| | Ed:
John,
In spite of my apparent moral rectitude, I don’t want come off as condescending. I’m wary as to whether I’ll be able to put my points into terms which could not ever be interpreted as condescending, though. Politics is such hard stuff to talk about because it’s the most abstract of the basic philosophical foundations, and simultaneously, it’s the most immediately relevant to one’s ability to achieve happiness.
Well Ed what can help is if you don't question my ability to emotional handle political issues. As I could just say the same about you, and we both would've accomplished nothing. I don't think that has anything to do with how abstract politics are since you made a judgment about me personally. So let's not go there, ok?
Stop right there (because you DON'T understand).
I'm talking about expected results of an arbitrary and unconstitutional centralization of power (in this case, warrant-less wiretapping). A cursory glance at my contributions to this thread reveals that I have not veered from that exact point. Yet you here now veer. So when you ask “Do I need to go any further?” then my answer is that you’ve gone too far already.
Well Ed you haven't exactly done your best to make your posts explicit enough for me to understand you. Originally you tied the Spitzer controversy to me defending Bush, kind of an odd connect there. I said I was disturbed the FBI devoted any resources to busting up prostitution rings, as is apparent so are you. I never said I found this to be "unexpected" as you said in response "That said, I didn't find this use of warrantless wiretapping to be unexpected at all."
So there you were going too far. Since you made such an odd connection to my expressing disturbance over the FBI's use of resources, which was odd enough for me to ask you to clarify, you then went into a post about how I defend Bush. It seems really you just wanted to throw in how I defend Bush some of the time and that really, you find it distasteful and want to make a connection somehow to say "See! I told you he is a bastard!"
=========
For example I believe he is right to continue the war in Iraq, but I believe he is wrong to authorize unconstitutional powers of warrantless wiretapping. Are you making an insinuation that I invariably defend Bush?
=========
I was making the insinuation that you invariably defend his motives (a defense of his character). It’s not you particularly, it’s a whole mess of intelligent folks.
I take someone's motives at face value, and if evidence should arise that puts those motives into question, then at that time I will question those motives. But what I have a problem with is conspiracy theorists who arbitrarily come up with what must be ulterior motives to an action the President made because, well you just don't like the guy. And not because those ulterior motives make sense, or that they fit the evidence of what is privy to us. I don't work backwards like that, I don't start with a premise "I hate Bush" and then observe everything he does and try to twist those observations to reaffirm my vitriolic hatred for him, like what I see so many intelligent folks do, not just you.
And again, this doesn't mean I defend "all" of his motives "all" of the time despite your claim, I have never done such a thing. My primary defense of Bush's motives and decisions are in regard to his foreign policy, and nothing more. And even there I have criticized him on the particulars of how to execute some of those policies. Guessing what his ulterior motives are without any evidence to suggest there are any, is a completely pointless exercise best left to the Bush haters and conspiracy theorists. I am not interested in that kind of speculation.
My point is that the Bush administration isn’t dumb (it didn’t merely “accidentally” destroy individuality in this country more than any other administration in the last 30 years), but that it’s worse than dumb, it’s NeoCon.
If you like, then we could debate whether a new term like NeoCon should exist -- which would essentially be a debate about whether or not there’s a group of Republicans with Leftist ideology that is merely only cloaked in the Right Wing ideologies of Reason, Freedom, Capitalism, and Individualism (as a means to confuse the public and, in so doing, as a means to do evil).
If you like, then we could debate whether – if the term NeoCon ought to exist – whether the Bush administration “qualifies” or “exemplifies” this political position.
However, your initial idea of a healthy debate – one where we’d be talking about how Spitzer’s being a moral hypocrite supposedly ties into Bush’s level of policy-transparency regarding the war in Iraq – doesn’t appeal to me as any kind of point worth looking into.
My apologies for not being explicit enough in my request we have a healthy debate. I meant the healthy debate to be what Bush's "real" motives are for the war in Iraq, and whether those actions were justified, and whether me defending those actions should mean I am a "Neo-Con" and defend all of his policies.
If we should have this, we should probably start a new thread.
In sum, my point here has never been about an individual’s moral hypocrisy in their individual life, but rather it has been a point about an individual’s (or an administration’s) moral hypocrisy about policies and procedures that affect all individual lives in this country.
Ok where I once thought earlier in writing this post I better understood your position, I am once again confused. Now you are linking the moral hypocrisy of Spitzer to your alleged Bush's moral hypocrisy on his true motives for the war in Iraq?
You're confusing me Ed.
|
|
