If you were a US citizen . . .

Why does everyone who doesn't share your opinion have to be "pathetic", "moronic" or "idiotic", LLL?

Are you unable to disagree without name-calling? Are we back in infant school?

I often disagree without name calling.

Idiot...

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Obama advocated sending troops into Pakistan in order to search for Al-Qaeda members. This is slightly different from an invasion

But without asking the permission of the Pakistani Government, you neglected to add.

So, when Republican Presidents invade Grenada, Panama and Iraq they are guilty of mass genocide however when Democrat Presidents invade Somalia, Kosovo and, presumably, Pakistan they are "sending troops into search". Rather like Humpty Dumpty words mean what you say they mean. I think most people would be pushed to define the difference other than the party label of the incumbent in the White House.

It reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous statement when he was a minister at the Colonial Office in 1906 that to call the Chinese forced labourers in South Africa slaves

"...would risk terminological inexactitude."


If Obama's a liberal I'm W.G.Grace.

Unlike you, I am not so enamoured of Andrew Sullivan's prose style I'm fonder of Hillaire Belloc's verse with which he once described the change of government after an election:

"The accursed power which stands on Privilege,
(And goes with Women, and Champagne and Bridge)
Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign
(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne)"

Although all these weird and wonderful candidates may add to the general jollity of nations, when it's all over and either President Giuliani (whom I should prefer) or President Clinton II takes over US foreign policy will remain unaltered. Thankfully for us.

Dello wrote:Why does everyone who doesn't share your opinion have to be "pathetic", "moronic" or "idiotic", LLL?

Are you unable to disagree without name-calling? Are we back in infant school?

No probs, Dell. I'm sadly used to the fact that so-called humanitarian liberals cannot conduct a rational argument without stamping their feet and resorting to ad hominem abuse. Most liberals seem to profess to love humanity in general but despise any individual who doesn't happen to agree with their particular point of view.

Allan D -

I don't mean to offend you. I just happen to think that the way you twisted that article to suit your ends is idiotic and pathetic. I also have noticed certain patterns in the way you post and construct arguments. I'm sorry if you or Dello can't take it, but that's my opinion. You are just as free to call me or my opinions idiotic or any other pejorative adjective you can think of.

By the way - calling your opinion idiotic isn't ad hominem abuse. I argued the case that your argument was contrived and manipulative. Things that are contrived and manipulative are, in my book, idiotic. People who use such contrived and manipulative arguments are, in my opinion, pathetic. It's logic, is it not? To deny it would be fallacious.

And I assume that as you have quoted just one line of my post, you accept the rest?

I can "take it" just fine.

I just don't see the justification in launching a personal attack on someone who has merely stated their opinion in a reasoned manner.

It wasn't that personal. I didn't call him fat, comment on his untidy moustache or insult his mother. I simply called him pathetic because of what he'd posted. I mean, if you aren't willing to have your views criticized, don't post them on a public forum.

And I don't think his opinions were particularly well reasoned.

Once again - Allan, my aim wasn't to offend you.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I mean, if you aren't willing to have your views criticized, don't post them on a public forum.

I think that comment cuts both ways.

Obama doesn't merely restrict himself to "sending troops" into Pakistan. Here's what he thought the US should do with Iran 3 years ago when he first ran for the Senate:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

"Sending in missiles to search", anyone?

You're missing the point Allan.

And I wasn't lobbying for Obama when I posted the article. I haven't decided who I want for President. I just thought the article was good and others should read it.

And I was just trying to point out what Mr Sullivan had failed to mention in his entertaining but misleading piece but I should like to thank you for drawing it to our attention. However, I think I ought to give Mr Belloc (who was for four years a Liberal M.P. himself) the last word on politicians:

"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged."

Have a good evening.

From The Programmer's Mouth: How The 2000 Election Was Fixed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-XvxYbck&feature=related

Allan D wrote: Most liberals seem to profess to love humanity in general but despise any individual who doesn't happen to agree with their particular point of view.

Really? I always thought it was the neo-cons who adopted the, "You're either with us or against us" diatribe. The only difference is that neo-cons have never professed to loving humanity.

Didn't neo-conservatives originally describe themselves as liberals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism