Skip to main content

View Diary: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (459 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
    that's how small children view things

    if you're sincerely interested in the future welfare of this nation

    I dislike Bush as much as anyone here.  I'm glad Saddam was captured because it allows focus on other issues.  However, your comment to Peter that he is being childish, and your insinuation that your way is sincere (as compared to his view) is incredibly condescending.  You sound just like the grown-up you criticize.      

    •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
      No.

      Up is not down, black is not white, and most importantly, views do not differ about the shape of the world.  A lack of skepticism regarding the veracity of a source which claims authority is typical of children.

      You are engaging in a different, but equally subtle fallacy.  You are assuming a statement which is not factually false is substantially true.  It is not.  Peter insinuated (whether deliberately or because he has been deceived) a connection between "second thoughts" about Saddam's capture and a preference for "preference for insurgent fighting" and "american deaths" which would "benefit a Democratic candidate."  Put differently, dissent (from this position) is treason (in the form of heavily loaded implications).  The world is not flat, guys.  Honest.

      I am giving Peter (and you) the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you want the nightmare to end.  If so, disliking Bush is not enough, and toeing the party line is not enough.  Taking the middle ground when you see opposing views is not enough.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and the price of reclaiming liberty once vigilance has flagged is a higher-than-normal level of skepticism.

      So.  You can view this as condescension or you can ask yourself whether I might have been correct.  In either case I stand by my earlier comment.

      •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
        What Peter said was quite clear.  Why you need to torture the obvious meaning of his words is beyond me.  Actually, I think the world looks different depending upon where one sits, for not everyone has the same orientation.  Or are you so wrapped up in making a dumb argument that you cannot see this obvious fact?  In my opinion, you are simply playing words games and are not persuasive with your overly ideological, I am smarter than you approach.
        •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
          What Peter said was quite clear.

          disturbingly so.  he said that if you have second thoughts, and you would rather have insurgent fighting and American deaths, so that they might benefit a Democratic candidate, you should question that.  why do you suppose he said that?

          •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
            Sadly, because there are some who believe that we must experience the worst to increase the odds of beating Bush.  
            •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
              who?  Ralph Nader?  John Kerry?  Kos?  Tacitus?

              no, seriously, who are you talking about exactly?  the way Peter's comment was constructed implied that the only kind of second thoughts you can have about Saddam's capture is to automatically want American deaths in order to benefit a Democratic candidate.  what you don't seem to get is that that's a word game.  that's what stifles the conversation and polarizes the debate and lowers the level of discourse.

              whatever...  I'm willing to defend Peter's right to spout childish nonsense, but there's a limit to how much of it I'm willing to listen to.

              •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
                No one makes you listen to him or anyone else.  I listen to so much bullshit here that it's sad.    However, to answer your question, I have read of such sentiments here and other blogs.  Haven't you?  I have heard it discussed by some, too.  It is not isolated, but I don't take down names.

                Just as the hate of Clinton caused some ultra conservatives to go overboard, so might the hate of Bush cause some ultra liberals or others to do the same, even relish in the worst.  It is not a good thing in either case.  I am, by the way, an ultra liberal, so I am not generalizing.  

                Guess we are at the end of the road on this subject.  My main objection was the way you spoke down to Peter, then me.  Hope you understand that.  Take care.

                •  Re: Saddam Captured; What's Next? (none)
                  My main objection was the way you spoke down to Peter, then me.  Hope you understand that.

                  duly noted.  I'm kind of an old-timer and I don't consider flaming or condescension to be inherently hostile, so I apologize for misreading the context.

                  I hope you understand that my main objection was to the fact that Peter was equating otherwise reasonable "second thoughts" with a desire for "insurgent fighting and American deaths, so that [it] might benefit a Democratic candidate".  that seemed like a poorly considered and inflammatory position to me, regardless of how it was meant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site