Despite the availability of rapidly mounting information concerning the Fort Hood shooting and Major Hassan, the President seems not just uninterested in following the scent to which the evidence compellingly points, but thoroughly interested in throwing the rest of us off of it.
As I write this, it has been just over a week since an Islamic army Major and psychiatrist opened fire on his comrades, murdering fourteen and wounding over forty. In spite of the endless supply of cautionary notes about drawing hasty judgments that our President and others seem determined to continue delivering to us, by now the ignorance regarding this event that was our condition when it initially occurred has been considerably abated.
We know this much about Major Hassan: he was a committed Muslim who preferred to identify himself in terms, not of his American citizenship, but his religious affiliation; he believed that his commitments as a Muslim conflicted with his commitments as an American; he attended regularly the same mosque frequented by a couple of the 9/11 hijackers; he equated "suicide bombers" with medal of honor recipients; he passionately and not infrequently expressed, not just indignation, but outrage over America's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan; to show that such outrage was justified, he unfailingly appealed to his Islamic faith; his animus toward the United States was no secret to several of his colleagues, but the fear of being charged with "Islamophobia" prevented them from pursuing the matter further; he attempted to contact terrorist organizations; and finally, right before gunning down over fifty members of the military, he screamed in Arabic, "God is great!"
In the case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the Cambridge police, President Obama knew but a fraction of what we know of the blood bath for which Major Hassan is responsible, and yet, in spite of having acknowledged at the time his ignorance of the facts, the President couldn't resist condemning the police for having "acted stupidly," and suggested that a consideration of the history of the relationship between racial minorities and law enforcement agents in America rendered more plausible than not the charge of "racial profiling" that Gates leveled against the officers who eventually arrested him.
Now, though, in spite of the availability of rapidly mounting information concerning the Fort Hood shooting and Hassan, the President seems not just uninterested in following the scent to which the evidence compellingly points, but thoroughly interested in throwing the rest of us off of it.
The divergence between Obama's reactions to these two cases is beyond coincidence, and collectively they intimate one fundamental reason for the President's and his supporters' apparent resolve to insure that the Fort Hood shooting is not perceived as an instance of Islamic terror. A caller to one of the nationally syndicated radio talk shows that I regularly listen to just today blasted the host for refusing to blame the President for the Fort Hood massacre. The host, though relentlessly critical of Obama's response to the situation, weathered his caller's tirade and steadfastly refused to impute blame to the President for the shooting itself. Yet the host was mistaken, for Obama is not without a share of the culpability for this outrage, but not because he is the President — I don't see how any President could have averted an event of this kind — but because the ideology that he enthusiastically embraces, an ideology on whose breast he nursed throughout most of his life, is the Dr. Frankenstein to Hassan's monster.
The ideology to which I refer could conceivably be variously described, but because time and space constraints preclude a thorough quest for a label that best suits it, I will simply call it "political correctness," a name that, for whatever its many shortcomings may be, at least has the virtues of being at once succinct and familiar.
Although the casual observer can't but view any given instance of "political correctness" as a patent specimen of nonsense, if we would but accept the invitation to interrogate its individual manifestations so as to penetrate the more general ideas from which they arise, we would soon discover that when considered not by itself but within the context of the overall pattern or Gestalt to the amplification of which it contributes, the impression of incoherence reveals itself as an illusion, for the worldview of "political correctness" is as comprehensive as any. This, though, is not to say that it is nuanced. Indeed, far from it, for it is my contention that in addition to considerations of another kind to which I will attend momentarily, the ideology of "political correctness" possesses a simplicity from which its devotees derive a profound aesthetic satisfaction.
According to the "politically correct" vision of it, the world can roughly be divided into two forces, the forces of Light, Reason, and Virtue, on the one hand, and, on the other, the forces of Darkness, Irrationality, and Evil. Unlike in some other comparably dualistic visions where the competing cosmic forces were either impersonal entities like, say, the Yen and the Yang, or warring deities, the rival forces in the vision of the "politically correct" are classes of human beings.
"Political correctness" is essentially a version of Mannicheism, only here the forces of Goodness are comprised of, well, everyone who is not a white, Christian, heterosexual man. The latter is the Enemy, the Oppressor, to whom all of the world's imperfections, and especially its tragedies and travesties, stand as effect to cause. The white, Christian, heterosexual man, given his proclivity for unspeakable violence — his "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "Islamophobia," "imperialism," "colonialism," "xenophobia," "nativism," "specieism," and "ageism," in short, his presumption to walk like a god among mere mortals — must be destroyed if our planet is to be spared.
Now, the destruction that the agents of Virtue desire to visit upon the Evil One is not necessarily literal, but although it is not a lust for something as brutal as bloodshed that motivates them, their goal is not for that any less cruel. The aim of the "politically correct" is twofold: they want to first divest the Enemy of his very identity and, secondly, substitute for it one of their own making. In other words, it isn't literally the white, Christian, heterosexual man, whose annihilation is desired, but the white, Christian, heterosexual man as he has always known himself.
The critic who objects that there is no proponent of "political correctness" who, even to himself, would admit to having such a vision or entertaining such desires speaks truthfully. However, there are two replies that conjointly, at least, put this objection out to pasture. The first is that the criticism itself reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of an ideology, for is it not of the essence of an ideology that it functions largely at an unconscious level? Until it becomes the object of reflection, and even then, the assumptions and implications of any given worldview, by virtue of being ubiquities that, as such, are taken for granted, subsist unnoticed: we so easily recognize the speck of ideology in our brothers' eyes while failing to take stock of the beam of ideology in our own.
Secondly, it is only in light of a vision on the order of the kind whose features I have delineated that such otherwise bizarre phenomena as the transformation of those figures traditionally viewed as heroes of Western civilization into villains; comprehensive preferential treatment for racial, religious, sexual minorities, and women; and the creation of additional penalties for offenses committed against these "protected classes," including the criminalization of thought itself in the invention of "the hate crime," acquire some measure of intelligibility. All of these events coincide seamlessly with the emergence of "political correctness" as an identifiable frame of ideas.
So, in addition to the aesthetic value that "political correctness" derives from the tidiness and simplicity of its vision, the belief that one is on the side of the angels in a grand, perpetual war for the salvation of all that is worthwhile invests it as well with a magisterial moral value, and it makes it impossible for one whose self-conception is tantamount to that of an angel's not to view oneself as vastly morally superior to one's enemies. The psychic and emotional benefits to be reaped from such self-regard can't be overstated. But there are other benefits that accrue to the adherents of the ideology of "political correctness."
At least as alluring as the psychological rewards that subscription to "political correctness" supplies are its prospects of power. If it is legitimate to dissolve flesh and blood individuals into two abstract classes of Oppressors and Oppressed, and if Reason and Justice are understood as demanding, because it is the product of the Oppressor's machinations, the unraveling of the world as it currently is, then the guardians of this orthodoxy must be entrusted with an enormous fund of power the deployment of which they will forever be preoccupied. Hence, politicians — Democratic politicians, in particular — as well as academics and journalists — the overwhelming majority of whom are sympathetic to the Democratic party — are deeply invested in preserving, and strengthening the ideology of "political correctness" that psychologically and professionally sustains them.
Hasan — an Islamic man of Middle Eastern descent responsible for having perpetrated a religiously motivated act of mass murder — was the offspring of the same ideology — "political correctness" — that birthed President Obama and which remains the backdrop of each of his thoughts and deeds. Not only the President but virtually anyone and everyone else who holds positions of power in our world are now compelled to divert attention away from this ideology that they spared no expense in gorging themselves on throughout the years, an ideology from which they have plucked delectable fruits but which has now come home to roost in what could very well be the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
This is the second major reason why the President and his allies in politics and the media insist, against all considerations to the contrary, that Hasan was just a random "nut." Unfortunately, few people have raised this point, but raise it we must if we are to account for the rather peculiar, dogmatic resoluteness on the part of the President and Democrats generally to either explain away the Fort Hood shooting as an isolated event without a cause, or, in gross violation of the principle of Occam's Razor, to substitute for a much simpler cause more complex ones. Is it so implausible to think that the Democrats' determination to avoid the perception of Hasan as a "terrorist" just may be motivated by a paralyzing fear to avoid the perception that, after only a year of seizing the White House, they are responsible for having presided over the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11?
This, I contend, more than a fear of offending Muslims, and perhaps even more than their ideology of "political correctness," accounts for why the Democrats will not, cannot, acknowledge the Fort Hood shooting as an act of "terrorism."
It is a shame that the people who elected our President couldn't have had enough for sight to see that they were electing a communist/socislist to the white house.He has now sold the heart of the American People to the communists in China and we know have to comprimise our values to China.
Well sorry Mr President this is one man who will resist any attempts to under mine my rights as an American.
Certainly, 'liberal' multicultural dogma has created a nurturing environment for jihadists. However, the Republicans shouldn't be let off the hook. It was Ronald Reagan's dementia-addled support for the Mujaheddin, which lead to the Taliban and 9/11. Flip through a 1980s copy of National Review and be nauseated at the gushy, pro-Islamic propaganda. As well, Bush I-II's War on SECULAR Ba'athism in Iraq did nothing but ensure a safe base in Arabia, for Salafi fundamentalists, including al Qaeda. While multiculturalism and xenophilia may be the motivators of liberals, the Republican crowd are driven by a desire to curry favour with Saudi oil barrons and their Salafi/Wahhabi masters in Mecca.
And if you're going to bring homosexuality up…don't forget those notable homos Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Their anti-commie legacy led directly to America's support for the Mujaheddin and the emergence of Osama bin Laden.
Let’s not forget about all the “non-notable” homos too, along with the third sectarian hermaphrodites and malignant three legged dwarfs who undoubtedly gave rise to Islamic fascism by supporting anti-communist activity which was bound to lead to the emergence of Osama Bin Laden.
If we’d only listened more to the non-homo Jimmy Carter who showed us the perfect to deal with such issues. His actions certainly did nothing to create a nurturing environment for Islamo Fascism that a demented Reagan fostered by opposing Communism and by coincidentally being alive when the Soviet Union went out of business for no particular reason at all.
History is so much more fun when you can just point to the anti-commie homos to explain everything.
Re: "‘Political correctness’ is essentially a version of Mannicheism, only here the forces of Goodness are comprised of, well, everyone who is not a white, Christian, heterosexual man.”
Notice that good and evil are not determined by a man’s actions but his group membership and/or his attachment to traditional ways of living, … except when Øbama is a member of a group that is led by the likes of Rev. Wright, then it’s Wright’s actions that are seen as bad and Øbama is therefor detached from guilt that he would otherwise carry by being one of his followers.
Another thought: since when is a person’s guilt or innocence decided by politics? Isn’t it supposed to be determined by reason? If they are determined by politics, especially in the case of guilt by being a white, Christian, heterosexual man, they are bills of attainder, much worse than, say, Congress’ decision to de-fund ACORN.
Sedona: Don't ferget about them anit-commie homos what created Bin Laden. This is the best new political theory I've heard in a long time!
The Reagan doctrine–which built on Carter's support of the Mujaheddin–led to the formation of the Taliban. There's no way for Reagan fans to gloss over this truth. The current Taliban are even armed with some of Ronnies Stingers and other military gifts, in addition to arms smuggled over the border from Waziristan. The Reagan doctrine essentially lead to the overthrow of a secular-authoritarian government in Kabul and its replacement with a theocracy. Here's a cute picture of Alzheimer's Ronnie with a bunch of his friends:
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/31/ronald-reagan-meeting-with-talibanal-qaedamujahideen/
Like Obama's bow to Abdullah, the support for the Mujaheddin and the destruction of Ba'athism (a secular-nationalist ideology) in Iraq was, to put it bluntly, brown-nosing to the Gulf States' leaders, who in turn sought favour with the Wahhabi political establishment.
And, yes, Sen. McCarthy and J. Edgar 'Mary' Hoover were as queer as three dollar bills. The far left culture (Marxist-Leninists and Christian Socialists, like Canada's CCF) was extremely homophobic in the McCarthy era. Really rather funny to see how both the left and right have gone 180 degrees on the issue of homosexuality.
Just goes to show you can't trust them anti-commie homos anymore than you can trust them non-commie anti-homos.
PS: Stinger missiles of the 1980s had a definable operational lifespan, or in anti-commie non-homo language, after a period of time they no longer work. So if the “current Taliban” is using these non-homo anti-commie weapons, they’re shooting blanks (much like trying to link Carter’s policy with the “demented” Reagan to make an anti-commie non-homo non-observation).
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/another-stinger-missile-plot-misfires/
"Stinger missiles of the 1980s had a definable operational lifespan…"
The fuel in these things loses some potency (the ammonium perchlorate reacts with the fuel) over time, but they still work and are refurbishable (thermal batteries replaced, &c.). Every administration since the Korean War has continued the boneheaded policy of supplying arms to Gulf states. The Repubs suck up to the Saudis, because of the oil industry; the Dems suck up to countries like Dubai, because of construction and shipping ports investment.
NATO should absolutely ban any investment in, or arms exports to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia. To guarantee oil imports, there should be an 'oil for food programme'–no oil, no food. Since the Gulf states and Libya are dependant on food imports, blasting merchant ships out of the water and bombing land convoys would enforce an embargo. All Saudi and Emirati financial and property assets in NATO countries should be seized, liquidated and the proceeds used to compensate 9/11 victims. Cruise missile strikes on Mecca and Medina should be on the table, as an added cudgel.
Many of the PC 'hug a Muslim' policies in America were put in place during the Bush administration. Remember Dubya's silly, Qur'an-quoting photo-op, post 9/11, at a mosque. America, Canada and Britain should shut down all Salafi mosques, deport foreign Imams and close jihadi front organisations (CAIR, Muslim Students Associations, Muslim prison outreach programmes). There's no need for Patriot Act-style legislation–only for police and security agencies to actually enforce existing antisedition legislation and throw jihadi activists in jail. The problem is that both liberals and conservatives, for their own financial motives, would rather suck up to the Qur'an-thumpers.
We really need to get a better class of fool to participate in these discussions, in a non-homo sort of way.
My brother worked on this project. The early version Stinger missile batteries — you know, the ones that old demented guy Reagan passed out like candy — had short battery lives. No battery, no ability to fire. (It had nothing to do with fuel.) If you’re just going to talk out of your ass about things you don’t understand, at least Google the right article.
The stupid claim was made that the “current Taliban” is using Reagan’s 25 year old Stingers. This is patently absurd from a purely technical standpoint. But again, since the only thing this guy knows how to do is Google for his information, Google “Taliban uses U.S. Stinger Missile to shoot down U.S. Plane”. The number of hits is: 0. The Taliban has allegedly used Iranian-made Stinger-like weapons, and the FBI has conducted some contemporary stings to catch terrorists using modern day Stingers (that, as an aside, are not limited the way the 1980s Stingers were), but only a fool would claim that “The current Taliban are even armed with some of Ronnies Stingers”. Common sense tells you this isn’t true. If the “current Taliban” had “Ronnie’s Stingers”, seems to me that they might have actually used one of these 25 year old dinosaurs by now.
It never fails to amaze (or amuse) me at the pseudointellectuals who pop into these discussions and make idiotic claims about things they clearly don’t understand, peppering their idiotic comments with some alleged undisputable direct knowledge about who is or isn’t a “homo” (as if any of this is even relevant in the first place), tossing in some gratuitous slurs about Reagan’s post-White House dementia (as if this mitigates any need to actually address the topic in real terms), and then links Reagan’s and Carter’s policies because they both spoke with similar-sounding people (as if this signifies real analysis) without addressing any of the real policy content or strategic decisions of either president. Nixon met with the Chinese leader just like Obama, so Obama’s policy must be a clear outgrowth of Nixon’s policy content.
[By the way, to save you the embarrassment of saying “is so” because Obama presumably wouldn’t have met with the modern day Chinese leadership if Nixon didn’t open up China in the early 70s by meeting with them, a “policy content” is different than a policy decision to have a meeting. Policy content implies just that; the sum and substance of the actual policy; not the simple fact that you can show a picture of both presidents meeting with their Chinese counterparts.]
Whatever other points this fool is trying to make are lost in the banality and stupidity of the comments he uses to illustrate his overall points.
I mean this, of course, in a non-homo anti-communist way.
@Phillip, good points. I am assuming that the person who has embarrassed himself with his "Reagan" points is younger than 20 and did not live through either the Carter or the Reagan periods.
Granted, the CIA did help the Mujahdeen, but I think that there is something missing in the analysis of the Mujahdeen and the Taliban. Are they really the same thing, and do they have anything to do with the rise of Osama Bin Laden? My own answer to the last question is NO. Reagan policies had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
I am not well versed on the rise of Bin Laden. I know that he has a connection to Yemen and Saudi Arabia, just like Mohammed had a connection to Yemen and Saudi Arabia. I know that bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family. At the same time I know that Osama Bin Laden is a fanatic who has designs for taking over the world and establishing the world wide caliphate.
I have not done the Google search on when the war between Russia and Afghanistan began. The only thing that I remember from that period is that the Russians failed to beat the Mujahdeen, and then eventually the Afghan government fell into the hands of the Taliban. Yet, is it not also true that the Russians are in fact supplying weapons to the Taliban? Hmmmm…. something is not quite right about sheeting home blame on the USA in this little game…. I think maybe the duplicity of Iran and Iraq might have a lot to do with outcomes….
Having lived through the wars of the 1960s and by wars I mean the various acts of terror done by the Palestinians and their sympathizers, I find myself at odds with those who blame Reagan, Bush Snr and Jr, Clinton and to a lesser extent Carter for everything that took place since that time. I believe that the blame should be placed on Islam, that is radical Islam and upon the Palestinians and in particular Yassar Arafat and Abbas and their minions. This is also the period when Saddam Hussein overthrew the legitimate government in Iraq by violence and proclaimed himself as President. It is also the period which led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the establishment of the Iranian Mullahocracy. Now if anyone is to blame with regard to outcomes, it is Carter, because his weakness led other nations to do as they please.
In essence I agree with your take on the subject.
"The early version Stinger missile batteries — you know, the ones that old demented guy Reagan passed out like candy — had short battery lives. No battery, no ability to fire."
Again, thermal batteries (used in Stingers, &c.) ARE replaceable. Ordnance batteries are replaced, after years of non-use, in things like ejection seats. These are not difficult-to-source components. The solid rocket propellant in SAMs and what have you deteriorates in storage, but not enough to impair popping a Chinook at a couple hundred feet. Just because they're stamped with a best-before date doesn't mean the towelheads won't have the wherewithal to refurbish them. (Waziristani shops crank out RPG-7 knockoffs and more. They may think God spoke to an illiterate child molestor through an angel, but they can still fix involved weapons systems.)
As for the 'homo' bit, I only brought that up to show how silly and hippocritical people on both sides of the political spectrum are. Fifty years ago, the rabid homophobes were on the LEFT, while conservatives had no use for those Bible-thumping socialists. Democrats and Republicans also stuffed unpleasant historical facts down the memory hole, like JFK's hawkishness (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, massive porkbarrel defense and aerospace/naval spending), or Ronnie and the Bushes support of radical Islam (Mujiheddin, war in Iraq). And a person with Alzheimer's disease has NO place as commander in chief of the world's greatest nuclear power…any more than someone who forgets how many states his country has.
>“ thermal batteries (used in Stingers, &c.) ARE replaceable. Ordnance batteries are replaced, after years of non-use, in things like ejection seats. These are not difficult-to-source components.”
*** This, ladies and gentlemen, is the classic definition of an idiot. And exactly HOW does the Taliban go about picking up the new batteries to replace the old batteries? Do they go down to the local Kabul 7-11 and pick one off the shelf, or maybe just place an order directly with the manufacturer? Maybe they just tie a bunch of Ever-Ready’s together because, well, a battery is a battery, right?
You made a stupid statement by claiming that “current Taliban” are using “Ronnie’s Stingers” in their present day arsenal of weapons. I showed you that this is untrue. The article you cited about modern day Stinger missile stings even goes through a laundry list of reasons why the remaining few Stingers that weren’t recovered are not operational. The Taliban hasn’t fired a single Ronnie-Stinger at us. And yet you want to double down on your stupidity and now talk about “illiterate child molesters” (WTF does that have to do with the subject?) somehow “fixing” Ronnie’s stingers which they haven’t been able to fire even if any still exist.
You’ve seen one too many “Iron Man” movies to believe that high tech equipment is just “fixed” by some guy off the street or in a cave. At best, if any Ronnie-Stingers are actually still around, they’ve been dismantled and made into IED’s like a normal artillery shell sometimes is. Read a newspaper once and a while and you’ll see that sophisticated weapons being used in Afghanistan and Iraq are coming from Iran, not Ronald Reagan.
>“As for the 'homo' bit, I only brought that up to show how silly and hippocritical people on both sides of the political spectrum are.”
*** You are an idiot who deliberately misused the phrase "homophobia" that was meant as a parody of the Left’s view of conservatives to launch into a slanderous attack on specific anti-communist’s “homos” and “Marys” under the guise of offering an analysis, which in reality was just a pathetic diatribe against homosexuals. No one here give a flying f*ck about people’s individual sex lives. It makes absolutely no difference to me or the vast majority of others what you or anyone else does in their private life, and we don’t tolerate self-important bigots who use the language you do to simply aggrandize yourself. What we DO object to are certain political agendas that are associated with certain groups. One of these is what has been commonly understood as the “homosexual agenda” which relates to marriage and protected social rights. This is a legitimate point of discussion, because it involves social and political policy, not private behavior. You can’t seem to understand this, and instead want to make gratuitous slurs against “homos” and “Marys” as a way of making your points.
>“And a person with Alzheimer's disease has NO place as commander in chief of the world's greatest nuclear power …”
*** What a complete and utter a**hole you are! As someone who devoted a fair portion of my life to non-profit issues (from cancer to Alzheimer’s), this is both degrading and insulting. Reagan’s dementia was diagnosed AFTER he left office, in the 1990s. To assert as you have that he was an Alzheimer’s patient while in office is a deliberately cruel and derogatory comment that slights both Reagan and people who are genuinely afflicted with this disease.
You think, somehow, that because you’ve visited a Conservative website that you can get away with this crap because you dislike Obama too, that somehow we won’t hold you accountable both for your lack of class as well as your abject stupidity, and that all you need to do to support your position is simply make silly unsupported claims and mouth “conventional wisdom” that Hoover was gay (again, who cares if he was or wasn’t?).
You are an embarrassment and a fool. Whatever legitimate points you think you are trying to make are lost in the stupidity, ignorance, and cruelty of your own comments.
Aussie: I don’t know how old this guy is, but I do know he is either fundamentally stupid or fundamentally dishonest in the way he debates. To compare “knocking off” or “fixing” a RPG with a highly sophisticated Stinger Missile is like comparing fixing your kitchen sink with repairing a catalytic converter.
Either this guy is a complete fool in that he thinks his examples support his case (that is, when he isn’t lobbing gratuitous slurs at people’s private lives), or he knows the difference, but won’t debate honestly.
Either way he’s an embarrassment.
The most important question about Ronald Reagan's dementia, Stinger missiles from the 1980's, the Mujahideen and its relationship to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and closeted homosexuals in the anti-communism movement of the 1950's is what in the hell it has anything to do with the topic of the article – political correctness and its impact on the ability of some in our present time to perceive acts perpetrated by certain designated "victim" groups for what they truly are.
For whatever unintended consequences, real or imagined, that Republican policies reaped vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism, the Republican party today seems less enslaved than the Democratic party to political correctness (though I would contend only in matters of degree) in identifying Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators. However, I say "only in matters of degree" because we have been reminded with every Republican press conference for the past 8 years that Islamic terrorism is a perversion of an otherwise gloriously peaceful religion and ideology, and been treated to ridiculously carefully worded political slogans like "Radical Islamism", "Islamist Extremism", "Jihadi Attacks" and "Religious Radicalism" to describe what could more simply and accurately be called Muslim or Islamic terrorism. This is similar to the animal/environmentalist zealots who protest each and every year the characterization that sharks will attack human beings when the media reports on the inevitable string of shark attack related injuries sustained by tourists of America's coastal beaches. After all, you're just as likely to be struck by a meteor as to be attacked by shark… or to die in a terrorist attack. It would be unfair to characterize sharks as man-eaters or Muslims as terrorists just because sharks continually attack humans and Muslims continually perpetrate terrorism. And what a beautiful suit of clothes the emperor is wearing!
Patrick: Exactly. The general problem with comment sections is that they often go off topic. It's been a frustration of my own in the articles I write. But when someone starts to make bigoted slurs and asinine statements under the guise of offering analysis and commentary, I feel that these people need to be called on it.
The only exception I make to this “rule” of mine is when the person has a demonstrated history of being a dishonest debater or a lightweight, silly fool who isn’t serious about real debate. Then I just ignore them, because they’ve already demonstrated who and what they are.
Patrick Mulligan:
I think that both conservatives and liberals agree that political correctness exists. We seemed to have also agreed here that "Why the Democrats Won't Call it 'Terrorism'" is that "political correctness" won't let them [or us for that matter].
Before we can debate it effectively, I think we must determine the driving force[s] behind political correctness. From my perspective, it is the Left's rabid dogma of moral relativism and multiculturalism, as was touched on by ACSial in #2.
Your thoughts?
I'm in my thirties, BTW. I lived through Carter, Reagan and Canada's equivalents, Trudeau and Mulroney. A relative in the Old Country was killed by Mujaheddin 'freedom fighters' in the Soviet-Afghan war. Perhaps, I don't get the 'nuance' of giving materiel and monetary aid to bearded, antisemitic misogynistic pederasts to fight secular governments, especially when they made it clear from day one that the West was next on their list. Bush Part I-II also did this with the war in Iraq, essentially ensuring that those Wahhabi Saudis and Kuwaitis, and their other Salafi kin could set up Islamic fundamentalist cells without Saddam's torture chambers to worry about.
AS much as you make apologies for Reagan and the Bushes, their foreign policy, vis a vis Islam, involved sucking up to the Sheikhs and their Wahhabi masters. Osama bin Laden and his merry band of child molesting, acid-tossing Qur'an-thumpers were part of the Mujaheddin-cum-Taliban corpse of mass murderers from day one.
Just as gun control activists seem to thing that only magic Firearms Faeries and Gun Gnomes make firearms and ammo, so to do people here think that components like thermal batteries–used for a host of both military and commercial purposes–are super secret, high tech things that only can be bought from ATF-approved suppliers in the U.S. Here's an overview of the technology:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/09/asb-thermal-battery-the-power-of-reliability.html
There are LOTS of suppliers, including in the Emirates and other Muslim countries. Easier to buy new thermal batts for an old Stinger–which would make it as good as new–than score a new iPhone. And the ragheads don't waste missile components on IEDs: ANFO and other homebrew explosives are in available in greater quantity and potency. (Plenty of cooks in Waziristan make even stuff like propellant and Pb-styphnate for ammo.)
Like Carter, Ronnie was a putz…just a different kind of putz. His dementia was in evidence, according to first-hand accounts, into his second term. He helped create the Bin Laden monster. Like JFK, his administration pissed away hundreds of billions on porkbarrel projects (SDI, NASP, the Naval procurement, buying F-15s for Gulf States) that didn't do anything for America's military might, but lined the pockets of his campaign contributors. The Reagan years balloned the U.S. debt past the trillion mark, all in Chinese-held T-bills. Some legacy.
And yes, Hoover was a pickle-kisser. Also, an inveterate gambler. The Italian mob used this to advantage, to get his G-Men to look the other way, keeping silent his 'hoovering' of young men, whilst advancing him hundreds of thousands in cash to bet on horse races. As the line from 'Cheers' went, "I don't accept bribes and I don't accept threats, but put the two together and you've got a deal!"
We have a double down on the double down on stupidity.
With absolutely no evidence at all the “current Taliban” even has “Ronnie’s Stingers”, let alone has purchased new batteries through kindred third parties somewhere else in the world, the fool from the North now wants us to believe that because maybe these ancient weapons are maybe still in the hands of the Taliban, and further that maybe the Taliban secured the necessary replacement parts to possibly make these 25 year old technological dinosaurs operational, they’re definitelypart of the Taliban’s current arsenal — yet never once used by the Taliban, despite the purchase of these possible replacement batteries.
[And since all “thermal batteries” are the same and serve as interchangeable as parts for whatever device you need to power, all you need to do to prove your point about this is point to a 2009 website that discusses thermal batteries as a general “overview” of the subject. It’s just as easy as fixing your catalytic converter when it breaks with duct tape and a new filter you picked up from Ace hardware because, well, cat converts have filters too, and duct tape can hold things in place.]
And from this web of maybes and possibilities that never reveal themselves in reality, we are now supposed to have faith in his world view about US foreign policy because he thinks every US president was wrong, lived in Canada for a while, and was maybe 2 years old when Carter was elected president (2009-35=1976). So much for "living through" Carter and Reagan. Those times must have been particularly hard on twelve year olds.
So after all this BS about "living through" the times about which he writes, and apparently basing his analysis on this life experience in addition to several unnamed sources about Reagan and Hoover's personal lives, we're left with someone who has no obvious credentials, applicable education, revealed expertise, or actual facts to back up his assertions. He comes to an intellectual website to debate his feelings.
And of course what Hoover did or didn’t do with is private sexual life remains an intense subject of fascination (which leads to some associated clinical observations of their own about the kind of person who fixates on these kinds of things). And we know this irrelevant detail about Hoover’s life to be absolutely true because some unnamed source somewhere concluded he was gay (again, so what if he was?), just like another unnamed source has diagnosed Reagan’s Alzheimer’s a full 10 years before it actually occurred.
On behalf of my Canadian relatives, I want to assure everyone that this kind of stupidity has to be diligently acquired, and is not reflective of the great nation of Canada as a whole. But this crude gay-bashing and conjecture-disguised-as-thoughtful-analysis has performed a useful service, if only to reinforce a maxim I wrote about several months ago.
“There are no stupid people, just stupid ideas. But the truly stupid will fail to see this distinction.”
That's 2009-35 (his mid thirties) = 1974. 2 years old is 1976 when carter was elected. Normally I wouldn't need to clarify this, but when dealing with stupidity on this level, it never hurts to be overly-detailed.
You know, on second thought, maybe I’ve been too hard on ACSial.
Truman was president when I was born. I lived through those years, and remember curling up in my blankie when he fired McArthur. (Like ACSial, I have a real good memory or a great imagination — pick one).
The lesson I learned that day obviously had a great impact on how I formed my geopolitical opinions, just like Carter’s actions had on ACSial at the same age. The hard work I performed later to acquire a Ph.D, those years I spent in Washington and as SVP of Government Affairs for a trade association — none of this can really substitute for those all important early life experiences that are really important to understanding the political process.
So, I stand corrected. I guess you can just strap on a 2009 Thermal battery to a 1982 Stinger Missile and fire it at will (whether you actually have a missile or not is beside the point), and not be bothered with all those other technical details that make the missiles actually work after a quarter century in some cave somewhere in Afghanistan. And who Hoover “pickled” or not must be real important too, because knowing that is vital to understanding how JFK got us involved in the Bay of Pigs.
Life is so clear when you see things simply.
I was born in 1973, in cold Canada. I STILL occasionally have the ghostly earworm of a Bee Gees song pop in my head…
Ordnance isn't as complex as people make it out to be. THese people jury-rig broadcast and computer equipment for their "Live–From Waziristan!" vids; child's play, next no old Stingers. And my very white-trash (takes one, to know one) neighbor just swapped out the catcon in his auction-bought Neon with one he found at the scrapyard…
I'm not at all homophobic. To repeat, I brought the issue up to illustrate how the left and right can swap their positions on issues. Neither the left (once viciously anti-gay), nor the right (now in bed with the Bible-thumpers) care to admit it, but their gay policies were once the opposite of what they are now. At any rate, gay men–who sleep with MEN–are hardly any sort of threat…unlike those homophobic Muslims, who partake of pederasty ('Man-love Thursdays' in Afghanistan).
J Edgar Hoover was a HORRIBLE, corrupt individual. He even attemted to smear Eleanor Roosevelt as a lesbian, as he was bum-chums with Clyde Tolson (next to whom he's buried). Senator McCarthy, drunk as a skunk and camp, attacked General George Marshal (a REAL hero) and made life miserable for countless people. That these people are held up by so many people as 'Patriots' amazes me…especially when there were truly extraordinary individuals from your country. People are interested in "the old cocksucker['s]" (a Nixonism) sex life, because he spied on other peoples' sex lives.
There were troubling accounts of Ronnie's dementia in the mid eighties, even from press and foreign visitors (e.g., Australia's PM). Like B.O., Reagan was tethered to a teleprompter. Both are/were very smart men who occasionally said stunningly dumb things. Reagan called Bush Sr. his 'Prime Minister' and Obama thinks his country has '57 States'. Alzheimer's is a horrible affliction, but somebody should've seen to it that Reagan's competency was assessed, given his stature. Me playing armchair 'Dr. House', here, but I wonder if Obama is suffering from TIA-induced dementia.
Political correctness may be LARGELY a left disease, but 'nuance' doesn't seem to be exclusive to lefty policy. Nobody can defend the stupid Afghan policy of the Reagan Administration with a straight face. I may not have "those all important early life experiences that are really important to understanding the political process" (i.e., 'nuance'), but I can recognise a boneheaded, corrupt (policy made by petroleum industry campaign donors) decision–aiding and abetting Islamic terrorists–when I see it.
Phil:
Re: "And who Hoover 'pickled' or not must be real important too, because knowing that is vital to understanding how JFK got us involved in the Bay of Pigs."
Sounds like a potential topic for a new episode of James Burke's "Connections".
>I was born in 1973, in cold Canada.
*** Great. So we have a three year old, not a two year old homophobe who “lived through” the Carter years and formed his core political judgments based on this experience, who keeps talking about “homos”, “Marys”, “pickling” (but he’s not a homophobe!) while equating making home made “jury-rigged vid’s” with hot-wiring a sophisticated surface-to-air missile, and who diagnoses Reagan as an Alzheimer’s patient from his earliest days in office because he read some unflattering things about Reagan in the foreign press.
And on top of all of this, he urges us to believe his homophobic, ad hoc, conventional wisdom view of reality because unlike Reagan and other US presidents who say “stunningly dumb things”, ACSial makes no “boneheaded” observations at all.
You can’t make this kind of stuff up.
Political correctness may be LARGELY a left disease, but 'nuance' doesn't seem to be exclusive to lefty policy. Nobody can defend the stupid Afghan policy of the Reagan Administration with a straight face.
Though I'm sure the absolute clarity of your judgment would be an indispensable asset for any United States president, the motivations for specific policies are best examined in their historical context. And when examined as such, Right Wing Political Correctness, stupidity, insanity, dementia, homophobia or repressed homosexuality seem less plausible as explanations for American support of Islamic insurgencies in Soviet holdings than strategic calculations undertaken during a cold war in which proxies were an important factor in defeating and/or embarrassing one's enemy. That's not to completely dismiss the possibility that arming Islamic insurgencies in a Soviet holding during the cold war was an act by a Republican cabal motivated by the ideology of political correctness to advance the interests of Arab Muslims internationally, it just seems less likely in my admittedly less absolutely clear judgment. On the other hand, it is easier to make the case that Democrats who refuse to identify a committed adherent of Islam who murdered 13 people while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" as a "terrorist", much less an "Islamic terrorist", is motivated by such an ideological bent.
Sedonaman,
Yes, I would agree, and I think Mr. Kerwick's characterization of the motivations for political correctness in the original article are accurate in essentially affirming that position. But I think ACsial's post #2 barely touches on these motivations, and even then only accidentally in the course of excoriating Republicans for perceived misdeeds in the past that, as I mentioned above, do not really have any connection to political correctness. That's not to say that Republicans are not guilty of pandering to the same ideology – which I discussed in post #15 – just that the specific actions that ACsial chose to take Republican administrations to task for aren't reflective of it.
"…hot-wiring a sophisticated surface-to-air missile…"
To reiterate: you're changing the batteries, folks. The One-Eyed Mullah's Merry Men do more sophisticated tinkering with technology to get their satellite phones to work.
Remember Dubya's post-9/11 slipper-donning, Qur'an-flipping trip to a mosque, where he urged non-Muslim Americans to respect the 'choice' of women to wear bags (hijabs, niqabs) on their heads. And this isn't political correctness, writ silly? The Diversity Police that ensured Maj. Hasan made it as an affirmative action quota boy to an important post (where, among other things, he had access to personnel files and deployment records…which he's probably shared with every al Qaeda cell in the Southwest) was in place BEFORE Obama took the keys. A good EIGHT YEARS to purge the armed forces of PC silliness–on the REPUBLICANs' watch. The incident in NJ, last year, was warning enough for the REPUBLICANs to quit preaching 'diversity' and purge the armed forces and security forces (e.g., the jihadi-infiltrated DPS & FBI translators) of Islamic elements.
People like Bill 'Peyronies' Clinton (involvment in lobbying for Dubai ports and other Gulf construction and real estate interests) and the petroleum industry-conected Bushes are 'nuanced', 'PC', the whole bit, because they're trying to please moneyed, towel-headed masters.
>To reiterate: you're changing the batteries, folks. The One-Eyed Mullah's Merry Men do more sophisticated tinkering with technology to get their satellite phones to work.
To reiterate, folks [Comment #10], my brother (an Air Force Academy graduate, Electrical Engineer, and senior manager of the company that actually builds these things!) tells me that you can't just pull out "the battery" of a 25 year old “Ronnie-Stinger” and replace it with a "jury rigged" contrivance. But then again, what does he actually know about the subject when this idiot from Canada can Google a 2009 article on a Thermal Battery “Overview”, and read a newspaper article about 25 year old Stingers that some people assume are in the Taliban’s possession (even though no one has actually seen one and one has never actually been fired by the Taliban), and insist that it’s just like replacing the battery in an ordinary satellite phone because, well, that what he feels it must be like having “lived through” the carter years at age three.
I gave this fool several chances to retract his stupid statement, and each time he just doubled down and placed even stupider statements on top of it — all based on his feelings about the subject. We have now officially reached the point I noted in Comment #16 where the person has demonstrated a history of either being a dishonest debater, or a lightweight, silly fool who isn’t serious about real debate. In either case, there’s no longer any need for me to point out the obvious, since it’s by now clear to everyone that this homophobic moron is a homophobic moron.
We really do need to get a better class of fool to participate in these discussions, in a non-homo sort of way.
"you can't just pull out "the battery" of a 25 year old “Ronnie-Stinger” and replace it with a "jury rigged" contrivance."
If you can put it together, you can fix it. These devices are not magical, no matter what the 'no user-servicable parts inside' stickers say. Wishing that your hero Ronnie didn't give Islamic terrorists Surface to Air missiles, sell the Saudia and Pakis your best military aircraft, have the Army Corpse of Engineers build mosques in Saudi Arabia (at U.S. taxpayers'-expense–really) and institute 'diversity' policies in the U.S. Armed Forces won't make these facts go away. The Fort Hood tragedy has little to do with Obama's administration, regardless of how politically-correct his spokespeoples' statements have been. Both foreign (Afghanistan/Mujaheddin, Iraq) and domestic (a PC Army, with kid-glove treatment of Muslims) happened on the Reagan and Bush watches. Face the facts and admit that the blood of Hasan's victims are on Dubya's islamophilic hands.
Sorry for the double post (gotta love Java)…
Here's some more stuff on the Stinger:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-18/Ch2.htm
Not terribly sophisticated devices. Regardless what the manufacturer says, these CAN be refurbished. I'll be the first to admit, though, that this is probably not the major source of SAMs. Mostly, the Taliban get 'em from Pakistan and Gulf States, which the Clinton and Bush administrations supplied.
Dubya being a dhimmwit[sic]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nan2PC_-rxk
Army dhimmwits:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2379797/posts
Ronnie's dhimmwittery:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html
Backgrounder on the Mujaheddin:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_2/CAJ_vol9.2_12_e.pdf
Supposedly, Reagan (and don't forget, Carter) supported the Mujaheddin, because of their anti-commie (unlike, say, T-Bill-buying China), religious (towelheads pray to God, of course), freedom-loving (i.e., free to throw acid in girls' faces and bugger little boys) bent. Really, this is just all Vulgar Marxism. The Saudis own U.S. politicians, through oil and Gulf non-petroleum (ports, &c.) business-related campaign donations. When Obama bowed to the Saudi despot Abdullah, he was being honest about the U.S's 'Muslim Dhimmi Bitch' status. Until you people can break the Wahhabi-Petroleum yoke, you'll keep bending over for the jihadis.
ACSial,
A discussion on the most popular conspiracy theories involving Bush and the oil industry would be rather boring for repetition, but much more importantly has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. Place the blame for international Islamic terrorism on whomever you'd like, sparing the politicians whose speeches you like best, or whose sexual preferences meet your standards, or whatever other moonbat criteria you choose to apply. Just do it somewhere where that might actually be at least related to the topic of discussion.
Just for a reminder, the actual topic of this particular discussion was/is political correctness preventing its adherents from properly identifying specially-designated victim groups as terrorists, despite all evidence to the contrary. Your position is that Republicans are solely responsible for Islamic terrorism, not because they subscribe to "political correctness" ideology, properly defined, but because they wish to curry favor with Muslims so they can profiteer on wars and oil. Or put another way, the intended topic was a serious discussion about the practical implications of a particular ideology, whereas you wish to engage in a council meeting of the tin foil hat society and place blame on a couple of presidents you dislike based on outlandish motivations that include every possible sinister scheme imaginable EXCEPT "political correctness" ideology.
Okay, this is a joke, right? Sedona or Mulligan — are one of you behind this? Making up a false identity to claim that someone who actually works on Stinger missiles doesn't know anything about Stingers, and then just repeating your feelings about the subject as if that means something of value?
I must admit, it was pretty convincing for a while. You pretend to want to debate an issue by calling people "homos" and "Marys", and then lament that we're not discussing the topic of "political correctness" because you're pretending to be an a**hole by saying egregiously stupid things.
You had me, and I fell for it. I should have realized no one could really be this stupid.
Good one. Phil.
Patrick: Your comment popped up as I was posting mine. Either you are trying to throw me off guard by pretending to point out the obvious foolishness of your fictitious alter-ego, or Sedona is behind the joke.
Either way, my hat’s off to the one who could maintain the flow of incredibly banal and outright stupid observations by pretending to be ACSial.
Creating ACSial has to be one of the best gags I’ve seen in a long time. But in the future, if you make him a little less obviously stupid or crudely homophobic, you can carry on the joke longer.
Take care, Phil
Phil,
I wish I could take credit for a well executed gag, but I couldn't possibly have made such a character believable because, as the famous saying goes, I can't get my head that far up my ass :)
Patrick: Yeah, and Sedona is probably ruled out too for the same reason. It's just hard to believe that someone that stupid is real ;)
ACSial here–not someone's 'homophobic' fiction… :p
My point is that policies put in place during the 'conservative' Administrations of Reagan, Bush and then Bush again are "not without a share of the culpability for this outrage". It was the supposedly anti-communist (but really, pro-Wahhabi) policies of successive Republican Administrations that let the cancer of Salafi Islam metastasisize and worm its way into the U.S. Army. It wasn't Obama quoting the Qur'an in that mosque, post 9/11 and it wasn't Obama's staff that enacted hire-a-Muslim affirmative action policies in the Army, up 'til a year ago.
As for the Stinger thing: don't fall into the trap of those antigun-types, who just can't believe that 'sophisticated' weapons can't be fixed and built by non-OEM parties. Also, take a look at why your heroes, Reagan and Bush I-II sold (or, in many cases, gave away) fighters, SAMS, computer equipment and other military systems to Islamic cesspools like Gulf states and Pakistan.
And if you want to call somebody 'homophobic', try people like the late Bill Buckley, who had a conniption when all of his Ivy League buddies started coming out of the closet.
Policies put in place during the "liberal" administrations of Carter and Clinton let the cancer of Islamic radicalism metastasize into state power in the middle east and let Islamic terrorism spread to American shores from American embassies, American military bases, and American warships overseas. It wasn't "Bush II" turning down opportunities to prosecute Osama Bin Laden and accommodating terrorist bombers in civilian courts.
For all of his intense homophobia, Bill Buckley didn't seem nearly so fascinated as you with whose pickle was being kissed by who in Washington D.C.
If you ever get tired of regurgitating the same 3 lines, or if you can at least find one that has any relevance to this discussion, we'd love to welcome you back to our regularly scheduled episode of reality already in progress.
ACSial: Regarding Mulligan's last sentence: I'm sure you know that Phil Jackson once wrote an article explaining that it is bad practice for a commentator to re-write the same article, with different titles. He has no such rule about responses to articles; however, if he thinks that his point is correct, and the other person is being obtuse by not ceding the point, he reiterates. That's what you are doing. The difference is, other than your unseemly references to homosexual lifestyle, you come off more as the gentleman, by declining to return insults.
Mr. Mulligan: ACSial is commenting because the site offers the opportunity for this. Your welcome is of no consequence that I can see. If they deem a post to be undesirable, they can always delete it. What you should say, if it's what you believe, is that someone is wasting time.
Other homophobes: Selwyn Duke, Michael Savage, Sharon Kass.
Phil:
I have to plead ignorance: I couldn't possibly think like a liberal.
Patrick and Sedona: thanks for setting the record straight. I thought ACSial was a hoax. Really.
How corny can you get?
In anticipation of response to #37: I really shouldn't have been commenting probably because I know nothing about stinger missiles. Sorry.
ruminator,
The comments section of the articles published here are supposed to serve as a platform for discussion of the ideas presented in the article. The pitching choices that the Yankees made in game 6 of the world series might make a moderately interesting topic for discussion, it just doesn't really have anything to do with the ideas presented in this article. And no amount of repetition would make it any more relevant. That is the point that ACSial has come to, and yet he expects to be accommodated by having others who are actually interested in discussing the content and substance of the original article address his cliched moonbat conspiracy theorist talking points about supposed connections of particular politicians whom he doesn't like to the most sinister and implausible plots and schemes that could only be taken seriously in the context of a Roger Moore-era James Bond movie plot. The only intention of my comment was to explain to him why no one wishes to continue indulging him.
“As for the Stinger thing: don't fall into the trap of those antigun-types, who just can't believe that 'sophisticated' weapons can't be fixed and built by non-OEM parties.”
*** Yeah! When someone actually knows something about a subject, disregard that (and the common sense fact that no “Ronnie-Stingers” that supposedly have been “fixed” have ever been fired at the US, even though they are part of the “current Taliban’s” arsenal), and just assume it might be possible to just strap on a few hurt rigged batteries to make them fully operational because you need to do this to support your original idiotic conclusion. Such is what passes for intelligent analysis. Or, an equally plausible explanation is that the joke still continues, and the fictitious character continues to spew his deliberate nonsense.
“And if you want to call somebody 'homophobic' …”
*** … you can start with the fool that enters a debate by calling people “homos” “Marys”, etc. Why is it that the people who make gratuitous slurs and engage in odious things like race-bating and gay bashing always excuse their behavior by pointing to the presumed private lives of other people and saying that it’s okay to call someone a “homo” because he read some place that he was? And again, exactly what does a person’s private sex life have to do with anything?
“The difference is, other than your unseemly references to homosexual lifestyle, you come off more as the gentleman, by declining to return insults.”
*** Ruminator, the difference between me and the “gentleman” is that I won’t tolerate bigots. I make no apologies for slamming someone who engages in gay bashing, any more than I have in the past for taking on right wing bigots who make racial slurs and speak about race-based “natural hierarchal social orders”. Fixating on whether your response to a bigot or homophobe is gentlemanly-enough misses the point of the exchange.
If I’ve made an idiotic statement, go ahead and label it as such. Is it idiotic to consult with someone who actually knows something about 1980s weapon technology before making a judgment, or is it idiotic to Google a 2009 article on the general subject of thermal batteries and make categorical pronouncements about “fixing them” the same way you fix a satellite phone that’s broken?
Is it ungentlemanly to point out that a gay bashing a**hole is a gay bashing a**hole who fixates on what people may or may not do in their private lives, which has absolutely nothing to do with a policy discussion? Seems to me this merits more than a comment about “unseemly references”. I don’t fault you for not wanting to be as direct as I am when confronted with an idiot and an a**hole like ACSial. That’s a difference in style, or perhaps a difference in our willingness to directly confront this kind of gross stupidity and cruel attacks on individuals because of their race or sexual preferences. Unlike ACSial, who simply mouths over-generalized platitudes and makes cruel, indiscriminate remarks about homosexuals and people with Alzheimer’s, my comments are not gratuitous slurs. They are direct responses to statements made and positions offered.
Therefore, I have no problem labeling a completely stupid idea as a completely stupid idea. If a person wants to offer pure conjecture and claim it’s a fact, or ignore reality to promote a fantasy because he needs that fantasy to support his original point, he’s an idiot. Like I’ve stated many times before, being labeled an idiot is a designation that has to be earned, not simply assigned gratuitously (like calling someone a “Mary” or “homo”).
As for your comment “I really shouldn't have been commenting probably because I know nothing about stinger missiles. Sorry,” you again miss the point. A lot of us (myself included) comment on things where we lack expertise. The difference is, we don’t make absolute, categorical statements about technical issues we don’t really understand, or insist that fantasy connections we’ve made up in our own minds are 100% true (Reagan gave Stingers to the Mujaheddin in the 1980s to fight the Soviets because Hoover was a gay anti-communist; not all of these Stingers were recovered; therefore they are still operational and part of the “current Taliban’s” arsenal because they can be fixed as easily as copying a pirated DVD; and we know this is true even though not a single 1980s Stinger has ever been fired at the US in Afghanistan — although some Iranian Stinger-type missiles are in circulation there — which means that the “demented” Reagan had full blown Alzheimer’s when he was in office and Hoover is a “Mary”. None of this is offered as a theory, by the way, but as a fact.)
Exactly what do you call this reasoning other than “stupid”, and the gay-bashing homophobe a**hole making gratuitous comments a gay-bashing homophobe a**hole?
P.M. Point taken. Right, you have no wish to continue indulging him. However, someone who refutes AC's claim about stinger missiles batteries, using an independent expert (his brother) has complicity in the new topic.
I don't see any official rules of debate for the site, but since Phil Jackson is not only a contributing author, but one of the prolific commenters, I assume he follows the rules.
The other option is to ignore something that you feel doesn't warrant a reply.
Logically speaking, if a person has a crazy idea, it should not surprise you to find that you can't talk him out of it. Again, I don't know anything about the subject.
If I had the slightest inking that AC might be correct, then I would exhort to hold his ground. After all, it may be surmised that he is in an inhospitable environment. But again, this is hypothetical.
Ruminator: If it wasn't for the gratuitous gay bashing, I probably never would have entered the conversation. I would have commented on the insanity of ACS' logic and gone on to other things.
But giving a gay bashing a**hole a forum to spew his garbage without driving home the point that he's a gay-bashing idiot is not my style.
Remember Point #25 from “Words to Live By” In a debate, the people you speak directly to will never change their minds, no matter what you say. Your real focus is the people listening to the conversation who have nothing invested in either position, and will decide which of you makes the better case.
I had not seen post #41 when I made post #42.
What is meant by "inhospitable environment?" If it's inhospitable because you're throwing around gratuitous slurs then it may have a right to be inhospitable.
At the same time, anyone who criticizes Reagan's work in any but the mildest terms may expect to be used as a negative example for the duration of the discussion by most of those present, unless he can prevent it. This is not an unbiased forum.
And that's not a put-down, either. A bias might be the culmination of painstaking analysis, as well as something not equal to that.
"If I had the slightest inking that AC might be correct, then I would exhort to hold his ground. After all, it may be surmised that he is in an inhospitable environment. But again, this is hypothetical."
Probably a silly comment as well; as if AC needs moral support. And too much "what if."
I've dazzled you enough. Time to rake leaves. Any more thoughts about the article, anyone?
> “anyone who criticizes Reagan's work in any but the mildest terms may expect to be used as a negative example for the duration of the discussion by most of those present, unless he can prevent it. This is not an unbiased forum.”
Yes, this is a Conservative/Libertarian forum. You’re more likely to see someone criticizing Jimmy Carter than George Bush or Ronald Reagan. But it’s equally true that many of us (myself included) have criticized Republican Presidents (like I have with Bush on his immigration policies) and so-called “conservative” positions (as I have repeatedly with the Paleos). And the criticism isn't always tepid.
The difference is, we criticize over policy matters, not what people do or don’t do in the bedroom. And in criticizing policy, we actually criticize policy, instead of making inane gratuitous comments/slurs like “It was Ronald Reagan's dementia-addled support for the Mujaheddin, which lead to the Taliban and 9/11,” and “don't forget those notable homos Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Their anti-commie legacy led directly to America's support for the Mujaheddin and the emergence of Osama bin Laden.”
What separates this forum from the Huffington Post and Daily Kos is that we tend to frown on idiots who make gratuitous slurs, and offer silly-assed statements with no supporting evidence other than their feelings about a subject.
Ruminator, as I’ve said in the past I think you’re a basically decent guy who will approach a debate honestly, which is why as a matter of course you don’t get ridiculed for your beliefs. Some of them may be a bit misguided at times :), but you’re definitely not in the same category as this clown from Canada.