversation.
so these are the famous 8 theses you've chosen to nail to the church of clutch city door? 1- your posting of a poll in no way proves your point, as i've noted above, and on more than one occasion. you obviously seem to feel it does, and you throw in a bit of editorializing about "being lied to" re WMD. in my mind that sort of hyperbole doesn't merit debate. go find someone else to argue the point with. i will continue to point out that when the american people had the opportunity to show how the felt about iRaq and the WMD issue, they made their point lod and clear. 2-certainly the bush admin is a supported of big governent. so what? aren't most democrats? why are you debating this? are you attempting to prove ush isn't a libertarian, which he's never claimed to be? i just don't get your point. 3-vide 2 above. 4- once again you throw in the lied to canard. take it out an perhaps we can have this discussion. 5- can you please name an instance where someone's civil liberties have been violated due to the patriot act? 6- other than the map of greater palestine (including israel) the bush admin does not wish to "redraw" the map of the mideast, except in favor of the palestinians. they do wish to change the political map, to introduce greater democracy. i would have thought such a policy would've been uncontroversial, particularly w/ liberal democrats. that it is, is the basis for my "rejection of core principles" arguement earlier. 7- what crimes against religious faith are you talking about? 8- kerry flipped and flopped. that you can find a way to rationalize it doesn't change the reality.
This is the biggest issue I have. You seem to ignore evidence when you can't counter it. A govt. memo is priamry source material. The claim that Bush lied has been made. It was backed up by evidence. I also have many times posted the lie concerning the IAEA report(or non-report) on Iraq's nuke development. I would understand if the anti-war cried said Bush lied but had no evidence to back it up, dismissing the lie claim all together. Now, however, there is proof in primary source material from world govts. to back it up. I've also already posted evidence regarding the IAEA(non-)report concerning Iraq's nuke development program. I wouldn't mind if you said you didn't believe that evidence and then provided a rational response as to why. I wouldn't mind if you showed information which cast doubt on the evidence, or came up with contradictory evidence. You haven't done any of that, but merely said you won't discuss the issue. The appearence is that because you don't have an argument to refute the proof or evidence laid out by the anti-war crowd that you are backing off that argument.
No basso, they're not. Sigh. They're the most salient points that you failed to address from my previous post. You just can't wipe the smirk off your face to save your life, can you? I also specifically requested that if you finally deigned to respond to them that you would respond to my original posts, which I spent a great deal of time writing and which are supported, rather than these capsule versions. I'm not surprised you refused to honor that simple request. The soundbite versions are much easier to obfuscate and dismiss. Since I don't expect you to do better than this, I'll respond one last time against my better judgment. It's not one poll -- it's polls from every single reputable polling firm. And it does prove the point that the American people flipped on Iraq at the same time Kerry did. Finally, the presidential election was not a simple referendum on Iraq -- it was a referendum on every issue facing Americans (for example, someone might have disdained the Iraq policy but hated gays even more -- that person would have voted Bush. Same goes for being more for tax cuts than against Iraq.), not to mention personal likeability on which Bush understandably killed Kerry. The polls that specifically ask about Iraq, conversely, are specific referendums on Iraq. And they are damning. Democrats aren't "for" big government. That's a lie. They're for providing certain government services. The argument against them there is that that results in big gov't. Bush puts the lie to the idea that D's are the party of big gov't. My point, which you well know, was to explain to Mr. Clutch why it was a salient point with Ron Paul and other R's who have complained about Bush abandoning that core principle. Not the same thing AT ALL. Americans who feared a stronger federal government used to be able to look to R's to support them. No more. This is a very different thing. One's about money, one's about power. You still haven't addressed this at all. I throw it in because it has been supported by various credible sources at this point. I can't talk to you about this stuff anymore if you insist on dismissing any and all evidence of it. I would be willing to change the semantics to "willfully exaggerated" and "willfully suppressed evidence that hurt the case for war," but to go further than that would be dishonest. I cannot name a specific instance, partly because I'm not terribly well educated here. Someone else might be able to. But the point isn't whether or not it's happened, it's whether or not the Act provides a mechanism for it to happen. It does and that is why people who previously supported it, on both sides of the aisle, are now concerned about supporting it again. I'll remind you too that this was a response to Mr. Clutch calling those concerns laughable. When people from both parties share those concerns, along with a great number of Americans, bottom line is the concerns are not "laughable." Again I'll remind you I was responding to Mr. Clutch's question which basically went, "What's wrong with wanting to redraw the map?" And introducing democracy at gunpoint is exactly what we tried and failed to do in Vietnam. And it is also imperialism. Abu Ghraib. I didn't "find" a way to rationalize. You and yours "found" a way to call it flip flopping. Go to page two, quote me in full, and respond. I dare you. And this is my last post to you until you answer my previous one about whether or not you truly meant the offensive things you said. I'm not standing for that stuff anymore and I'm not doing any more flame wars.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were lying. That was the kindest interpretation I could muster. And if I went over the line, you shoved me over it. Answer the question. Did you mean those things? If so, we're done. It's that easy.
not when the government memo in question is written by someone who didn't even attend the meeting the memo describes. the memo purports to be minutes of a british cabinet meeting in which the discussed another meeting that one of the british officials attended. at best it is third person hearsay. moreover, where is the "news" in the memo, outside the inflamatory use of the word "fixed" to describe the intel. do you really believe Bush sat around in a meeting with british gov. officials and said "you know, we don't have the intel to support our position, but we're going to do it anyway, and we'll just make some **** up to back it up and no one will ever know." if they were that devious, wouldn't they have taken the plan to its logical conclusion and planted evidence when they got on the ground in iRaq? and is it news they were discussing the iRaq war at all in the summer of 2002? that sort of timeline kind of undercuts the whole "rush-to-war" arguement now doesn't it?
Here is an example. You maintain that Kerry flipflopped. I disagree. We've seen the 87 bil before he voted against it, time and time again. I will now present evidence why the whole flip flop issue, is way overblown, and mostly untrue. I believe the charge is not supported by facts, but only by spin. I used evidence to back my claim that Kerry didn't flip flop. He might have been unclear as the article points out, but the rampant flip flopping the gop accused him of was nothing more than spin. It worked but I will still argue the point. Feel free to try and disqualify the evidence given in the article, or show other evidence that trumps my evidence, and we probably won't ever agree on the topic, but at least we should be able to have a proper debate.
