Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
on what possible basis do you say that, alansmithee?
because you do not like the article?
because you object for some reason to truthout as a source for anything?
because you object to its content?
because you object a priori to sydney blumenthal?
where is the problem with linking cheney in bushworld to cheney under nixon?
what is the problem with looking at the history of the neoconservative movement in general?
on what possible basis could you object to viewing contemporary tendencies in neocon politics/ideology in a historical context?
|
I don't care for the article because I find it inaccurate and light on meaningful content. And there is no problem with linking Cheney to the Nixon Administration. But if you allow for that, you must also allow for comparisons to be drawn to the Clinton Administration, the Carter Administration, the Regan Administration, et al. You can't just cherry pick where you want to draw comparisions from if they are valid. But liberals like to opperate like Clinton (honestly, the only meaningful Dem pres since FDR) operated under some sort of separated from time bubble, where he should be immune to any negative associations. My only point is that if you want to make some comparisons, don't get angered when another equally valid but less flattering association is made.
Quote:
if there is an analytic argument to be made about cheney's particular views within the neocon movement in general that links them to potentially authoritarian outcomes, on what basis could you possible object to the fact of that argument?
if you disagree, then fire away--but you are not simply disagreeing--you, like ustwo and the other sorry examples of conservative denial you see on this sad sad thread--are trying to make the argument go away as such.
what are your motives?
i do not see anything coherent in your accusation about ad hominem...i do not see anything considered in your attempts to dismiss concerns that folk who disagree with you politically might have about cheney or any other far right ideologue....all i see is yet another attempt to deal with dissonance by looking to erase it.
|
Again, if actual discussion is wanted, I would be all for it. But this thread is the equivalent of asking "So, when did you quit beating your wife?". And when people came to say they aren't wife beaters, the were met with "So, you're a liar and a wifebeater now?". When the whole premise isn't to discuss Cheney, but for people to fling one-sided attacks, many who don't think Cheney some mix of Satan and Hitler might not bother trying to debate/discuss when they know any valid arguments will be disregarded anyway.
Quote:
and if there is something pathological in this thread, it can be found in this refusal to engage on the part of conservatives, this refusal to think about dissonant information, this refusal to even consider that the right might not have a monopoly on framing legitimate questions, legitimate ways of interpreting information, legitimate politics in general.
this is a recurrent feature of "interactions" with conservatives on topics they do not like and/or cannot control across this forum.
once again, for folk who talk about personal responsibility, it seems that most conservatives have a really hard time with applying the idea to themselves, not to mention actually taking personal responsibility, even discursively---in this case,it is pretty bloody obvious that the problem with this thread lay in the right's reaction to it, which is simply a part of the general pattern of conservative refusal of serious discussion except in those situation where the frame of reference matches with thier own. this pattern reeks of narcissism, frankly---which follows from its basically infantile motivations. a closed world in which only conservatives get to talk. anything that strays too far gets shouted down--a tactic that assume the cumulative weight of many flinstone voices outweighs the total lack of content of each individual voice.
|
Again, it's about starting with a ridiculous/weighted premise, and expecting everyone to fall into line and stick with that view. It has nothing to do with ignoring anything, or denial. There was no desire for discussion, what was wanted was attack. And in that, this thread was a ringing success. And I personally find your claim that conservatives are narcissistic to be amusing and very ironic, especially when it is seen that liberals will rarely even concede that there can be another viewpoint on issues.