Mickey Kaus…
…explains the way the Republican suicide pact that is the latest Gang of 8 amendment to the immigration bill would work. Or rather, not work.
You know, I’ve never been one to reflexively knock the so-called “Republican establishment” or even RINOs, but I am coming to despise them more with every passing day.
You know, I’ve never been one to reflexively knock the so-called “Republican establishment” or even RINOs, but I am coming to despise them more with every passing day.
They’re just not that smart, are they?
Amnesty makes border enforcement much harder, because it provides an incentive to illegally enter the country. Either to take part in the latest amnesty, or else to take part in the next one . . .
What would really work is internal enforcement. Go to work sites, round some up and send ’em home. That would encourage self deportation, which we see happen with only mild internal enforcement, or when states like AZ just pass a law or begin the process to pass such a law.
Enforcement changes the trade offs illegals must consider. It is one thing to live here understanding you are secure, another thing if you might just lose much of your stuff if caught and deported.
I hate them with a passion. I expect Democrats to be stupid, but RINOs are just plain evil–and traitors to their own kind!!!
Steve: they may be “smart” in terms of working for their own interests, which are not necessarily the same as our interests, or the country’s.
So we’re faced with the evil Democrat party (and in my later years I am convinced of their bad faith) or the stupid party.
I obviously disagree with “Tater” above, but I do recognize that RINO’s are indeed foolish to throw in with Dems; do they still actually harbor the outlook that Dems are well-intentioned? At least “serving their own interests,” however misdirected and venal, has a certain logic to it.
Romney and Ryan.
Ah yes, those were the days. Double-R RINOs.
It all makes Gingrich look so much better, now that it’s too late.
T: I think there is something about the Senate that drives people somewhat mad as soon as they enter that exclusive club. The Senate seems to be one of those “total institutions” that becomes a world unto itself, and its Republican members, anyway, get swallowed into jockeying for position (including some sort of lofty ideal of being the great mediators) there.
Then again, perhaps money is involved. I really don’t know.
Don Carlos:
None of it makes Gingrich look the least bit better. Gingrich has not changed; he is exactly what I wrote about in many posts. Also, he would have lost in double digits.
That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some good qualities. He certainly does. One of them is being a fighter, and at least having some conservative principles that he would fight for.
My point about Newt exactly, Neo.
R-R didn’t lose in double digits, but what do we call them? Losers.
I’d rather have a flawed fighter (Newt) than nice cavers (R-R).
they may be “smart” in terms of working for their own interests..
Exactly so. And for most I suspect being elected, rather thatn principal, is what they see as their own interest. Doesn’t mean the can’t miscalculate though. This is where is helps to primary the worst offenders. That may not be the best policy for getting elected, but you can’t win long term if you surrender in the short term.
This morning I was contemplating the rise of the professional politician, politicians who have done little else in their lives. There have always been politicians from traditionally political families — the Adams, Bushes, Gores, Kennedys, Pelosis — but it seems to me that there are more folks who have made politics a career an early age. Was it always so?
Neo-neocon,
You comment regarding the Senate reminds me of an old story:
An older Congressman is seen being nice to and respecting a Congressman from the opposing party. A freshman Congressman asks: “How can you be nice to him? He’s the enemy.” The older Congressman responds: “Son, he’s the opposition. The Senate is the enemy!”
With your comment as background this is more than just a joke.
Don Carlos:
Gee, I missed the part where Romney “caved” and supported this immigration bill. I don’t have time to do any research right now, but my recollection is he was pretty strong on immigration.
So we agree on our characterization of Gingrich, and what his chances were for election. I much preferred Romney because he is fairly conservative, and at least had a chance of winning and stopping Obama from getting a second term. That was uppermost in my mind, and I have not seen a single reason since to change my mind.
and Neo,
The “total institutions” sounds very much like the old “company town” of mining and railroad history.
Regarding a Gingrich candidacy, IMO it doesn’t matter that he would have lost by double digits; miss by an inch, miss by a mile. There is no second place in a presidential election.
I agree, however, that Romney-Ryan became the best possibility for a win in 2012. The only question in my mind about Gingrich is bound up with 20/20 hindsight. Having lost the election anyway, would he have been better at coalescing traditionalist/conservative opinion to better rally against the Obama Dems and Obama policy? If so, perhaps he would have been a better choice.
Yeah, Romney went to the right of Perry on immigration and then that was cited as the reason he did so poorly amongst Hispanics (and not, the racial appeal of Obama and the prospect of a bolstered welfare state, of course.)
This group is doomed if they capitulate here.
Campaign remarks are unfortunately not binding. See Obama on that.
I expect we would have had more than our share of disappointments had R-R won. Just like disappointments with Rubio.
Tornado touch down just south of town and the tornado warning remains in effect for another hour. Outside the basement window I can see a downed tree in my neighbor’s yard. The whole of this old house seems to vibrate from the winds that are gusting around 60 mph. I’m in basement with dogs and cats, the laptop, and an emergency radio. My sweet heart called to let me know she’s in the shelter at her office. So the senate is not of immediate concern.
BUT, I’m sick of that “deliberative body” and its pompous fools. The 17th was a big mistake for states’ rights
The question is why do RINO’s split with the party so often while Democrats almost never do. One reason is that the Democratic leadership is a big city machine trained group. They know how to keep waverers in line. Republicans (in keeping with a more individual rights background) don’t really have the heart to do this, but they will be happy to provide earmarks. Also, it’s hard to be a Republican in bluish NE or purplish states with the Press, Universities and social climbers all on the democratic side. Most RINOs think they can cave on some issues and will some protection or kudos from this group. It doesn’t work as the Dems are out for blood.
Think of them a little like teenagers. Gently reprimand them when wrong and publicly congratulate them when right (ish). They need to know you have their back when they take on hard (for them) choices.
I see Romney in a different light then McCain.
And I actually think Romney would have been a damn fine POTUS, even if I wouldn’t agree with him on some issues.
Y’know, it occurs to me that . . .
Liberals/lefties perceive themselves as enlightened, and righties/conservatives as benighted, and I’ve tended to chafe at those characterizations for a long time now.
But if the immigration bill passes, with Republican help, I can more readily understand why the liberals/lefties do think of righties/conservatives as stoopid. Trouble is, that applies to SOME/MANY righties/conservatives, but too many lefties/liberals, in their bigotry, apply it to ALL.
Anyway, stoopid is as stoopid does. I’m agreeing with our host(ess): “I am coming to despise them more with every passing day.”
Being a senator is a really cool job. And don’t most people who get elected senators have the job for a very, very long time? How do they manage that?
It’s because they can bring home the goodies to enough special interest groups to ensure their reelection every six years. And they can do that — bring home the goodies — because they cut deals with other senators.
An illuminating piece right now at NRO on how this works with the immigration bill:
“The question is why do RINO’s split with the party so often while Democrats almost never do.”
That’s two questions and of the two, “why do RINO’s split with the party so often” is by far the more important.
I can’t agree that, “they are like teenagers” or that they’re “just not that smart” or that RINOs are just plain evil—and traitors or that there’s “something about the Senate that drives people somewhat mad”… are sufficient to explain RINO’s behavior.
Sure there’s immaturity and everyone at times acts stupidly. Nor does evil and traitorous apply, unless one posits that half of America is evil and traitorous. And I doubt there’s anything in the Senate water fountains.
This is about calculated self-interest. RINO’s are not stupid. Rubio, McCain and Graham KNOW all of the valid objections Mickey Kaus writes of and Rubio, for one is on record prior to 2010 stating them.
RINO’s are pushing this bill despite all of the known objections and they are doing so because it is in their self-interest to do so. That self-interest comes down to one thing; RINO’s benefactors. Big Republican donors have made known that they favor amnesty and RINO’s know whereof their support comes from.
“Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said the Corker-Hoeven border security amendment would be a boon to the corporate interests who are quietly backing the immigration reform bill.”
Rubio’s top 5 contributors from 2007-2012; Club for Growth, Elliott Management, Senate Conservatives Fund, Goldman Sachs and McM Corp
McCain’s top 5 contributors from 2007-2012; Pinnacle West Capital, MJKL Enterprises, Go Daddy Group, NewsMax Media and Emerson
Graham’s top 17 contributors from 2007-2012; Scana Corp, Nelson, Mullins et al, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Motley Rice LLC, Boeing Co, General Electric, Milliken & Co, IDT Corp, Fluor Corp, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Lockheed Martin, Hess Corp, Thornton & Naumes, Michelin North America, Exelon Corp, Johnson Development, Time Warner
Geoffrey Britain, 5:13 pm —
Excellent, informative points. I am coming to despise them more with every passing day.
Neo:
Amen.
Preach it, sister!
I do rather dislike using a statement by Sen. Leahy about crony capitalism to support opposition to the bill, though.
I think his main intent is to sow dissension with Republican ranks. He’s long been a proponent of “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is mostly a pro-amnesty fig leaf, right?
Ann,
It appears that I was unclear.
Sen. Leahy does NOT support opposition to the bill, nor did he characterize the Corker-Hoeven amendment as “a crony capitalist giveaway to the many big money interests quietly backing immigration reform” in support of the opposition’s view.
Leahy is against the amendment but is “grudgingly” supporting it because he deems it necessary for passage. He characterized the amendment as “a crony capitalist giveaway to the many big money interests” to slam opposition to the bill.
In doing so however, Leahy inadvertently confirmed the existence of “the corporate interests who are quietly backing the immigration reform bill” and clumsily revealed the motivation behind the RINO’s support for the bill…
That is why I linked to Leahy’s unskillful attempt at political maneuvering.
He is implying that the amendment will make some corporate supporters of the bill, happier. But “the many big money interests quietly backing immigration reform” were doing so before the amendment was tacked on.
Those corporate interests are invariably involved when Republican Congressmen act as RINO’s instead of supporting the limited government, Constitutional principles they pay lip-service to…
I think it is more to the point to call them beltway Republicans then RINOs.
“I am coming to despise them more with every passing day. ”
It’s almost like everyone who is involved with this is purposely ignoring what happened in 1986, the elephant in the room.
Their timing is perfect, as it really doesn’t matter whether we vote Republican again, anyway. First Hillary will get elected as next POTUS, and then all the new ‘citizens’ assure a Democratic majority for as long as the eye can see. I’m giving up on the political process – going Galt as much as I can with limited means.
Screw the Republican Party, I will not vote for a party which desires to be a suicidal simpleton.
Welcome. C’mon in and find yourself a pew.
Is this the general Whig Moment?
Do those clueless idiots who just pocketed grocery bags full of legally laundered evil money even know that we are fully aware of the generational calamity they have so blithely inflicted on the nation?
Do they care? – They got theirs, right? And screw everyone else?
And the Dem’s? After killing tens of millions of in the wombs, do they think that they can make it right for that heinous evil by importing another country’s unwanted serfs?
Math, much?
I’d say hang ’em all, but sometimes hangin’ really is too good for the crime.
They are the real traitors to the Constitution and the country.
They make someone like Snowden, and the immense damage they’re willing to do for what is, in the final analysis, their mere personal gain, a piker.
…may they reap the whirlwind.
“call them beltway Republicans then RINOs.”
Fine, whatever the label, a turd is still a turd.
My point being that a majority of the Republican Party itself, not just our most despised RINO’s or “‘beltway’ Republicans”… is paying lip-service to limited government, Conservative principles and, without principled support for those principles, then the choice for America is a slow death by poisoned betrayal or the quick death that the Far Left offers.
The Tea Party’s very existence testifies to the Republican Party’s betrayal of the very principles, that they only pay lip service to…
davisbr,
Hanging would suffice but it means civil war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The Far Left is counting on that being so repulsive that conservatives will shrink from that price.
I’m trying to think of historical parallels for a political class that is this corrupt, venal, ignorant, depraved, and fundamentally unserious.
I’m thinking the late Roman Empire or the French aristocracy circa 1789.
Nothing good can possibly come from a political leadership that is unmoored from reality.
The power of the Left knows no bounds. People like Mitch who think they know how to fight them… they have no idea what it is they face.
They should sit down and shut up, for their own good if for nobody else’s.
They have no idea. At best, they know 1% of what the Left has done for the last 100 years in the US.
At worst, they think Democrats and Leftists are two different entities.
Geoffrey Britain –
My suspicion is that we are rapidly approaching the point where this is an actual class conflict.
And not just some policy disagreements amongst isolated wonks that amuse normal people, if they deign to notice at all, as they go about the business of their contented lives.
They aren’t quite so contented lately, are they? The curtain has been torn, and the tear worsens. They aren’t stupid. They’ve been happily ignorant, and blissfully asleep.
The mistake of the elite has been to awaken the giant.
That is a terrible, frightening thing in an armed country of free men, who may see the tyranny that the elite have been imposing upon all of us in the past through stealth and misdirection – but more-and-more with such reckless and breathtaking boldness and not bothering with even a fig leaf of cover – as a thing which both the left and the right have common cause with.
When the blinders go off everyone, what then are our real differences with those who live next door to us, in the same neighborhood, and just down the street?
Who, after all, truly benefits from the hunger games?
Regardless of what you think of Snowden, when you couple the debacle of sheer incompetence at the NSA with the insane madness of a polity corrupting the IRS in an attempt to defeat freedom itself, what sum do you stare at, in disbelief?
Those to blame aren’t the common man, they are the avaricious elites who have selfishly plundered the resources of a happy wealthy people for personal gain.
And out-right bold-faced lied in our faces about it.
My statement about the need for hanging are very, very pointedly directed, and limited in scope.
The core is rotten.
Oh doubtless we will vote a time or two more.
But.
There’s a wave forming, of those who wonder just how effective that vote can be, when those with political and financial power and means usurp the fundamentals of America, do so using the institutions of federal power.
We are not a helpless people, without hope. We will act.
“…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Indeed.
“At worst, they think Democrats and Leftists are two different entities.” Ymarsakar
I cannot let that pass without greater clarity. Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the liberal low-information voter and the committed leftist? That the average liberal would dance with the same delight as would Bill Ayers, as 25 million American’s were shipped off in ‘boxcars’?
davisbr:
When increasing numbers of people decide that the ballot box is no longer effective, there is serious trouble ahead.
I can’t get too exercised about Snowden when I watch the in-your-face treason going on in DC on a daily basis.
rickl –
Yep. And yep.
And yep.
But it is taking too damn long.
Watch out, neo. You are close to being a troglodyte hater; a tiny minded true believer; a person who cannot spell, or even smell, nuance, or nuanced reasoning and strategy. The finer points are now beyond you. You probably reside in Tulsa, and have yet to realize it.
Exceptional corruption can mimic extraordinary or fundamental corruption. Judge them by the content of their character and actions.
Si se puede.
“Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the liberal low-information voter and the committed leftist?”
I’m suggesting there is about as much difference there as with the Muslim on the street concerning jihad and the views of “extreme” Muslim warriors on jihad.
One faction is leading the charge, the other faction supports it or they get the torch instead.
The idea that there is a “Far Left” and that their objectives and organization structure are different from the “mainstream Left” and that this is again different and at odds with “Democrats” is due to an incomplete comprehension of Leftist insurgency methods and cellular systems.
It makes it look more optimistic to think that there is only a small, small fraction that needs to be discredited and defeated, that the “vast majority” can easily be converted. They won’t be easily converted from their religion of death.
I’ve been to some gatherings in New York of conservatives/Republicans over the last few years. I’ve met some RINOs: a couple of governors, senators, representatives.
The only thing that makes sense is to ashcan the idea that the professional politicians have “principles,” “ideals,” OR “love America.” Once you do that, and look at their actions in the harsh light of cynic, you will see that their behavior makes perfect sense.
Hypothetical: Person with mildly anti-Statist views, or even “liberal” views, wants to be in public office for personal emolument or aggrandizement. Person sees that he won’t stand a chance in hell of getting the endorsement of the Dimcrat Machine.
Person says, “screw it, I’ll run as a Republican and do an end-run around the Dimocrat Machine” (e.g., Bloomberg). Person gets elected as the slightly less rancid candidate than the Pinkos’ Choice.
Person gets into the Senate, and quickly sees that the Dimocrats rule the plantation — all favors and baksheesh are in their gift; as is all the power of the Bureaucratic State. Person decides to “make the best of things,” figuring cynically that the idealists are the Sucker Class.
Person continues in office, envying his Dimocrat colleagues whose lust for power is nakedly open, unpunished. But clings like a limpet to his particular rock, no matter the waves of indignation that wash over him — after all, where is the Sucker Class going to go?
I have met some of these men. You would recognize their names. I had only brief encounters with them, but you can read a Lot about a man or woman with eye contact, how they carry themselves when they believe they’re among a friendly crowd. You ask them a Constitutionalist question, and it’s like shooting into a dead rail on a billiard table: THONK.
I’ve also met some people who strike me as genuinely principled Americans. Few, but doughty. Most are in the House of “Representatives.”
I keep thinking of this remark by Frank Zappa.
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
gcotharn Says:
June 24th, 2013 at 11:12 pm
That made me LOL.
“I am coming to despise them more with every passing day. ”
I am going to the local town hall today and dropping my Republican affiliation. Not that they care, but I do.
A very depressing week: Immigration bill, Obama doing an end run to destroy the energy industry; just when I thought things might be turning, the left shows that it really can’t be stopped. I feel like just giving up.
rickl,
8:22 P.M.:
“I’m trying to think of historical parallels for a political class that is this corrupt, venal, ignorant, depraved, and fundamentally unserious.
I’m thinking the late Roman Empire or the French aristocracy circa 1789.”
Excellent points! This is exactly how I’ve come to feel during the past several months. And longer…
The word that comes to my mind is “degenerate” – That is, degenerate in an intellectual sense. Unmoored from the physical, economic, and social reality of the world as it actually exists.
Stopping the Left via politics is most likely futile.
The term that comes to my mind is “decadence”.
but I am coming to despise them more with every passing day
Welcome to the party. Unfortunately, the only gifts are more government power and corruption.
“Unmoored from the physical, economic, and social reality . . . .”
Isn’t that the actual definition of “psychotic”?
Ymarsakar at 1:17 am,
Please explain the “Leftist insurgency methods and cellular systems” that low-information liberal voters are involved in, as mere political support for leftist politicians is insufficient involvement to support the charge that they are part of those ‘systems and methods’.
That you make no distinction between Obama, his cabal and the tens of thousands of radical leftist Americans and the millions duped by decades of indoctrination by academia and the MSM into political support for leftist politicians and their ‘solutions’ while remaining ignorant of the true aims of the committed left and the actual consequences of liberal political support for the Far Left is instructive.
Yet, many in the Tea Party were defending medicare and many, if not most, would defend social security.
One of the realities conservatives and libertarians face is that in a fundamental way big government won during the FDR era, and this win was reinforced in the LBJ era.
You can’t go back to the limited government where the 10th Amendment actually means something without a fundamental transformation. A fundamental transformation that would be difficult or painful for many or most people, and one few people want, even in the Tea Party.
I don’t think that even if all Supreme Court justices were identical clones of Clarance Thomas that the court would strike down unconsititional laws such as social security.
Going back to a proper reading of the Constition at this point would be radical and far reaching. This in itself compromises conservative principles.
I’ll note that leftist revolution, in France, Russia, Spain, and elsewhere tend to end up feeding on their own.
The Democrats are a coalition of a bunch of very different, but disfunctional, groups. Most won’t show us mercy, but likewise won’t receive it from their allies . . .
“That you make no distinction between Obama, his cabal and the tens of thousands of radical leftist Americans and the millions duped by decades of indoctrination by academia and the MSM into political support for leftist politicians and their ‘solutions’ while remaining ignorant of the true aims of the committed left and the actual consequences of liberal political support for the Far Left is instructive.”
You have no idea how to fight the Leftist alliance. Not any more than Republicans do in the US, and you will be no more successful given the limited amount of resources.
The fact that you refuse to accept the reality of the Left, means that nothing you will “hear” or “read” here will do you any good.
Only suffering will make people understand in their heart of hearts what the true nature of the Left is. Only when the boot of evil crushes your child’s head, will you finally understood. Until then, do not expect to understand anything of worth by reading things, not even the material I might have provided to you.
How much have you suffered, Mr. Geoffrey of the United States of America? What reasons do you have to hate the Left? What reasons do you have to hate evil period…
You don’t have as much time as you think you do, living in your luxurious Golden Age. As more and more time progresses, more and more Americans will give up. To the point where even after a US Civil War is over and done with, the remaining factions will fight and slaughter each other over the spoils, for they have ‘given up’ on what it means to be American.
Your nation is dying through torture, and all you find of interest and fun is debating on the internet. Good luck with that.
“Yet, many in the Tea Party were defending medicare and many, if not most, would defend social security.
One of the realities conservatives and libertarians face is that in a fundamental way big government won during the FDR era, and this win was reinforced in the LBJ era.
You can’t go back to the limited government where the 10th Amendment actually means something without a fundamental transformation. A fundamental transformation that would be difficult or painful for many or most people, and one few people want, even in the Tea Party. “
Agreed, though with the caveat that a different fundamental transformation, one that returned America to the 10th amendment principle that you allude to, can be achieved, as gradually and as incrementally as the left has moved America into an increasingly entitlement oriented society.
Medical savings accounts and the Ryan plan for transforming social security demonstrate methods for movement away from entitlements, while protecting those currently dependent upon them.
“I’ll note that leftist revolution, in France, Russia, Spain, and elsewhere tend to end up feeding on their own.”
No doubt American liberals would be ‘fed upon’ by the left, should it attain the power it seeks. However, European leftist revolutions did not start with a population inculcated in a deeply held belief in their ‘unalienable rights’.
Something that conservatives tend to overlook is that liberals believe in their unalienable rights, as much, as does the right. True, many liberals do not believe in the unalienable rights of those with whom they disagree but when they discover that denial of rights to some, inevitably leads to denial of rights to all, many will tune change their tune.
What that eventuates too is that the left cannot, in the long run, win. It can destroy, it can tyrannize for generations but in the end it eats its own and destroys the very resources that gave it, its power.
In the long run, evil ALWAYS destroys itself. Evil always brings about its own eventual downfall, as it must, for its premises allow for no other outcome.
That I may have “no idea how to fight the Leftist alliance” does not make your analysis of “the leftist alliance” an accurate one. Nor did you respond to my request that you “explain the “Leftist insurgency methods and cellular systems” that low-information liberal voters are involved in”. A failure to support an assertion, critical to one’s argument is, an indication of an inability to do so.
Nothing I’ve said here indicates a refusal “to accept the reality of the Left”. I’ve merely asked you to support, with specific and reasoned argument, your assertion that liberals are so involved with “Leftist insurgency methods and cellular systems” and to such a degree, that there is no practicable difference between liberals and a Far Left that you insist is a false distinction.
Perhaps only suffering will make the majority of liberals understand in their heart of hearts, the true nature of the Left but one cannot read the comments on this blog and many others without concluding that many on the right apprehend the “true nature of the left”.
“What reasons do you have to hate the Left? What reasons do you have to hate evil period…”
If Jefferson’s, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” is not sufficient reason to hate the left, then I have nothing better to offer.
One cannot love God, one cannot embrace the truth of Christ’s declaration that, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” and remain indifferent to evil.
“You don’t have as much time as you think you do”
You base this assumption upon ignorance, of the one to whom you accuse.
[Many American’s] “have ‘given up’ on what it means to be American.”
Perhaps but few on the right. You mistake recognition of the condition within which we reside for abandonment of that with which we have believed. Emotions and principles are two entirely different things. Despair may visit or even take up residence but the abandonment of lived principle is not for many, an option.
all you find of interest and fun is debating on the internet.
It is not debate or even agreement that I value but clarity and getting to the heart of the matter. That you project false motivations upon others, in order to avoid the obligation of reasoned response, indicates a failure of self-examination. Remaining imprisoned within your own false assumptions does me no harm, only yourself.
I don’t care whether you, Geoffrey, thinks my analysis or anyone else’s is correct. You are no authority. But even if you were, that would just make you more suspicious and less credible.
I simply pointed out that the validity of your thinking is not dependent upon whether I have any “idea how to fight the Leftist alliance” or not. You stated it as though it did, a patently false assertion.
You’ve now had two opportunities to respond substantively and have instead resorted to personal attack. That indicates ego as motivation.
As I’ve never held myself up as an ‘authority’, that’s a strawman argument. I just recognize the intellectual rigorousness of an position or the lack thereof, when I see it.
“Where there is shouting, there is no true knowledge. “ Leonardo da Vinci
“You’ve now had two opportunities to respond substantively and have instead resorted to personal attack.”
Your social skills are either very poor or you’re being rather too deliberate in your slyness.
When you ask someone for the favor of giving information or their views, normally one doesn’t go out of their way to produce negative propaganda about them in claims or rhetoric.
“Please explain the….” followed by
“That you make no distinction between….., is instructive.”
is somehow your version of social politeness and reason?
Try not to underestimate people on the internet, Geoffrey, even if you think you are in someway “more correct” than them.
Your complete BS and personality + nature, doesn’t fool me. You’re not going to get what you think you want out here.
Intellect will prove of no use in the war.
http://neoneocon.com/2013/06/24/mickey-kaus/#comment-619993
Good luck with the games, drama, and debate. Enjoy it while it lasts.
“You’ve now had two opportunities to respond substantively and have instead resorted to personal attack. That indicates ego as motivation.”
What it indicates is that I don’t recognize your authority over me.
You’ve given me two opportunities to respond? Am I somehow a plaintiff at your court, Mr. Judge. Or are you a Divine Being, where I should kneel down and say “I apologize, God, for not responding to your commands”.
It indicates that I don’t consider you someone worth my time, Geoffrey. I don’t consider you important enough. But for some reason, you are interested in me, but not in a positive sense as I gather.
You keep coming up with these “opportunities” you come up with in your imagination to test me. But I get the sense that you aren’t really interested in what I’m saying. You just want to find a way to debate yourself to the Throne.
So I make this subject about you. After all, it’s what you are really asking about. It’s the only thing you’ve paid attention to at least. I’m not particularly interested in you, but your comments in this thread has made me interested in why you are interested in winning debates as a form of personal victory or value.
Well, I don’t recognize my ‘authority’ over you either, nor did I ever, so at least we can agree on that. You might reflect however, upon the obvious cognitive dysfunction involved in accusing someone of seeking authority over others, when they’ve never made any claims of authority whatsoever.
I merely asked for your rationale in claiming there to be no distinction between liberals and leftists. You keep avoiding the specifics and then accusing me of emotion driven responses. I was merely trying to get you to respond appropriately but it’s now obvious that, that was a futile pursuit.
Sorry but I’m really not particularly interested in you either. Nor am I interested in “winning debates as a form of personal victory or value”. But you keep telling yourself that, since clearly it allows you to avoid substantive discussion.
Now that we’ve established your sole interest being in ‘declaiming from the Throne’, (talk about projecting) I’ll happily ignore your comments in the future. You go your way and I’ll go mine and in time reality will reveal which of us is the more attuned to it.