Wednesday, December 05, 2007
It's OK to gloat if you're a conservative.
Shorter Aaron Lee Wudrick: "How dare those liberals occasionally think they got it right. Why, the nerve!"
AFTERSNARK: This one's for Aaron. Enjoy.
I know six-year-olds who lie more convincingly than that.
BONUS TRACK: I'm sure it's illegal to be having this much fun.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Isn’t this is same sort of complacent “pre 9/11” thinking that right-wingers decried long and loudly as being the primary cause of the serial intelligence failures leading up to that catastrophic events when “everything changed” in our global mindset? Bush had then, presumably, been a victim of blissful, post-Clintonian ignorance insofar as airily neglecting the emergent warnings of “Bin Laden posed to attack targets in America” from previous NIE reports.
And now… years later, we discover the same hapless dynamic regarding potential threat assessment is still operative? One can only conclude that the imagined threat was never all that serious in the first place, or that nothing whatsoever has changed at the White House when it comes to determining what developments constitute the “real” threat to the national security of the United States.
Maybe I'm misreading Aaron, but he's the one righty who manages to consistently maintain the shrillest tone of any of them.
My fillings start vibrating whenever I read anything he writes.
I tend to chalk that up to not gettin' any, but saying so is uncivil, so I won't.
I tend to chalk that up to not gettin' any, but saying so is uncivil, so I won't.
And this is your protege, CC? Better find a more worthy fan club.
I’ve joked about the “situational ethics” of conservatives before. Well behold it in action:
Just because they were wrong before, doesn't mean they can't be right now (and generally speaking, vice versa).
Memorize that boys and girls, and say it loud and proud the next time some clueless right-wing fuckwit starts prattling on about the “moral relativism” of “liberals”…
Now you can simply direct them to “Aaron’s Law” which states:
What was wrong before doesn’t preclude it being right now and generally speaking, vice versa.”
Ta da!
And this is your protege, CC? Better find a more worthy fan club.
Protégé? Do you even know what that word means?
I'm a fan of this blog because, quite often, it's refreshing when someone calls something stupid and spares the readership from having to slog through a lengthy liberal-lefty exposé that is oh so civil and polite and desperate to avoid the accusation of liar.
Mellow out, for God's sakes. You're far too young (and virginal) to be so bitter and clenched.
Memorize that boys and girls, and say it loud and proud the next time some clueless right-wing fuckwit starts prattling on about the “moral relativism” of “liberals”…
It's all projection. The Righties want something to be true before any evidence surfaces and assume everyone else operates that way.
I wonder how Aaron evaluated Sott Ritter's challenge to the intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMD's? I wonder if he joined in in smearing and discrediting him?
RT: Well no, not really. If I say, for example "lying is always wrong", that's not the same as saying "just because you lied once, it doesn't mean you're always a liar". You seem to be conflating those two statements in your interpretation of what I said.
ti-guy: "mellow out"? What - like you!?!
Just because they were wrong before, doesn't mean they can't be right now (and generally speaking, vice versa).
RT, I'll see your “situational ethics” and raise you a Norman Podhoretz "conspiracy theory" from Commentary Magazine:
But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding.
In NPod's alternate universe, even Bush's own intelligence agencies are out to get him. That is some big time crazy going on ....
Aren't the Podhoretz's spectacular or what? I want to examine the DNA of that family to determine just exactly how the evil gene is coded.
I believe it involves some serious and repetitive inter-marrying in order to ensure that perfect mutated state of wingnut bliss aka complete and utter removal from the facts at hand ...
Just because they were wrong before, doesn't mean they can't be right now (and generally speaking, vice versa).
That's what you are, but what am I?
You call someone '12 years old' but use an insipid argument that any 6 year old sees through?
That is by far the stupidest attempt at logic I have ever seen, A. It renders every attempt at reason meaningless, but that's the shit you hide behind.
It is amusing that Aaron, as a law student, doesn't understand the simple concept of impugning the credibility of the witness.
Agreed CC, with the basic lack of logic and argumentative skills that he possesses, it makes me wonder about the state of law schools in Canada...
Come come. It's starting to sound like the Matthew Good blog comments section in here.
Don't I give you people enough to shoot at without havnig to go all ad hominem?
What's even scarier is that my peers elected me class president. Over a Liberal. Run for the hills!
Wow they elected you class preznit? I am in awe. Really...
I stop by your blog on occasion, but it fustrates me to no end because the basic lack of logic causes me pain. I could spend hours just pointing out your flaws in reasoing, but I have a limited amount of time on my hands as it is.
I stop by your blog on occasion, but it fustrates me to no end because the basic lack of logic causes me pain. I could spend hours just pointing out your flaws in reasoing, but I have a limited amount of time on my hands as it is.
Oh, believe me, I sympathize.
So your own lack of logic causes you pain too? Aww muffin!
That's okay because just because they were illogical before doesn't mean they can't be logical now, does it A?
And to carry your analogy further, it is prudent to assume they are logical now, right A?
I mean, that is what you are saying about the NIE, isn't it?
Oh, believe me, I sympathize.
Goodie for you! Please don't provide examples, however.
Don't I give you people enough to shoot at without havnig to go all ad hominem?
What's even scarier is that my peers elected me class president. Over a Liberal. Run for the hills!
First he complains about ad hominem, then he uses the exact same tactic in reverse.
What's scary, A, is that I was 99.99 percentile in my school of 1200 students, and this is over every single fucking conservative and christian and redneck there.
I know that for a fact, but I doubt it has fuck all to do with whether my reasoning and morals are rigorous.
Your claim isn't scary, just insipid. GWB is Republic president, he won over a liberal, and look how fucking stupid he is, not to mention psychotic.
Oh, that's what you are trying to tell us, LMFAO!
First he complains about ad hominem, then he uses the exact same tactic in reverse.
How does one use an ad hominem attack in reverse? By not using one?
every single fucking conservative and christian and redneck
I guess we can stop right there...
Aaron — Yes, you’re right. One doesn’t necessarily preclude the other. Perhaps that’s some thing the BTs should keep in mind when they get all sanctimonious about the Wanda Watkins incident.
Post a Comment