|
cimmaron---that's not what the sentences say. what they object to is the implication in your post that if "liberals" (whatever) do not act as you think they should, then conclusions 1, 2, 3 all follow--and that this is a way of seeing this question that's relevant for everyone, and not simply for you. you set your position up pretty clearly: if folk objected to the bush policy, which you reduce to this single point, and that policy, still without context and so more or less meaningless, persists, there "should be" the same kind of indignation. you want to use this to "demonstrate" some "hypocrisy" on the part of "liberals"...
but you presuppose that your framework would be read by other folk and recognized as binding on them. otherwise, you're just making an observation. but you didn't frame it as an observation--you framed it as moving from "your liberal friends" to "all liberals" as if it constituted an argument.
that's why i wrote what i did.
i also wrote a bunch of other stuff that you ignored.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|