Originally posted by addabox
Spastic response? You mean the one were I made specific points as to why calling out Kos is dishonest?
I called him out as being for hire to help. I didn't call him out for being bad or wrong. You simply assigned that value to it.
No, because that's not his reasoning.
Don't delude yourself. It is his reasoning. I quoted it verbatim.
"Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House's payola rolls."
That is a direct first person quote. He implicated everyone because of the actions of one.
So there can never be actual disproportionate misbehavior by a distinct political group, because matters of governance are trivialities of appearance akin to the hairiness of ones upper lip. When the Bush admin uses the actual apparatus of the Social Security Administration to sell his lies about the status of that very agency, for instance, there can be no real criticism or accounting because opponents of his plan to eliminate same must surely have misrepresented something or another at some point in some sense. And anyway, it's all just "he said she said" because there is no such thing as the truth, just symmetrical accusations.
We aren't talking about policy decisions here and that is what you bring up with Social Security. I was referring specifically to when one party starts going after the other with regard to dirty laundry. Anytime this happens a whole bunch of it gets aired out and both sides end up looking bad. Hillary and Bill call it "the politics of personal destruction." It isn't about policy. It is about using human fallibility to win instead of ideals or policy. Neither party is above doing it. Both have paid for doing it.
As for the status of SS, I've discussed that in another thread. The people trying to calm everyone about it should be ashamed. It is clear the government can "honor" their debt obligation. I mean dollars are not backed by anything in this day and age. They can print as many of them as they want to pay a debt. They can simply print away the debt which causes massive inflation and crushes anyone on a fixed income or that has fixed wealth assets. This destroys the very people it is claimed to intend to help and to claim SS is okay because they can "honor" the bonds in ten years is akin to nonsense because they way they will honor them is actually harmful to the parties supposedly helped.
If they don't, it may be largely due to the calculated use of exactly the kind of obfuscation that you're offering up here, wherein every outrage is immediately paired with another in the hopes that, like matter and anti-matter, they will annihilate one another.
Doubtful. It is likely because real life consumes most of their time. Also if what you say is true, all that would have to happen is for one party to clean up even the appearance of corruption and then it would be done. We can sit here and argue whether Carville, Begala or Kos are most like what Williams did or are not like what Williams did. It is the Democratic party that in all three cases decided it was appropriate to pay people doing reporting instead of forcing them to quit their reporting jobs. One little rule change and bam, no cross complaints possible.
BTW, Begala and Carville (I like Carville quite a bit so don't think I desire to think of him on bad terms) were both still working at CNN while working for Kerry. They didn't come onto the campaign until after the convention which means they were paid with federal election funds. In otherwords taxpayer dollars. Ready to condemn them yet? I doubt it.
Except that they don't . The world doesn't work that way, neatly divided up into equal and opposite halves. Claiming that it does is, very obviously, a strategy for avoiding accountability for a pattern of misbehavior.
Who said anything about equal and opposite? I simply stated that they won't become outraged when they notice the people piling on having the same issues. It isn't credible. It doesn't inspire any sort of outrage.
If Rush Limbaugh started lambasting someone about drug use on his show tomorrow, it is doubtful he would inspire others with his view. It isn't credible. He's a hypocrite in that area of his life. You claim it is apathy generated by the continual tit for tat. I'm telling you that in my view, the apathy is generated because the people doing the accusing are hypocritical.
You're actually not that good at random rhetorical flourishes. Might want to stick to the script.
You can dismiss the article any way you care to. You can dismiss the author and even dismiss me for whatever reason you desire. However don't expect others to be outraged with you when it is clear you are so closed minded. Instead they'll follow your example and just dismiss you instead of generating some outrage.
If you want to me condemn others than Williams than you best show me others who are behaving in a comparable manner. Kos isn't it. Perhaps you'd like to argue that I mustn't decry the Bush administration's fondness for torture if I'm not willing to deal with the fact that some well known liberal has been known to kick the dog
Kos isn't it to you because you are practicing the blogger version of don't ask, don't tell. Kos has admitted to being paid by others and not disclosing it in any fashion. You have no ideal how it is affecting his blogging. I also pointed out Begala and Carville who are very clear examples of what you claim to be outraged over.
I'm having a little trouble following that but I get the feeling that you're under the impression that the modern Republican party is a bastion of "ethics" while the Democrats are without morals of any kind. Humorous.
The Republicans aren't perfect but I don't see them holding hearings claiming the CIA created crack to harm black people and then watch a few years as no one gets outraged when the NAACP pays a person to register votes with crack for example. They claim not only a correctness of view, but also hold contempt for anyone who does not agree with their view. Contempt denotes a hierarchy in which they consider themselves above others when in fact they do the same or worse. Ted Kennedy is a drunk asshole who drives people to their death and gets away with it. Jesse Jackson is a rich race-baiting asshole who pays off the women he sleeps around with and gets them jobs in places to shut them up. They are that which they claim to fight while holding contempt over others for daring to disagree with them. Absolute nonsense. Hillary Clinton "cares" about the poor and then take an eight million dollar advance while her publisher is laying people off. Bullshit of the first degree.
No idea what this means. You think ill of me?
Go watch the movie. Spike needs the money and it is a great movie anyway. Plus you like shotgun blast reasoning and Spike is very good at that.
Probably not the best time to tell someone they treat others in a contemptible manner is in a follow up sentence to the kind of spittle inflected semi-coherent attack in the paragraph above.
The best you can question is my timing? Well the point is that I can still have some fun, even at my own expense, while debating around here. Too bad you can't.