--- Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Gautam, now you are getting plain silly. Making > personal insults directed at me is hardly a response > to my long list of GOP sillinesses.
I don't think I'm personally insulting you, actually. > > In fact, I had 4 years of ROTC training and would > have > gone to Vietnam if I did not perceive that war as > the > worst inanity, falling for a KGB trap of sucking > America into a land war in Asia. (In fairness, I > blame JFK for that one. Specifically his inaugural > address daring all comers and proclaiming macho over > brains.) So, you had the training and in war didn't go? This does not exactly strengthen your case, Dr. Brin. Now, if I argued the way you did I'd say you were consistent - you didn't care about what happened to the people of Vietnam, and you didn't care about the people of Iraq. I don't think either of those are the case, though. The question is why you insist on describing people who disagree with you in that sort of malign terminology. > > Which is irrelevant. The things I accused W and his > crowd of are specific (you answered none) provable > and > actually rather MILD compared to the absolutely > insane > series of spewing rants that were aimed at the > Clintons, accusing them of everything from murder to > molestation to having a bad marriage. (That last > swipe, vicious, had no basis bust became the core > mantra of a religious movement.) Since at least one member of the family is a friend, I'm not going to comment on their marriage. But they aren't particularly specific, and they're only provable to _you_, and people with your rather far-out viewpoint. You have to address the central point, Dr. Brin, that some very intelligent and able people completely disagree with you. As long as you insist on arguing that someone like Rice is an idiot, well, you're arguing that I am too - because I would say I'm at least as able to see through propaganda as you are. And I don't think she is - she's at least as smart as I am. Or, I dare say, as you, Dr. Brin. If you want to use the sort of terms and inflammatory rhetoric that you do, you aren't just insulting the President and his aides, you're insulting everyone who supports them - because you're pretty clearly saying that only a fool or a villain could agree with them. Say that if you wish, but don't think I'm going to respect your opinions afterwards. > > The dopiest thing is to sigh, wave your hands in the > air and declare it pointless to argue. Feh. What's the argument? DB: All conservatives are interested in concentrating wealth in the hands of their frat buddies. I immediately disproved your argument. I'm a conservative, and I'm not. So I guess I win the argument? How exactly do I respond to that? > But fundamentally this isn't about conservatism. It > is about kleptocracy. They hated him as much as all > the other war heroes, like Kerry and Clark. You mean like George H.W. Bush? He would be a war hero too, after all. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
