CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scott Ritter: "I want the president impeached because he lied to Congress."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scott Ritter: "I want the president impeached because he lied to Congress." - Page 2

post #51 of 62
5/9/03 at 10:40am
Quote:
Carl Cunningham®:
On certain issues, perhaps. But certainly not here.

And, again... that's not even the point. The point is that Ritter made statements that would absolutely be LAMBASTED by people like Englebert had a conservo been saying the very same things about a liberal, or anyone else. Instead, he defends it because it placates his own point-of-view. That's the epitome of a double-standard. And you know it.

No hard feelings, though. This is obviously just a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It's just too damn bad it's so rampant in political discussions.
Who are "people like Englebert"? Liberals?

How is it a double standard when you AGREE with the metaphor?
Reply
post #52 of 62
5/9/03 at 10:44am
"People like Englebert" are the ones who frame and spin EVERYTHING within their own ideology. They also happen to be at least slightly extreme in their views. This is NOT exclusive to liberals, of course.

And he only agreed with the metaphor because it was admonishing someone he also despises. If that VERY SAME metaphor were the other way around and used to attack a person or issue he agrees with he would be among the first to point out how spiteful and out-of-line it was. I am convinced of that. It's that simple.
Reply
post #53 of 62
5/9/03 at 10:48am
But based on what? Has he condemned the exact same thing when it was said about a liberal for the exact same reason?

I see what you're trying to say, but it seems as if you just arbitraily decided this was the case rather than base it on any sort of substantive reasoning.
Reply
post #54 of 62
5/9/03 at 10:52am
It's not arbitrary at all. I am simply convinced that this is the case.

To be fair, I am NOT meaning to single out Englebert here. As I said before, there are no hard feelings and this is not personal. He's absolutely entitled to his own views and perspective. I simply sense some hypocrisy here... and that's obviously an area where I am highly sensitive, especially when it comes to political discussion.

I just absolutely HATE double-standards.

And can you blame me? After all, I've been married for 8 years. wink
Reply
post #55 of 62
5/9/03 at 10:57am
Quote:
Carl Cunningham®:
It's not arbitrary at all. I am simply convinced that this is the case.

To be fair, I am NOT meaning to single out Englebert here. As I said before, there are no hard feelings and this is not personal. He's absolutely entitled to his own views and perspective. I simply sense some hypocrisy here... and that's obviously an area where I am highly sensitive, especially when it comes to political discussion.

I just absolutely HATE double-standards.

And can you blame me? After all, I've been married for 8 years. wink
Ok, I know what you sense and what you are convinced of Carl, but I'm asking what is this based on.

To establish hypocrisy, you need two nearly identical scenarios: one in which he says/does one thing, and one in which he acts differently in the name of self-serving, despite it being the same as the first one.

Now you have the first thing. He's made a statement about this being permissable because it's just a metaphor, and he sees nothing wrong with it. But where's the second...that's what I'm saying.

Without the second thing, it is arbitrary and you're just saying it to say it.
Reply
post #56 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:02am
Micah, I know what you are getting at. But if people couldn't post things on here based on assumptions then these Political threads would be 99% empty.

Seriously, do I need to go back and research each and every one of Englebert's post to be able to surmise that he wouldn't have liked this very same metaphor had it admonished someone/something with HIS point-of-view?? Come on...

And why is it Devin can make leaps and assumptions in regard to convervs like CT Delude & Kronos (which happen to be much more caustic at times, by the way) without this same challenge?

Is this yet another double-standard?? wink
Reply
post #57 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:19am
Quote:
Carl Cunningham®:
Micah, I know what you are getting at. But if people couldn't post things on here based on assumptions then these Political threads would be 99% empty.

Seriously, do I need to go back and research each and every one of Englebert's post to be able to surmise that he wouldn't have liked this very same metaphor had it admonished someone/something with HIS point-of-view?? Come on...
</strong>

This may be hard to believe, but there are those of us - and Englebert may be one as well - who acknowledge the impropriety of things, whether deal with people we like or dislike.

I have said from the jump that I think it doesn't apply whether literal, metaphorical, satirical, or dead-serious. I think that VERY SMALL portion of what he's saying is garbage.

But the fact that you're willing to go to such lengths to discuss this semantic boo-boo, but have nothing to say about the REAL content of his opinions is what troubles me.

Quote:
And why is it Devin can make leaps and assumptions in regard to convervs like CT Delude & Kronos (which happen to be much more caustic at times, by the way) without this same challenge?

Is this yet another double-standard?? wink
Actually, I do challenge Devin both on issues where we differ (capitalism, Wal-Mart, etc.) and on issues where we see eye-to-eye (I just admonished him for ranting in a political thread where we were on the same side a little while ago because he was only there to belittle the participants without contributing anything).

But if you think I give him some sort of pass, so be it. You're not alone, and I can't change that.

However, this thread has reached 50+ posts, and still no one wants to discuss what Scott Ritter is actually saying.
Reply
post #58 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:28am
Quote:
Refrozen Seabass:
Got a cite, sorro?
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F04%2Fwritt04. xml" target="_blank">London Telegraph</a>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446656.stm" target="_blank">BBC</a>

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/" target="_blank">Slate</a>
Reply
post #59 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:40am
Sorro, none of those pieces say Ritter was on the Iraqi payroll.
Reply
post #60 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:54am
It's implied via his connection to Shakir al-Khafaji and Khafaji's connection to Saddam, but not explicitly stated. Besides, I can't think of any other reason why he would do a complete 180 in the space of a year or two.

Here's something that explains the link a little more explicitly, but it is from the Weekly Standard, so you probably won't pay attention to it. It's okay, I know it's a conservative magazine.

<a href="http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/524dplvk.asp" target="_blank">Saddam Hussein's American Apologist </a>
Reply
post #61 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:56am
Slate has a bunch of reasons he did a 180.
Reply
post #62 of 62
5/9/03 at 11:58am
Even the article villifying the guy finishes off with "The US government is well aware of where the money came from for the film. It came from me and two colleagues. It was checked by the government. It came from personal assets and from bank loans." This doesn't sound like he was in the pay of the Iraqi government to me. I remain unconvinced. A previous treason conviction is more what I was looking for.

Not that it makes a difference. I called shenanigans on this war long before Ritter came out and said he thought so too.

So. Where are the weapons?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scott Ritter: "I want the president impeached because he lied to Congress."