Skip to main content

View Diary: Debunking the Carter/Clinton Myth (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Comfortable position between (none)
    two extremes"

    Ridiculous.  That is the laziest, most anti-intellectual means of evaluating politicians.  And so, even if a politician is clearly engaged in illegality, simply because there is an extremist faction willing to excuse that illegality, you take a position in the middle and consider your civic duty satisfied.  

    Doesn't that seem senseless?  Do you really think that this is a good way to interpret current events?

    •  I was speaking in (none)
      Generalities in reference to extremes. I visit several blogs a day, all with different ideas of what is clear, what is mainstream, what is right and what is wrong. I go to these places to avoid easy confirmation of what I may think is very cut and dried.

      I am not yet convinced that Bush has broken a law much less need be impeached. I feel my civic duty is to get the facts then decide. That is why I first started asking my questions.

      •  This is why this country is in the (none)
        mess that it is in now.  Merely because some take an opposite and untruthful view of the facts, deliberation means that one must assign equal value to both truth and untruth?  Again, that's absolutely ridiculous and that sort of thinking is the reason that we are involved in a treasure-draining quagmire in Iraq that cannot be justified as a defensive exercise.  The GOP all but announced its tactic of inverting reality, yet some people continue to credit their lies as legitimate opinions.

        Because I might scream that the sky is red, does that mean that you must take a position between "two extremes" and conclude that the sky is purple?  That's what you're sounding like here, and again, it is an incredibly foolish means of evaluating current events.

        •  But by listening to (none)
          you saying the sky is red and someone else saying the sky is blue, then, by looking up (hopefully during the day) I can decide who is right and who is wrong. I can decide quite easily between right and wrong. All I need is the basis in fact to do so.
          •  I've looked through some of your (none)
            earlier comments and am having some trouble believing that you are arguing in good faith.

            Come on guys, seriously (1.50 / 2)

            I visit here once or twice a day to get a feel of what left wing America is thinking. I take it all with a grain of salt, as you can imagine :)

            As I said above, you are being deliberately obtuse in order to (1) disrupt this thread; and (2) obfuscate the issue and hence defend the clearly illegal activities of the Bush administration.  Your questions have been answered numerous times, yet you continue to repeat the same erroneous, nonfactual interpretation of these events.  The word "troll" comes to mind.

            •  If you will look (none)
              Further you will see where, instead of attacking me and accusing me of being a troll, guyute actually bothered to explain what I missed. Which is what I had asked for in the first place.

              You'll also see that not far down, from the post you mentioned, the author of the diary agreed with what I had said in that post.

              So, I'm not sure your definition holds. At least as I know the definition. I am here to ask legitimate questions about legitimate issues. I'm not going to agree with you guys very often. Is that a requirement to post here? I would hope not. I emailed Kos just a bit ago to ask him if I were violating the rules of his website. I am happy to abide by his rules. What I hope, though, is that more than a few people here are willing to listen to me and answer my questions, when I have them and take them for what they are. Legitimate questions to positions I may not agree with all the time

        •  You are correct sir (none)
          This is the problem in a nutshell.  Just as the news media took a position between Kerry being a decorated war veteran and being guilty of acts described by the Swift Boat Veterans, just as lies are termed "misstatements", just as arguments that disprove what Bush says are prefaced with "His critics say.....", the average person is starting to think the same way.   It's false logic.  There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood, or between opinion & falsehood.   (Kerry's documented war record was presented as his side of the story.  This kind of thing borders on the criminal; after all, Kerry was slandered repeatedly in the campaign.  And so was Gore nin 2000, who was called a liar for saying things that were true.)

          "Everything seemed possible to the powerful and the privileged, so cowed by fear, so broken to repression had the American people become." -- W. Karp

          by Mass Man on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:57:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then you're an idiot (none)
        "I am not yet convinced that Bush has broken a law"

        Then you either have the lowest reading comprehension ability of any adult I've encountered online (and sweetie that's saying soomething) or you haven't bothered to read this diary.

        Either way I stand by my troll labeling

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site