KCRag Forum

Haha, I was elucidating on Mr. D's "debate" methods a couple weeks ago. This is just how it goes. I'm sure we can expect eight more years of this. Yep, that's eight.

Oh, I know. I've said a variation of that after any number of identical MD statements. He persists. So will I.

First off, you're incorrect if you deny that those arguments were used in 1998.  They were.



Second, I fail to see your point about "identifying" people by name.  Should I say, "Julian Bond came on Hannity & Colmes in 1998 and argued taht Clinton's impeachment...."?  Seems like a high burden to expect from a msg board posting.

Wikipedia sure is a great thing!

Whether those arguments were used or not is not at issue. I have no doubt someone, Julian Bond and probably any number of other pundits, said something along the lines of what you quoted. Fine. However, attributing such a quote to "libs" in general and making a blanket assumption that everyone you define as a "lib" (which is an enormously broad swath of America) agreed with that sentiment at the time is your first fallacy.

Your second fallacy is then taking something someone completely different said ten years later and assuming that person agreed with the first quote from 1998, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate (quoth MD, "Prove it.")

Your third fallacy is to go even further and attribute the second quote to all "libs" and then act like, gee, look at all those stupid hypocrites saying one thing then saying the opposite a decade later. It's just dumb.

The reality is, two distinct individuals who have most likely never met and almost certainly have completely divergent opinions on any number of topics, whose only similarity is that you happen to call them "libs," made statements that can be considered vaguely conflicting when analyzed in a vacuum, ten years apart.

And then you act like it is an indictment of all liberal thought.  :lol:

I suppose an argument like, "In 1998, Julian Bond argued that Clinton's impeachment was effectively overturning an election. But then in 2008, Rochelle Riley wrote an editorial that said Bush should be impeached! Gosh darn those two individuals and their conflicting opinions! It must mean all people I would consider liberals are hypocrites!" would too effectively expose the sheer stupidity.

Maitre D wrote:
Libs told us in 1998 that impeaching Clinton, was "overturning the results of an election."

So it's really confusing to me that they turn right around and favor impeaching W.  Overturning his elections, you know.

I was unaware that Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press speaks for all "libs". One person calls for impeachment, and that of course means that all libs are turning right around favoring impeachment of W. Those hypocrites!

What are libs?

Anyone who hates freedom!

Until this country finally smashes the federal government, cuts it down to size, and returns more power to state and local governments this bullshit will continue.  Too much authority is centralized in Washington, the power is perpetuated by political and social elites, and 90% of the country is left watching the clown show with no recourse. 

There was a time in this country when Senators were appointed by state legislators.  At least under this regime Senators had to answer to state legislators who had to answer to their communities.  No wonder the Senate has completely run a muck with pork spending, they have nobody to answer to!  Vote one party out, the other steps in and does the same damn thing. 

jlbomega wrote:There was a time in this country when Senators were appointed by state legislators.  At least under this regime Senators had to answer to state legislators who had to answer to their communities.  No wonder the Senate has completely run a muck with pork spending, they have nobody to answer to!  Vote one party out, the other steps in and does the same damn thing.

let me get this right:

voters electing state legislators appointing senators leads to more accountability than voters directly electing senators

er, ok.

voltopt wrote: What are libs?

ALL conservatives believe a "lib" is a moral and social perversion.

There, I've said it, a blanket assertion,  so that means every Conservative believes this, right Mr. D?

advocrat wrote: ALL conservatives believe a "lib" is a moral and social perversion.

There, I've said it, a blanket assertion,  so that means every Conservative believes this, right Mr. D?

Libs aren't perverse in any blanket way.  They are generally very good when it comes to issues of personal rights, with a few exceptions (such as gun ownership or political correctness/speech).

Diversity makes the World go round so just love everybody!

Maitre D wrote: Libs aren't perverse in any blanket way.   They are generally very good when it comes to issues of personal rights, with a few exceptions (such as gun ownership or political correctness/speech).

So I'm confused, am I a lib or not?

ComandanteCero wrote: let me get this right:

voters electing state legislators appointing senators leads to more accountability than voters directly electing senators

er, ok.

Senators are not accountable at all under this scheme.  At least when elected by state legislators they acted on behalf of people who actually watched what they are doing.  Today Senators act on behalf of special interest.  I choose state legislators over special interest any day.

Guns are awesome!

jlbomega wrote: Until this country finally smashes the federal government, cuts it down to size, and returns more power to state and local governments this bullshit will continue.  Too much authority is centralized in Washington, the power is perpetuated by political and social elites, and 90% of the country is left watching the clown show with no recourse. 

I remain unconvinced that the federal government is more of a clown show than some of the state governments. Phil Kline? Kansas BOE?

Yeah, but at the state level you tend to be more likely to get the government you deserve. 

Blanket use of "libs" is used no more than "neocons" by you lefties.

mean wrote: Yeah, but at the state level you tend to be more likely to get the government you deserve. 

Indeed - plus it is logistically much easier to move states if you don't like the laws than it is to move to a different country.