The shame of Cindy Sheehan

[Pangloss]

Among the people I have seen supporting the war, I have not seen any who didn't find some way to give up some element of their personal integrity to enable that support. With you, any person who opposes the war in Iraq is automatically inferior, suspect, and probably talks during the movies.

 

Again, you make my case for me. You see, your mistake, Thomas, is that you don't seem to realize that nobody here sees me as a right-wing extremist, or as somebody who has supported the war. Only you. You didn't pick on a Rush Limbaugh type, Mr. Franken. The guy you're painting with as a racist right-winger is actually a moderate, centrist, open-minded, fair, objective, libertarian with a very slight tendency to the right (which I have no qualms about admitting). The fact that you see that as far right defines you, and everybody here knows it. You've defined yourself, Thomas, not me.

 

Your arguments that you are fair and balanced here would carry a lot more weight it you did not dismiss Michael Moore as an extremist nutcase

 

In other words, in your view, anybody who dismisses Michael Moore cannot be fair and balanced. Interesting.

 

I perceive him as someone who actually dug up the truth to put in his film.

 

Another quote that says a lot about you. Didn't you just accuse me of not knowing if Cindy Sheehan lied or not? But in fact I've actually proven that she lied, with documented evidence. But when people show evidence that Michael Moore's "truth" is not, in fact, the truth at all, you declare the opposition to be liars. You're looking in the mirror, guy.

 

One person will say "These are verifiable facts. Let's go with them no matter where they take us." Another person will say that they aren't facts if they lead us where we don't want to go. I perceive you as the latter type.

 

But in fact, aren't you actually talking about yourself? I listen to both sides of an argument and then discuss issues and facts on a level playing field. You listen to one side of an argument and automatically reject the other side, regardless of their evidence. You're talking about yourself, Thomas, not me.

 

You seem to excuse US actions as necessary when if other people did them you would condemn them as war crimes. I think that the basis for your counterarguments is that what is good for the U.S. is good, period.

 

Prove it. Let's see your evidence for where I said that. Post it, right here, right now.

 

Or are you able to stand behind your words?

 

I cannot penetrate the hypocrisy or the dissociation anywhere, or the barriers of violence and verbal abuse. The last thing that my fellow Americans want is to be reminded that an unimpaired conscience would not have allowed us to invade Iraq in the first place. Among the people I have seen supporting the war, I have not seen any who didn't find some way to give up some element of their personal integrity to enable that support.

 

Another fine quote that says more about you than it does about the people you're talking about.

 

 

Although I will say that you have one thing 100% right about me. I do indeed have a very poor opinion of people who talk during movies. (grin)

[Pangloss]

At least you are not using a drill sergeant voice to conduct ordinary business, physically getting in my face acting like you are the caulk of the walk, physically present to shove me out of your way because I'm a "*****" and you're a "big man" because you "served." Not that I'm all that sure that you wouldn't.

 

It does happen that I believe that some of the worst consequences of a war like this are what it does to a society. A substantial increase in overbearing idiots who will grow up to be cops who shoot innocent people, among other bad things, is not good for society. Neither is a substantial increase in people who think that they are superior to others and have the right to bully them. Even more not so is an increase in the acceptance of bullying. That's one thing I see war as, a training ground for bullies to prepare them to play with the big boys.

 

 

Gee. I find myself wondering if you have access to any automatic weapons. Are you sure you might not be better off seeking professional help, rather than using message boards for your therapy, Thomas?

 

This is just... sad. Sad that you have been so abused that you live in fear of finding bullies everywhere you go, sad that you think that people who defeat you in logical debate are bullies, sad that you think society is screwed up when it's obviously the other way around, and sad that you don't know that the phrase is actually "cock of the walk".

 

At any rate, I believe I understand you now.

 

I'm finished here. You can say whatever you like in conclusion, if you wish, and I appreciate the discussion. You have a nice evening.

[Thomas Kirby]

I am painfully aware that the phrase is "cock of the walk." "Caulk of the walk" was a deliberate malapropism. It was a put-down of anyone who thinks of himself as "cock of the walk."

 

The crack about whether I have access to automatic weapons is revealing about your character. Oh yes, anyone who expresses the fact that he is tired of the BS he is exposed to is automatically going to shoot up a fast food joint. How about the idea that I feel that I have the right to express my frustration with the BS and your crack about automatic weapons is aimed at suppressing the expression of that right? It's especially ironic to read this coming from someone who so ardently supports a war by the US against a very small country. Supporting a war is supporting shooting a number of strangers including noncombatants.

 

You haven't defeated me in logical debate. You haven't tried logical debate.

 

I wouldn't be afraid of finding bullies everywhere if there weren't so many everywhere. I'm sorry that you find it necessary to put me down for that. If you didn't, I would think more of your intelligence and character. Also, not very many people are fooled by your fake compassion which you use to be catty. You have just insulted the intelligence of most of the audience.

[Thomas Kirby]

So it got a bit more personal than I would have liked, Pangloss. Even so, how about we keep arguments concerning this thread in this thread?