Saturday, November 26, 2011
Refuting the Obvious
If somebody had told me even a month ago that I would be wasting valuable time refuting some idiotic construct called, "moderate extremism", I'd have probably called 9-1-1 on 'em. But here we are, folks, here we are...............................................................................................First off (and as a great many people have already pointed out), it's an oxymoron. You simply cannot be moderate and extreme at the same time. It's ludicrous. And even if you take the leap of faith and say that a person can in fact be extreme in his moderation (moderate and wishy-washy on basically everything), I have absolutely eviscerated any notion that that describes me; the fact that I'm exceedingly liberal on issues such as abortion, gay rights, civil liberties, a progressive income tax, public financing of elections AND exceedingly conservative on issues such as the corporate income tax, drilling in the ANWR, and partially privatizing Social Security. Hell, folks, if anything here, I'm about as unorthodox a blogger as you'll find...................................................................................................And then, of course, there's the really ridiculous stuff. I'm a moderate extremist because I don't think that George W. Bush is a war criminal (yeah, I'm kind of waiting for the International Criminal Court to decide that one - silly me, huh?). I'm a moderate extremist because I don't think that Ronald Reagan is a traitor (both the Congress and a plethora of media sources - the liberal "Village Voice" amongst them - have completely debunked this whole October Surprise conspiracy theory crap). I'm a moderate extremist because I tend to believe the more nonpartisan web-sites ("Politifact", for example) than I do the partisan ones ("Think Progress", for example)...................................................................................................I mean, I could go one here but, seriously, peeps, haven't I already wasted enough of both of our times?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You saying you can't be a moderate and extreme is what's idiotic. You've indicated that you think I'm an extremist. What if I said you simply cannot be Liberal and extreme at the same time?
Moderate extremism isn't an oxymoron, because, while there is a political position that is known as "moderate", aside from the name, the "moderate" doesn't fit the dictionary definition of moderation. It's just another political position, and, like the others, can be taken to extremes.
This PolitiFact versus ThinkProgress issue proves that you haven't "eviscerated" the notion that you're a moderate extremist. You never gave a reason why you rejected the argument presented by ThinkProgress... other than the fact that they're Liberal.
You're highly biased against Liberals and Liberal organizations. Over on Truth's blog you admitted to being closer in ideology to the Conservatives who post on this blog.
As for the bush and Reagan issues, I never said your opinions on those issues specifically make you a moderate extremist, they're only additional examples of your bias.
btw, I think the case against bush for war crimes is pretty strong... what do you call preventive war (with Iraq in violation of the UN charter) and torture (in violation of the Geneva conventions)? More examples of bush "mucking it up"?
Citing no indictment by the ICC is a copout. Only leaders of lesser countries like Yugoslavia are held accountable. The same rules don't apply to US presidents. They can pretty much do whatever they want with impunity.
WD again posts while wearing a tin foil hat and waiting for the mother ship to arrive.
Wait no more!
Rusty: Minister Farrakhan says the mother ship is already here. And Obama actually attended the personal glorification rally Farrakhan held.
What a bummer for Bush and Blair.They had planned to take family vacations in Kuala Lumpur next spring....I guess thats off now.
wd, look at the sum of my views. If I'm guilty of any form of hard-core extremism, it would have to be that I'm extremely idiosyncratic (though, yes, I do tend to vote Democratic 3-1). I'm liberal on social and military issues and moderate to conservative on the economy, energy, and health-care. In fact, wd, I can't think of a single, solitary issue that I'm "extremely moderate" on (global-warming, maybe - I kind of like what Bjorn Lomborg has been saying lately). If in fact I were you, I would probably drop this construct and come up with a newer, more plausible, form of attack.
And how am I biased about Reagan? What, because I don't believe this highly discredited Gary Sick fellow? wd, the "Village Voice" did a comprehensive investigation on this whole October Surprise thing and concluded that it was bullshit. The frigging "Village Voice", for Christ! If anybody has a bias here, it's you.
And I kind of DO agree with you that the victors and the powerful don't get the same level of scrutiny that the smaller countries get. I mean, how in the hell else can you explain FDR not getting indicted for consistently targeting major metropolitan centers in Japan (areas with absolutely no military value whatsoever) and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Or why Obama isn't getting indicted today for sextupling the drone attacks in Pakistan?......Or even why my guy, Truman, wasn't indicted for not dropping one H-bomb but two over in Japan?
Will: I can't think of a single, solitary issue that I'm "extremely moderate" ... If in fact I were you, I would probably drop this construct and come up with a newer, more plausible, form of attack.
I never said you were "extremely moderate". That's another Will Hart lie.
Will: the village voice for Christ!
This means nothing to me. I'm not familiar with the publication.
A moderate extremist isn't extremely moderate? Dude, you're really sinking here.............The "Village Voice" is a New York City publication that, while it leans strongly to the left, is extremely reputable. And, yes, in it, this Gary Sick fellow was totally undressed. You might want to apologize to Nancy Reagan and her children (One of which, Ron Reagan, is a liberal) for calling their husband and father a traitor.
Will: A moderate extremist isn't extremely moderate?
No.
Will: The "Village Voice" is...
I don't really care.
Will: ...this Gary Sick fellow was totally undressed.
In your opinion.
Will: You might want to apologize to Nancy Reagan...
No.
Will: One of which, Ron Reagan, is a liberal...
I know who Ron Reagan is. I like him. I think it's a safe bet that he doesn't read your blog.
Again, from Wikipedia............"Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting."............Let's review. a) He only interviewed 1/2 of his sources. b) He relied on heresay from unreliable sources. c) He sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone (LOL!!!!!). And d) one of his prime sources was actually in Portland Oregon when he said that he was at a secret meeting in Paris (Oh, well, at least the two cities both begin with p). Yeah, I'd say that this Sick guy has been discredited.
Post a Comment