LYou are extremely ideological while seemingly ignorant of that fact, and you refuse to entertain any concept or idea that you personally haven't experienced.
Ted you are so focused on being against Bush that it blinds you to other ideas.
If I am, its because I see him as a serious threat to our democracy. That motivates me in a way that nothing else can.
I am willing to entertain just about any concept or idea and I have shown that willingness hear. Entertain doesn't mean agree with but when I disagree I at least make arguments against the idea.
And I don't?
I look at the points, think about them, and then accept, reject, or withhold judgment on them.
Tim, your statement above sounds very rational and open but my experience of your process is that you look at the points, think about them and then reject them.........period.
That is entertaining the concepts and ideas. Many of the people I deal on SI with just dismiss other ideas out of hand. To be fair this doesn't just include people who are more liberal. There are a lot of conservatives on SI who are similarly dismissive of liberals. I am not one of them.
I can agree to that.
Add that to the fact that you don't want to admit that you might be wrong
The fact that I might be wrong goes without saying. Its a given, but you don't seem to recognize that given for yourself. People who disagree aren't just mistaken they are "blind", or "extreme partisans".
That isn't true.......during the war right after shock and awe when Iraq seemed to collapse with ease, I started to admit I might have been wrong in my view of what would happen. Frankly, I was stunned and I said so on SI. I was embarrassed that I had so misread the situation. Events since then, of course, have confirmed my original expectations.
BTW I have never heard that kind of honesty from any of the GOP members of this thread including you. Ten has gotten close but no tamale. In fact, that kind of honesty seems to be absent from most Republicans, in general, and is becoming a cliche for this White House. They don't admit when they are wrong and they are rarely honest.
And btw this is not just a American liberal's observation.........its an international one as well.
Its much like DR. Instead of admitting that there are potentially fatal problems in Iraq, he suggests we are in a particularly negative phase, and in the end, it will all work out.
The wording of that statement illustrates what I am talking about. You are so certainly right that others must know it deep down and they should admit it to the thread, or perhaps they need to admit it to themselves first. You don't even seem to entertain the thought that you might also be wrong.
How can you say that "admitting that there are potentially fatal flaws" is a sign that I don't think I can be wrong. I am not saying for certain that there are fatal flaws, just that there might be and maybe we should consider what that possibility will mean for our soldiers.
Instead, you once again try to hang me with it. And if DR is uncertain in the least, he should make that known. Instead, he denies there are any problems and he continues to believe that we are succeeding in our mission.
Frankly, at this stage of the game, I think that position is a sign of mental instability.
Also you positions are not nuanced. Iraq is a muddled situation, maybe it could be considered a mess, but you look at it (or at least post about it as if you did look at it) as if it was obviously a practical disaster and a great moral failing or rare magnitude. You complain about the mote in my eye before removing the plank in yours. If you want to assert that Iraq is such a horrible thing both practically and morally then I am willing to entertain the idea, and I wouldn't call you blind if I continue to disagree. What I would call you blind or unreasonable for, is for being so sure that you are right, that any opinion that dissents from an idea that you hold strongly must be a sign of some sort of failing in the person you are debating with.
I will agree with you....I feel very sure of my opinion and I believe the evidence to date supports my position. What you hear in my posts is frustration......frustration because no matter how bad the circumstances, you all brush them off as minor. That would be fine if this were just a video game but real people are dying and real $$$ are being burned.
Adding to my concern and frustration is that I don't believe the people in charge know what they are doing. I feel there is more than enough evidence to confirm that belief and yet I hear you all act as if I am being unreasonable. And that is your response to every malfunction by this administration.
So not only to have to contend with policy issues with which I don't agree, I have to listen to a blending of church and state, a leader who believes he is a representative of God and watch as my country makes one blunder after another. And I am worried that in the final analysis, our democracy will be the one jeopardized and lost.
Similarly Bush in your apparent opinion isn't just a bad president but an evil incompetent president (or one who is so incompetent or weak that he lets evil people around him control things).
Why do you think that's not possible?
Not only is that an extreme position but also you don't stick to just arguing your position in rational terms. Your post drip hatred for Bush, and not just for Bush but for those who support him.
And where were you when I was accused of being unAmerican, unpatriotic slime because I didn't believe Bush and his WMDs story, and did not think the war was a good thing? If you don't like my hate, where were you when I was the recipient of all kinds of GOP hate. Do you ever listen to how GOP people talk to non GOP people.........all they do is spout hate for anyone who disagrees with me. Frankly, I am giving back some of the GOP's own medicine. And before you post back that I am biased, take a trip over the G W Bush thread and watch how GOP posters treat liberals. They make DR look like a piker.
Tim, you need to look around and see how your peers behave in general. They are not nice........and that's not my bias, its a common perception.....both of Republicans and particularly neocons.
If you don't hate his supporters here you at least belittle them and consider the fact that they could support him (or even just say certain attacks against him are inaccurate) to be a sign of some personal weakness or failing.
Tim, I would love to think you are this incredibly fair and objective person, but again, when DR and Stevo Harris were calling me and other liberals on this thread every name in the book, I didn't hear you jump up and accuse them of being belittling or mean spirited. Your lips were tightly sealed.
I became the way I am now because I saw there is no reasoning or compromising with Reps. They take a 'no prisoners' posture, and now that's the posture I take.
Its just like with Bush.........with the UN and our allies, he was very condescending before the Iraqi war. He all but called the UN a POS. Non agreeing Europe was old Europe......corrupt and decayed. Suddenly, now, that things are not going so well, he's changing his tune. Do you think people are stupid and can't see thru his BS? Old Europe is laughing their butts off.
We have few friends in the world.........do you think that's because Bush is so nice but people are generally mean........or that every envy's us? No.....he is hated because he acted like a butthole with hubris and mendacity. Just as he is hated so are many on SI.
I know you will deny all this but Tim, dude, its the truth.
If you want to consider Bush "a fired employee" fine, I disagree but I have no problem with your opinion. What I do have a problem with is the though that anyone who doesn't consider him to be "a fired employee" to be limited, highly partisan, blinded, extremely ideological, ignorant, stupid, and/or foolish.
Fine.......I hear you.
ted |
