Empire of the Iguanadons

So I was out in the car at lunch and dial flipped to General David Petraeus giving his testimony before Congress this morning. The basic gist of what I heard was that the surge is working, we're bringing security to Iraq, and the Iraqis are on the road to being able to defend and secure themselves with minimal help from us. We've managed to stabilize Anbar Province, which 6 months ago was basically a nightmare from hell. More and more Iraqis are fed up with Al Qaeda and have been joining the fight to get rid of them. Petraeus has filed recommendations with his superiors to begin drawing down the surge troops as early as December, expecting to return to pre-surge levels by next July. All in all, very good news coming out of Iraq these days.

But you'd never know it by listening to the democrats. All they want to do is talk about how we've failed. The war is lost. We need to pull out now. Just today during the news break at 11am they had another democrat from California jumping on the "surrender now" bandwagon. I forget his name, but he's on my ever growing list of traitors to this country. Right up there with the lunatic fringe at moveon.org and the "General Betray Us" ad they threw together.

I'd like someone to explain to me why the senate confirmed this guy if they all think he's a lying bastard? Wouldn't you vote to block confirmation if you had such a low opinion of him? Why have him be the one to deliver the report if you've already decided you won't listen to what the man has to say? It couldn't possibly be because he's reporting the truth, which you don't want to hear, right? Or maybe it's because what he has to say won't get you re-elected next year. Yeah. I think that's it. You guys got away with this in Vietnam. We're not going to let you get away with it in Iraq. The longer I listen to this kind of crap go on, in a time of war, when our troops need us the most, the more I'm convinced beyond a shadow of all doubt that to be a democrat is to be evil.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

He's totally pegged you on the "I'm right, you're wrong, goodbye" thing, though. Been that way as long as I've known you, but we don't hold it against you. Tee hee.

Well Whir, when I'm right, I'm right. He can characterize it any way he wants but it doesn't change the truth of the matter. You can attempt to paint me with the same brush if you like. Just because you agree with David doesn't make either one of you right.

I happen to feel very strongly about what it means to be a patriot, and my analysis of the situation leads only to sedition. I honestly don't see how there could be any other logical interpretation if you look at their actions as well as their words.

If I had wanted to stifle debate on the issue here it would have taken only a few clicks of the mouse to post something and then close off comments. If I had been over on some liberal blog site defending this position in an argument it would likely have been censored out, and I'd be banned. Always amazing to me that the vast majority of the conservative sites I've been to will let opposing viewpoints stand and be discussed, yet they're supposed to be the fascist dictators who are robbing everyone of their rights. Quite the paradox I'd say.

There you go getting defensive again. You're getting all itchy about something I wasn't talking about, and in the meantime you neatly sidestepped the main points I was making. :-) Since you like giving me hints, here's one for you: you have not responded to my charges of your own hypocrisy in the face of what is clearly the hypocrisy of your "opponents" at places like MoveOn and DailyKos. You have not addressed my point that two wrongs do not make a right.

Obviously, that is correct. You keep trying to paint me/us with the MoveOn brush, and that is your fundamental mistake: you are fighting a giant strawman war, and you are not debating with the people who are trying to talk back to you; you are tilting at windmills off yonder, arguing positions that are not the ones being made to you. You are so upset about this issue that you assume anybody disagreeing with you must all be in the same sack, with the exact same formatted brain about everything at all. It'd be as if I assumed every Republican were the same, which would be a ridiculously ignorant thing to assume.

Nobody is saying you're stifling debate here; you're just saying that those who vocally disagree with you on some of these issues are traitors and should be executed. It's a little different. :-)



Maybe you should stop and listen instead of assuming automatically you have all the answers and those who disagree are wrong. Who knows -- maybe you'll end up still feeling in the right, maybe you'll nuance your position a bit. The world is very complicated...

My statement that you misunderstood what it is was based on that quote from your own words. It demonstrates to me you lacked the understanding of what I was talking about, yet chose to challenge me on the statement. It's not being defensive to call bullshit and ask you to look up what you're trying to use as an argument against me. What MoveOn and DailyKos are doing has nothing to do with the broadcast industry or the "Fairness Doctrine". Therefore I fail to see what charges of hypocrisy I'm supposed to have responded to.

You tried to tie their angle on free speech into my argument that the actions of Senators and Congressmen are treasonous and seditious. It was a nice try, I'll admit, but I didn't fall for it. Since the two don't equate, I'm not sure what you expected me to say about it.

If you were getting at assessing your viewpoint as being part of the wacko fringe, that's what happens when you defend their positions in an argument. One is left to assume, in the absence of a contrary declaration, that you are in fact part of the group being discussed. But again, you brought that out as an apparent tangent of distraction to try and deflect my charges of treason against our so-called leaders in Congress. It didn't work.

I may not be the best at debating these issues, nor am I the best at expressing myself in words on a page, but I know a dodge argument when I see it. If you don't want to be labeled, then discussing the point would be helpful. Maybe come up with something solid to convince me that Reid, Pelosi, Lantos, and Kucinich are actual true patriots instead of the traitors their actions show them to be. Just a thought

See, this is exactly the kind of thing you are talking about. You assume that because I share their disagreement, I must share their positions and defend them as well. You also assume that even when I do share an actual position, I must share all of their reasons for holding that position.

I mean, really:



I've said as much several times. I'm neither Daily Kos nor MoveOn, in case you hadn't noticed.

You accuse me of not liking being labeled, and not "discussing the point" -- but you seem unable to start the debate without first painting your opponents with various labels that imply that you feel they have no credibility. I find it quite natural that I first seek to tell you your labels are wrong, because we can have no rational discussion until you recognize that I am my own independent thinking person and am not a formatted, brainwashed clone of some party line. All I've gotten so far is the same vicious lashing out against those who disagree with you in general: it's as if you're trying to hold me personally accountable for other people who disagree with Bush's actions. It's silly.

Fortunately, this debate simply isn't important, really, because we're not actually in a position to change anything. So for politeness's sake, I'd like to mention that I probably won't continue much on this or similar kinds of discussion.

Odd. I tried making a reply but apparently Akismet thought it was spam.
(If this one gets marked as spam, you can go ahead and delete it...)

Oh, I'm not implying that they don't have any credibility. I'm coming right out in the open and shouting it for all to hear. Perhaps that wasn't as obvious as it should have been.

The problem here isn't me labeling or being blunt. The problem is you've tried to make it out like I think people who disagree with me are traitors and should be shot. I never said that, you did. I said the traitors in Congress should be shot - and I think I've made it pretty clear specifically which type of people I was talking about. I used Reid, Pelosi, Lantos, and Kucinich as examples of exactly what I meant. You were the one who decided to expand that beyond its scope and claim I said that anyone who disagrees with Bush is a traitor. Again, I never said any such thing.

The reason that resulted in you being painted with the same brush as MoveOn and Daily Kos is because it's the exact tactics they both use to try and discredit a legitimate attempt to point out seditious behavior. Usually they're far less coy about it and just come right out and call people fascists for daring to say it. I'm not trying to hold you accountable for anything other than diverting the argument. You haven't given any counterpoints to why the people I've mentioned aren't traitors other than to say I'm labeling people who disagree with Bush.



A common exit strategy for someone who's argument has been torn down. At this stage I'm forced to conclude that I'm either better at debating this than I thought, or you had no direct counterargument to the treason and sedition charges. Either way, nothing personal was intended and hopefully no hard feelings?

As for Akismet, I didn't see anything spam-worthy in there. Sometimes it just gets its panties in a knot

I tried to introduce a graceful exit strategy for both of us to avoid precisely such hard feelings. You will note that I didn't tell you that you were wrong and I was right, or that I was stopping because I thought you were stupid, or anything like that. But instead of recognizing that I was trying to end the conversation in a friendly way, you chose to insult me, claiming victory on the basis that I had no way to continue the discussion in my favor. *shrug* But of course it's not as if I'm going to hold a grudge, dislike you or anything of the sort. I am just pointing out that I would have preferred that there be an exchange of olive branches instead of a unilateral declaration of victory.

Hehe, I wasn't speaking specifically of this particular case. You're just a stubborn guy who holds to his principals regardless of whether or not it might be in your best interest. It's not a bad thing, really, but people that haven't known you for as long as say, Erik and I, might get the wrong idea from your hard headed views and rhetoric.

You'll notice that though I often disagree with you on things, I usually don't make a huge deal out of it. It's easier, though often less effective, to present a scenario to exemplify my views, which works rather better than just trying to argue with you. I usually don't get anywhere, but how often have we ever had any sort of real argument?

It's sort of like how Conner was clueless about my usual sense of sarcasm when we all first started defacing this blog with pointless comments. Okay, I started, it's an easy cause to champion after all.

Sedition still sounds like a kama sutra move to me. ~_~

David,

No worries. We could have gone on for another 30 comments and it might well have looked like things were turning nasty and that I hated your guts, but I'm sure Dwip and Whir can both attest that such occurrences in the past have never had any lasting effects.

Whir,

You see it as stubborn. I see it as committed. I stand by what I believe. Yes, sometimes people do have a hard time dealing with it. There are some things I'm just not going to compromise on though.

Don't fret it, Akismet hates me too.

Samson: I'm really impressed, for a topic that I wouldn't have wanted to touch at all, you're up to 37 comments already..

Apparently it was a much hotter issue than I though. Just think, 37 (38 now) comments from a very small number of people. God help us all if this place ever gets noticed

39 now... You aint kidding about that either. I wonder how many of our comments on other parts of this (and other) site(s) would count as sedition by the definition you've posted if our opinions were ever taken too seriously by the wrong people.

I'm sure there's some sort of legal standard that gets applied to determine if what you've said or done rises to "discontent". I stand firm in my belief that Reid and company would easily fulfill that standard if anyone had the guts to file the charges.

40 comments and counting....

Half the comments aren't related to the actual entry, however, which disqualifies them.

There's no standard that says they have to be

But it has been the post with the most topic drift I've ever seen in my life.

*L* 43rd comment..



now that's just too funny, given how many posts I'm sure you've seen over the years on the various forums you frequent and how few people are involved in this thread... on the other hand, I can think of a forum I frequent that would put this to shame for that particular title all too easily in quite a few threads.. ;D

I presently have a thread somewhere with about 290K replies. It has no subject. It just won't die.

On a blog, Whir?!?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about something on the TechIMO forums. I've seen stuff there with thousands and thousands of posts.

That would make much more sense, I've never seen a blog post, even on news sites like slashdot, that had more than about 100 comments or so.