Why the barrage?

[sgtmac_46]

1. "Get a grip, robertson, this isn't healthy for you." Well, gosh. Thank ahura-mazda that nobody's stooping to personal insults rather than discuss the issues. I'd respond in kind, but I'm afraid that a) I don't actually think of people I don't know in such terms, and b) I don't actually believe it's right to make such comments.

Nah, you just call us all fascists, right wing religious wackos, american taliban and other terms of endearment. It's a little late to take the high road for you robertson as anyone who reads your posts can probably attest.

Besides, I don't think telling you to watch your blood pressure is a personal attack, at least not one in the ranks of calling someone fascist (Small "f" of course). I actually like debating with you, robertson, and i'm merely pointing out that you need to work on your anxiety so that we can continue to debate for years to come.

2. When Janeann Garofalo starts trumpeting that she and her liberal buddies have elected a leftist government and everybody who sees the world differently had better watch out, I will cheerfully start ranking on Janeann Garofalo.

No you won't.

3. Until that happens, I believe I'll just continue to look at the ACTUAL world.

So you're the one person on the planet who is seeing the "actual world", huh?

4. Sigh. Everybody entitled own opinion and arguments, obviously. Everybody also entitled try to understand opinions and arguments--for ex, where all this anxiety's coming from.

That's what I was trying to understand, robertson, where is all your anxiety coming from. Jeez, I try to understand opinions and arguments, and you get offended by that.

 

[Tgace]

So you're the one person on the planet who is seeing the "actual world", huh?

If he's right, things are much worse than I thought...

 

[sgtmac_46]

If he's right, things are much worse than I thought...

Amen.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Huh. I hadn't know that Janeanne Garofalo and her buddies had been announcing their success at electing a President, establishing a majority in Congress, etc.

Until then, I believe I'll just quote Joanna Russ', "The Female Man: "Why, how remarkable of you to be experts on things that have never happened."

Incidentally, still waitin' to see chapter-and-verse on who I called a fascist, a member of the Taliban, etc. Funny that such doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

 

[Marginal]

Nah, you just call us all fascists, right wing religious wackos, american taliban and other terms of endearment. It's a little late to take the high road for you robertson as anyone who reads your posts can probably attest.

Reminds me of your clever "paradox" featuring liberals, unpopular wars, and women somehow.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Reminds me of your clever "paradox" featuring liberals, unpopular wars, and women somehow.

Oh you mean where I pointed out that certain activists believe A) That no US soldier should be at war in Iraq but that B) Women US soldiers should be at war in Iraq. That's not my paradox, I merely pointed it out. I still don't see how that equates with calling someone a fascist, right wing, religious wacko, but if you see it, fine.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Huh. I hadn't know that Janeanne Garofalo and her buddies had been announcing their success at electing a President, establishing a majority in Congress, etc.

Heh, heh, only because they haven't HAD any success electing a President and establishing a majority in Congress, I thought that would have been painfully obvious to you by now. I do recall them suggesting, however, that the president is a moron, a fascist, a dictator, a threat to the world, and insinuating he should be assasinated. Hmmm. How's that for invective?

Until then, I believe I'll just quote Joanna Russ', "The Female Man: "Why, how remarkable of you to be experts on things that have never happened."

Alrighty then, sounds familiar.

Incidentally, still waitin' to see chapter-and-verse on who I called a fascist, a member of the Taliban, etc. Funny that such doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

Why bother, anyone can read your posts and see for themselves your insinuations about those who disagree with you.

 

[michaeledward]

Why bother, anyone can read your posts and see for themselves your insinuations about those who disagree with you.

I've read his posts.

I don't recall seeing Dr. Rmcrobertson refering to everyone with whom he disagrees as a 'fascist bigots' or 'religious wackos blinders'.

And yet, somehow, the claim keeps re-appearing.

And, one more thing. Someone made the statement ...

Keep in minde for every Savage there's a Janine Garrafalo.

To which, I have to say ... No ... No there is not.

If you would care to get into a 'tit-for-tat' competition of right-wing vs. left-wing commentators, and the comments they make ... I'll be happy to participate in that thread.

 

[Marginal]

Oh you mean where I pointed out that certain activists believe A) That no US soldier should be at war in Iraq but that B) Women US soldiers should be at war in Iraq. That's not my paradox, I merely pointed it out. I still don't see how that equates with calling someone a fascist, right wing, religious wacko, but if you see it, fine.

Both are generializations that rely on mapping stereotypical traits of a broad movement onto the beliefs of individuals. No real connection between one statement and the next except that they fit neatly into your preconceptions.

For example, "someone who opposes one war must be a pacifst. Therefore people who are opposed to one particular war are hypocrites if they demand job equality for the participants."

Great, but one doesn't follow the other, and it's still a nonargument rather than a scathing attack. Might as well just be calling the others in the debate a "poopyhead" for all its effectiveness.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Both are generializations that rely on mapping stereotypical traits of a broad movement onto the beliefs of individuals. No real connection between one statement and the next except that they fit neatly into your preconceptions.

For example, "someone who opposes one war must be a pacifst. Therefore people who are opposed to one particular war are hypocrites if they demand job equality for the participants."

It's a nice try, but irrelavent. We are referring to the SAME war. Further, they are saying that NO US soldier should be fighting in that war, none whatsoever...except, that women need to continue to fight. If you can pull one group of soldiers out of the conflict, then you certainly go a long way to removing everyone from that conflict. Problem is, that is a contradictory political objective. It's merely philosophical schizophrenia created by trying to support two contradictory political beliefs, but call it what you will.

Great, but one doesn't follow the other, and it's still a nonargument rather than a scathing attack. Might as well just be calling the others in the debate a "poopyhead" for all its effectiveness.

I've been called the equivalent of "poopyhead" multiple times in these forums, do it again if you feel like it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...hate to kick over the blocks, but the actual argument was that a) women soldiers should be allowed--indeed, encouraged--to take any assignment in the military for which they are qualified, including combat; b) the war in Iraq is stupid, because it was started with a pack of lies, does nothing about terrorism, involves precisely the nation-building the President insisted he would not be doing, and is being carried out with inadequate equipment.

The two things have little to do with each other, and are certainly not either contradictory nor mutually exclusive.

Self-contradiction would involve saying something like, "The US should not be nation-building shortly before getting the country into a war that's all about nation-building;" mutually exclusive would be something like, "The US is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, which is why it's OK that we have several thousands in illegal camps, and have tortured a few of them to death."

 

[Marginal]

It's a nice try, but irrelavent. We are referring to the SAME war.

This particular war's incidental to how people think the US millitary should generally operate.

Further, they are saying that NO US soldier should be fighting in that war, none whatsoever...except, that women need to continue to fight.

Saying the war is pointless is one thing. Saying that the army shouldn't be needlessly understaffed is another. Similar issue on the whole armor for troops debacle.

If you can pull one group of soldiers out of the conflict, then you certainly go a long way to removing everyone from that conflict.

Not really. You simply weaken the group as a whole, decreasing their odds of survival. (Getting the troops currently in Iraq all killed isn't really what the dissenters have in mind.)

I've been called the equivalent of "poopyhead" multiple times in these forums, do it again if you feel like it.

Might want to reread that previous post again. You missed the point entirely.

 

[TonyM.]

Good post. Reminds me of how the pentagon destroyed moral in the RVN by rotating individuals out rather than units.

 

[elder999]

OK, fine. So here's my question: what are these people so scared of, assuming they're really on the warpath and not just trying to get and keep listeners? Why the constant barrage of madness, the constant attacks on everybody with the slightest divergent ideas? Why the endless fussbudgeting around with other people's bedroom habits? Why the constant demands for more patriotism, more more more, with the likes of Michael Savage setting the rules for what patriotism is and how to display it?

.....there must be other explanations; what are they?

If you say it loudly enough and long enough, it becomes true. It's a fact that it is the truth for many people, and more are convinced by simply listening to the stuff-why do you think there are so many less "centrists" in a nation that used to be run by them?

Best example: people who should know better quoting Rush Limbaugh on global warming.

 

[michaeledward]

rmcroberston
Account Closed

Sorry to see you go. You will be missed.

Michael

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry to see you go. You will be missed.

Michael

I'm not sure where to voice this, but since you started, I'll echo. Sorry to see you go...now both Roberts I really respected are gone...

 

[Flatlander]

.

:asian:

 

[psi_radar]

We butted heads on more than one occasion, but I'll miss him. I noticed he no longer posts on Kenponet, either. All the best to you, Robert!

 

[Josh]

God has put us here to be in this battle of Good vs. Evil

 

[michaeledward]

God has put us here to be in this battle of Good vs. Evil

:roflmao:

Now that is a non-sequitur if I have ever seen one.