I love the way it's his idea that he's calling insane, and he's so sure other people are insane. Isn't that kind of... insane?
But this is my point: utter madness is what today’s Republicans do. You can present to me every logical argument you desire. Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office. I get all this, and I agree with you.Why do people say "logic" when they are obviously not talking about logic? He's talking about what the facts are, how to characterize the facts, and what the standard for impeachment is. None of that is pinned down. We always only have evidence of what the facts are, and currently we don't even have all the evidence of the facts. Whether the facts say "tragedy" and "confusion" and "mistakes" or something more nefarious hasn't been resolved. And the standard for impeachment has never been resolved.
Posts
289 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 289 of 289Matt is conflating what he thinks is a desire to hold a person responsible for another's speech, with the real issue of the recognition of hypocrisy for tolerance of hateful speech from others. Everyone is responsible for their own speech, but it doesn't mean that such speech cannot be called out for what it is.
Inga's argument is that you are complaining that I am holding you or others responsible for Titus's speech. Something we all agree, at least you and I, would be wrong.
MORE...
Obama has lost the "Mandate of Heaven."
"Inga's argument is that you are complaining that I am holding you or others responsible for Titus's speech. Something we all agree, at least you and I, would be wrong."
I thought I already clarified that in a later post. That was what I originally thought until I understood you better. Then I changed my analysis to better reflect my understanding of your position.
I wasn't saying you guys must hold Titus's views. Nor was I saying you are responsible for his comments.
It was my sudden to noticing that nobody said anything to Titus about his comment, other than a rightie saying something to the effect, "Hi Titus. Welcome back. Being controversial as usual I see."
Because of the particular nature of the comment about Chris Stevens, and the professed views of many here at Althouse on their sympathy for Stevens, and the attendant horror of his death, I was surprised to say the least about the crickets.
In that moment I had a sudden realization how many of you really don't care about what happened. If a number of people I know here read that I would have expect even one of them to be express a sense of effrontery. Not everybody, but the Lot standard: find me one person who this offends and I'll spare the collective.
"If Scooter Libby went to jail for just being unable to repeat his testimony the same way..."
That's known as perjury.
"...then there are crimes involved with knowingly providing false statements to the US populace in order to sway a national election."
That's known as making "campaign promises."
It may be bullshit but it's not perjury because it's not provided under oath and no one is expected to believe a word if it.
I thought I already clarified that in a later post. That was what I originally thought until I understood you better. Then I changed my analysis to better reflect my understanding of your position.
I told you my method of "teaching" is more drawn out. I also expect you to participate.
Part of what I do is go over the premises, the information on which we have common ground. You can expect reiterations from me.
It was my sudden to noticing that
It was my sudden REACTION to noticing...
So it's a false analogy see, it's not reasonable to demand that I have the same reaction to someone else's terrible comments tonight.
My reaction wasn't to Titus's comments. My reactions was to everyone else's lack or reaction to Titus.
And btw apologies to Titus for becoming an example here to instruct Matt. Titus has gotten way more bad press from me than he deserves.
Except that your analysis was wrong. As I said earlier.
"The flaw in that is that Titus represents 'Titus'. And by that I don't mean 'everyone is their own person regardless or party' (though that is true). I really mean that he is an island onto himself. That is why his posts are read but rarely replied to. So, when you ripped on 'righties' and they replied, 'But he is not ours.' that was not even to say, 'He's yours!' It was to say that he is nobody's."
You jumped to the conclusion that the "Righties didn't really care" based on the comment of one person [presumably - I am trusting your account in this regard] who responded to and spoke in a dismissive way towards Titus. I, and others, ignore Titus for the reason I posted above.
So, what you really did is malign a large group of people based on your misperception of their reactions and non-reactions. Your misperception is based on your pre-conceived notion of what "righties" are.
Why would you interpret the indifference shown towards Titus in that way? Why did you leap to the worst possible interpretation?
Is it possible that your interpretation is wrong? Is what I and others have said about Titus plausible enough in your mind to give the benefit of the doubt?
Now if you're following this Matt, that should be enough of an explanation why I disparaged your argument. Well, I called it "childish" to make it a little more embarrassing but that's the reason as I see it as a fatally flawed argument.
More interesting might be to see if we can rebuild it to make it run. But you have to see it the way I thought I just explained it first.
phx,
Twice already I have moved on from the comparison to your non-reaction to Jay Retread's comments. (This is the third time.) Stop beating that dead horse!
Move on to the next points I made.
Why would you interpret the indifference shown towards Titus in that way? Why did you leap to the worst possible interpretation?
Is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?
This is the remaining area of disagreement. We can agree this remains between us.
The idea that I was supposed to be getting upset over something someone else said in this thread tonight, right? Just because we have a disagreement over our interpretations of why the "audience" reacted as it did does not make it sensible that if I'm consistent I would would take to task someone like that guy you expected me to take to task this evening, right?
That issue of me holding people responsible for their comments is dead, right? I never tried to do that, and I never will without apologizing and admitting that's wrong.
Matt, you do it my way or spend a couple of grand at the community college. Or get a fucking textbook and do it yourself.
You asked for this.
If you agree with what I said at 11:35 we can move on.
phx said...
Matt, you do it my way or spend a couple of grand at the community college. Or get a fucking textbook and do it yourself.
You asked for this.
5/12/13, 11:36 PM
phx is in no way a bully! Dude, I am trying to interact with you in a RESPECTFUL manner. Are you incapable of doing so?
Move on to my next points already! Stop dodging and delaying!
You wanted me to denounce Jay Retread because you wrongly thought that was equivalent to reaction to the AUDIENCE.
Once we understand that we can have a legitimate argument over what the audience's lack of response to last night's commenter means, and whether I was wrong or not.
If you agree with what I said at 11:35 we can move on.
At least Titus isn't boring like you two...or one.
phx is in no way a bully!
Oh I can bully my students. If they don't like it they can get another teacher.
Especially after I thought they accepted the responsibility for the conditions I set forth at the beginning.
phx, it is your turn. Answer my questions. I do not accede to the demands of bullies.
I am trying to have a good faith, back and forth with you but I am starting to think you are looking for a way to dodge my questions.
I understand Ralph L.
Boring?! Oh no, this is fascinating.
Ralph L said...
At least Titus isn't boring like you two...or one.
5/12/13, 11:45 PM
LOL. That was a good one. Thank you for the laugh. (genuinely, no sarcasm)
I am trying to have a good faith, back and forth with you but I am starting to think you are looking for a way to dodge my questions.
You are not recognizing a point that I made. You aren't saying if you think it's correct or incorrect. That's all I'm asking to a point that is crucial to this argument.
I might be bullying but I'm bullying in good faith as well.
And I have the pulpit because you gave it to me.
Keep dodging.
I'm not Matt. This has been a good argument, you can diagram what we/I just went over and see what remains.
We could delineate the structure of this, which would probably help.
In any case I thought I overcame your argument that I was supposed to denounce Jay Retread pretty fully. Do you agree or disagree?
Or did you not understand it?
phx, I have been gracious with you. You have chosen to use my graciousness as a cudgel. I have not cursed you out. I misinterpreted your rant from yesterday and acknowledged it three times! It is time for you to demonstrate some goodwill.
And if you don't think you owe it, just remember the nasty things you said about "righties" yesterday. Considering that, I think I have been more than kind to you.
Here it is again...
Matt said...
Except that your analysis was wrong. As I said earlier.
"The flaw in that is that Titus represents 'Titus'. And by that I don't mean 'everyone is their own person regardless or party' (though that is true). I really mean that he is an island onto himself. That is why his posts are read but rarely replied to. So, when you ripped on 'righties' and they replied, 'But he is not ours.' that was not even to say, 'He's yours!' It was to say that he is nobody's."
You jumped to the conclusion that the "Righties didn't really care" based on the comment of one person [presumably - I am trusting your account in this regard] who responded to and spoke in a dismissive way towards Titus. I, and others, ignore Titus for the reason I posted above.
So, what you really did is malign a large group of people based on your misperception of their reactions and non-reactions. Your misperception is based on your pre-conceived notion of what "righties" are.
Why would you interpret the indifference shown towards Titus in that way? Why did you leap to the worst possible interpretation?
Is it possible that your interpretation is wrong? Is what I and others have said about Titus plausible enough in your mind to give the benefit of the doubt?
5/12/13, 11:27 PM
Your turn.
phx, I have been gracious with you. You have chosen to use my graciousness as a cudgel.
Not at all Matt. Not a cudgel. If that's how it seemed to you, I apologize. Sometimes harsh humor can sound even worse on the internet.
But I do have just that remaining question: Did I overcome your expectation that should denounce Jay Retread in order to be consistent with last night?
That's a key point that you asked me to explain to you. Did I?
Funny, that -- I was just remembering a few days ago that after the 2010 election, one of my Facebook friends insisted that this meant there would be impeachment hearings because the newly-elected Republicans were nuts, and I thought he was nuts. But now it doesn't seem nuts to me to contemplate the possibility of impeachment hearings, so I'm not sure my friend was nuts. Maybe he just knew more about the Obama administration than I did.
From what I've read, nothing impeachable can be tied to Obama. But if he directly had a hand in the IRS abusing its power for political purposes, that's impeachable. Benghazi, probably not (lying during a political campaign is par for the course, though we shouldn't expect the press to assist or the opposing candidate to roll over for it).
Absolutely - we can address that Matt. The first part that I objected to though, about expecting me to denounce Jay Retread?
We've gone step-by-step, methodically. Let's finish this.
MATT: Does that clear things up?
PHX: No, I think you are still confused about your false analogy.
MATT: Then correct me, phx. I am trying to understand your position.
5/12/13, 10:55 PM
You aren't telling me if you understand or not.
I'm not sure how many times you need me to answer that question before you move on to mine. Tell me, how many times does that need to be answered so I have some idea of how long it will be before you stop dodging my questions?
Matt said...
"Inga's argument is that you are complaining that I am holding you or others responsible for Titus's speech. Something we all agree, at least you and I, would be wrong."
I thought I already clarified that in a later post. That was what I originally thought until I understood you better. Then I changed my analysis to better reflect my understanding of your position.
5/12/13, 11:11 PM
There you go. ONE HOUR AGO, I answered your question. Now, please, respond to the points I made AFTER I better understood your position.
Oh, okay Matt. That's all I was objecting to. Your use of a false analogy to say that I should be denouncing Jay Retread.
So we both don't have any expectations that I have to denounce Jay Retread. That's all that I was arguing tonight.
If you want to make an argument that my interpretation of the silence to Titus from the Althouse commentators was incorrect and I was wrong about that, that's okay. Who knows, maybe there's some truth to it.
phx, since you were so unrelenting in having your question answered, could you do me the courtesy of answering each of the questions I posed to you?
Similar questions passed through my head since then. Without your help. My conclusions might be different than yours.
Sure Matt. What are the questions?
Why would you interpret the indifference shown towards Titus in that way?
Why did you leap to the worst possible interpretation?
Is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?
Is what I and others have said about Titus plausible enough in your mind to give the benefit of the doubt?
The third and fourth are simple 'yes or no' questions!
It's a testament to the level of delusion out there that after "we need to pass it to see what's in it" resulting in new regulation running 15,000 pages so far, and scandal after scandal of irresponsible spending mistakes by Democrats, with no budget for half a decade and $16 trillion in debt when Guam is about to tip over, that anybody could call the Republicans the insane ones.
I have to take these one at a time, Matt. I hope that's okay with you. Hey, since you asked me it's gonna have to be.
I am however willing to go through all of them the best I can with you for as long as you are interested. Right now, it's getting very late.
Why would you interpret the indifference shown towards Titus in that way?
This is a question with some meat on it. This is a question worth asking.
The third and fourth are simple 'yes or no' questions!
Yes, that would appear so! But before the third and fourth the gods have placed the first and second.
We might have to take this up again tomorrow. I'm sorry.
phx, if you like, I would settle for an honest answer to question 3 and 4.
Unless you really want to answer the first two!
Oh well that changes things a bit.
Is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?
Yes, it's always possible. Always.
Is what I and others have said about Titus plausible enough in your mind to give the benefit of the doubt?
No, it's not. Although I confess to not being fully finished thinking about it.
Fair enough. Thank you for the answers.
I'll just file them away now to use on a later date. Like the race card.
(The previous paragraph is a joke, in case that wasn't clear.)
If you would like more instruction in informal logic let me know. I call my system "The Art of Awareness and Critical Thinking"
No cost.
We could actually have a little clinic that meets in dormant comment threads and use examples from Althouse comment threads.
Nothing is ever free. Or should I say, "You get what you pay for!" :)
Yeah.
My instruction is tailored to individual levels.
The best things in life are free.
You get what you pay for.
phx is a habitual runner from pointed questions.
Obama won't be impeached for much the same reason W wasn't: it'd destroy the impeaching party. In W's case it would've shown the Dems were treasonous attackers of the President attempting to prevent another 9/11. Obama has an even bigger protection: it'd be called "RACISM!!!!!!" and it'd be compared to a lynching.
Since I posted a lot of off topic stuff on this one, I probably should post something on...
Nate, I mostly agree although I think if there were clear and overwhelming evidence of "high crimes" then I think Obama could be impeached successfully without damaging the Republican Party. However, while Obama is really poor at his job, we are nowhere near that threshold.
Anyone at this stage crying for impeachment is either a moron or a moby. That is likely to remain true throughout Obama's presidency.
It is a wonder that Tomansky isn't blaming Bush.
It is a wonder that Tomansky isn't blaming Bush.
Obama won't be impeached for much the same reason W wasn't: it'd destroy the impeaching party. In W's case it would've shown the Dems were treasonous attackers of the President attempting to prevent another 9/11. Obama has an even bigger protection: it'd be called "RACISM!!!!!!" and it'd be compared to a lynching.
I think that this is probably accurate, at least right now. My understanding during the Sunday talk shows is that the Republican House leadership was taking a wait and see attitude, with a leaning to more hearings, but unlikely impeachment. But, that could change, depending on what the sentiment is in the country when they get further along.
What is in their minds, and should be in everyone's, is the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He wasn't convicted, but likely would have been, if the parties had been reversed. As seen with Nixon, Republicans will vote for impeachment if the facts warrant it. Almost no Democrat will vote to impeach a Democratic politician (or, indeed, even vote to censure a Member of Congress). For them, power is everything. It trumps principle, because it is their overriding principle. Clinton probably could have been having sex with 12 year olds in the Oval Office, and likely would have escaped conviction by a Dem Senate. Obama is not only a Democrat, but is also (half) black, and the Dems control the Senate. There is almost no chance of a conviction by the Senate, regardless of the evidence.
Right or wrong, I expect that if Obama were tried for what we know so far, he might possibly be impeached by the House, but any actual trial in the Senate is pretty much guaranteed to exonerate Obama - not because he is innocent, but rather, he is the first half black President, and a Democrat.
There is a definitely possibility that the Republicans would lose the House in the next election, if they were to vote to impeach the first "black" President.
I agree that trying to impeach Obama is a bad idea. However, could someone remind me how many people died during the Lewinsky scandal? I don't recall.
BHO can never is not responsible for the 4 deaths because no drones were involved.
phx said...
I believe it originated with the left... or left friendly publication.
Seems unfortunate for you guys that you steal the left's worst ideas. Not hard to believe though.
You guys are going to make it work for us in any case.
You can always tell what scares a Lefty. He'll start the, "Oh, please, do it", act.
The media has cheerfully trumpeted the "low info" voter thing as a smokescreen for the demos' stealing the "election" and it doesn't seem to have hurt them one bit.
PS What's phx' avatar?
Ed Schultz on a bad face day?
(not that he's ever had a good one...)
@phx,
Hoisted by your own petard, in which your explanation that it wasn't what you meant reveals that, in fact, it was what you meant.
You are just trying to lie about it in Bill Clinton method.
You constantly tar all conservatives for things said by people who aren't accepted by conservatives here.
Protestations to the contrary, you've done it at least twice in this thread.
phx: dishonest, and not man enough to face up to it.
The assertion that help could not have been sent in time is being debated using secondary sources. Why rely on someone’s assertion to answer the question? Look at a map, check on assets and flight times and the question answers itself. Help was at most 2 hours away in Tripoli and 4 hours from Italy. And don’t try to BS me with red herrings about the lack of in-flight refueling; it wasn’t needed.
"it's closely parallel to the delay in the relief of Khartoum"
That thought occurred to me also. Except that in that case, Britain actually did at least attempt a rescue.
"I posted a lot of off topic stuff on this one"
Yes, you did, Matt. I wish you wouldn't encourage phx and Inga in their masturbatory trollishness (I've been away for much of the weekend, but it appears as though phx has acquired Inga's bottomless self-indulgent butthurt as well as Ritmo's incessant yap-yap-yapping). It's like viruses shooting their little plasmids into each other, spreading their worst qualities.
Well that'll teach you Paco. You must never venture far or long from Althouse comments section ever again! The commenters need you.
is it just me or are these threads devolving into one on one arguments that dominate the thread. I don't believe that such outcomes help the overall discussion, and clearly none of the antagonists are not going to change their minds. all sound and fury signifying nothing.
...it appears as though phx has acquired Inga's bottomless self-indulgent butthurt...
I warned one and all just the other day about the bottomless regions of the Inga Zone.
I see Phx the Twat has taken over Ritmo's role of thread spamming, nearly a third of the comments are from the dissembling little bitch.
And Inga is back hitting the bottle I see, and freely spewing her ignorance without the use of sockpuppets.
Good times.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
I see Phx the Twat has taken over Ritmo's role of thread spamming, nearly a third of the comments are from the dissembling little bitch.
And Inga is back hitting the bottle I see, and freely spewing her ignorance without the use of sockpuppets.
Good times.
It's a cage match. With people who can type.
Who probably shouldn't.
El Pollo Raylan said...it appears as though phx has acquired Inga's bottomless self-indulgent butthurt...
phx is a pissant. His only defense for any statement he makes or opinion he shares is to say that what you say or what opinion you hold is wrong. There is never any corroboration of note. Everyone else is just wrong. Give Ritmo credit for at least being well read.
Inga is off her nut and has been for as long as she has commented here. Her life collapsed some years back and for the very same attitudes and her pure mean and nasty mouth. No learning from mistakes there. After having been outed as a fraud in almost everything she claimed she's going to feel obligated to ankle bite any time she sees one of the people she blames for it commenting. But you won't see much of Inga unless phx or a Jake Diamond type is commenting now that Ritmo is history. She needs the stalking horse cover and third person deflection against being forced to put up or shut up. Aphx is just her latest tool.
I see nothing criminal in anything related to Benghazi. I see plenty of cowardice, of course, both in the lack of response and cover story.
But I also see an inability to digest and act on imperfect data, when lives are on the line. That's not particularly damning - most people freeze up if they've had no experience at it. Military people, police, EMTs, they all have experience and even they can screw up. But passing that 3:00 AM test takes practice, either real or simulated. Nobody in this crowd has practiced much.
It is truly amazing that people who DO NOT KNOW ME, feel they have a right to describe me and what they THINK is my life to others who do also not know me.
B apparently has a strange fixation with me and liberals in general here on Althouse. I suggest he get his own life and quit focusing on mine. He acts AS IF he TRULY KNOWS about me and my life. He knows only the small excerpts he managed to find online regarding my spinal surgery, in 2006 and the difficulties I had because of my spinal disablity BACK THEN. My life at present is a happy one, I do not drink, I do not smoke, I live a healthy life filled with my children and grandchildren and friends and neighbors in a lovely area. I couldn't be happier, I'm sure this is not wha B wants anyone to think about me, which is so strange. Why would he expend so much negative energy on a complete stranger?
What is WRONG with some people? Doesn't he realize how despicable it is to invade someones privacy to try to somehow discredit another person, they DON'T KNOW because of their opinions and comments on a political blog? I find it very very sick and twisted. This is the same person who published my real name on this blog., last uear. Again I ask, what is WRONG with you B? There is something extremely disturbing about you. Why do you fixate on me like this? You WOULD be embarrassed and ashamed if you had an ounce of decency.
I've edited my statment 4 times because I want make sure that what I've said to you doesn't under emphasize the creep factor you exude. I have NEVER in met anyone as odd as you offline, thank God. I would probably start sleeping with a weapon under my pillow.
Once again I've had to slog through endless, off-topic, boring diatribes that are of no interest to anyone but the self-involved participants who seem to think this blog's comment section is for their personal use. It's beginning to be not worth the effort. Pity the comments section doesn't have a "block" feature.
This is the same person who published my real name on this blog., last uear. Again I ask, what is WRONG with you B? There is something extremely disturbing about you. Why do you fixate on me like this? You WOULD be embarrassed and ashamed if you had an ounce of decency.
Oh fuck off. That isn't what happened. You went after me in a conversation you weren't even part of. You made it personal and were warned off repeatedly but you didn't have the decency or brains to shut up. Instead you tripled down on the personal insults. So you got slapped down. The record is there you damn liar. Even your comments you think deleted.
You snipe away until people get tired of you and react and then you make it personal. Just like you did in this thread. So it gets personal back. Grow the fuck up and stop making yourself out to be a victim.
B, you are obsessed, stop it. Why do you not care if you appear to be exactly what I accuse you of ? You pretend to know something, anything about my life offline. Why would that be? Why do you even care? Perhaps you want to discredit a liberal commenter unknown to you... Because you are a weirdo? Because political speech or any other speech by a liberal woman somehow offends you? Why is it this importnant to you? THAT IS STRANGE.
You've been doing this for the entire time I've been commenting here, stop your obsession, it makes you look like a loon, you don't WANT to look like a loon, now do you?
Nothing you could ever do could harm me, or " slap me down" in any way. I live a good life, have people who care about me, which I doubt you enjoy in your own life. If you did, you wouldn't behav as you have for the last two years.
Why do you not care if you appear to be exactly what I accuse you of ?
Ah, because it only appears that way to you? And as has been noted by so many people in the last week after your rather despicable activities in the Benghazi tread, you appear to be a bat shit crazy liar to all of them.
I'm with them on there realistic assessment of appearances not your addled projections.
Post a Comment