«

»

So will the left demand legal redress this time?

Back during the Boosh days, Richard Armitage, a donkey, disclosed the identity of a woman that had once been a low level CIA desk jockey, and the left went bat shit about it because they figured they could use a pretense of caring about national security to nail evil Boosh and his gang. It went nowhere, but they managed to fuck over some guy – Libby – for not playing along nice with the witch-hunt. Well, now Obama’s own WH has revealed the identity of a real CIA station chief in a country we are at war in> How much do you want to bet that Holder and the left all tell us this is nothing to worry about and that this is just a manufactured scandal, huh?

Karma is a bitch you leftards. Do that dance. Squirm. Show us that the only standards you have are double standards. Line up to see the excuse making. This is going to be fun.

36 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hal_10000 says:

    a low level CIA desk jockey,

    Actually, an undercover counter-proliferation agent in several foreign countries operating without a black passport who was later put on a desk because she might have burned by Aldrich Ames. But whatevs.

    I was about to put up a post on this. This should be investigated just as thoroughly.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. richtaylor365 says:

    Sooooooooooo, revealing the name of an actual working field officer in a hostile country (a supervisor no less, someone who could connect all the dots) is the same as naming someone hunkered down behind a coffee pot, manning a switchboard at Langley? Whatever;

    http://books.google.com/books?id=qUIju3qFcJAC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=WAS+PLAME+AN+ACTIVE+AGENT&source=bl&ots=n7V-OWMOp6&sig=ELuzmGIXixy8tTF65C8YdncBVuk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WAqEU4bLIcuPqgaVv4EY&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=WAS%20PLAME%20AN%20ACTIVE%20AGENT&f=false

    Obama deserves props for even making the trip and visiting the troops, those golf balls won’t loose themselves in the sandtraps, he did the right thing here.

    As far as this being a scandal, for the gang that can’t shoot straight, another screw up is par for the course, they will just blame it on the military.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Hal_10000 says:

    Not sure I’d be quoting a conspiracy book, but I agree the revelation of Plame was likely inadvertent. I also think this one was. The indication are that the military accidentally put him on a list and the White House removed the name. But it should still be investigated.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Xetrov says:

    Somehow it’s Bush’s fault.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Hal_10000 says:

    Well, obviously, Xetrov. I’m sure this afternoon there will be some article on Daily Kos claiming this is a smokescreen operation by the Republicans to conceal something something Haliburton.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Seattle Outcast says:

    Not just Haliburton, but the “real mother” of Trig Palin….

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    Well, now we’re really through the looking glass. How do we know that the station chief isn’t the real mother of Trig who was forced to have a sex change operation?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

      
  9. richtaylor365 says:

    Ah, you’re back, I figured you would still be updating your twitter feed on Kim and Kanye’s wedding. Did you get the signed or unsigned box set of the wedding photos?

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Xetrov says:

    I can’t wait until everything is Obama’s fault. That will be fun. And around and around we go.

    That’s all you’ve got? You were quite vocal back in the day regarding Plame, Scooter, Cheney, etc.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    You haven’t got a very good memory then. I may have made a comment here and there but nothing more than that. Doesn’t make any difference what I say now though I guess, what you say will automatically be considered the truth.

    Rich I got both. Good to see you’ve heard of them (see what I did there, it actually relates to you rather than a lazy unrelated caricature).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  12. Xetrov says:

    You haven’t got a very good memory then. I may have made a comment here and there but nothing more than that. Doesn’t make any difference what I say now though I guess, what you say will automatically be considered the truth.

    Let’s go to the tape!

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/1034/P50/#21705

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/817/#16234

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/694/

    http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/927/

    But I’m sure that was all posted/said, and the research taken to find those links was just to impartially further discussion, right?. Or whatever you try to convince yourself of when playing the unbiased martyr in discussions. I don’t care that you brought any of it up. But to play the unconcerned bystander now is disingenuous.

    So what’s your take on this situation?

    BTW – the “it’s Obama’s fault” only applies if the next Administration spends 5+ years blaming just about everything that goes wrong on him.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  14. Iconoclast says:

    http://pumaeyes.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/bushsfault.jpg

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Xetrov says:

    I love how you try to explain away finding jack shit by………blaming me for not being vocal enough back then.

    Did you forget how to comprehend English? I find four prime examples of you commenting on or bringing up the entire Libby/Plame thing on your own (including two threads you felt necessary to start yourself after researching articles about it), and I found jack shit? And where exactly did I blame you for not being more vocal? It’s fine that you were vocal about it back then. I’d just expect the same sort of comments if you were as unbiased as you always claim to be. But nope. We just get to hear about how some day everything will be Obama’s fault (like today isn’t too early for holding him responsible for his policies).

    I’m pretty confident that if the GOP candidate wins then everything will be Obama’s fault for a long while.

    Well, let’s say that, just on a fluke that the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”) continues to be a shit sandwich for most of the country. Is it fair to say the continued ramifications, and economical and personal impact is Obama’s fault since he pushed for its passing? Obama has personally blamed everything from oil prices, to the deficit/debt, to unemployment, to the BP Gulf Oil spill, to the housing/financial crisis on Bush. Bush never personally said a thing about Clinton in regards to 9/11.

    Feel free to call the new Administration on it when and if they do start blaming Obama for their own policies. I’ll agree with you then.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    Feel free to call the new Administration on it when and if they do start blaming Obama for their own policies. I’ll agree with you then.

    ^^^^THIS^^^^

    A lot more of this….

    That’s Obama’s administration in a nutshell. They can skip the Obama library and decades of debate by just putting this on its epitaph.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Iconoclast says:

    I’m pretty confident that if the GOP candidate wins then everything will be Obama’s fault for a long while.

    And I am just as confident, if not more so, that if the GOP candidate wins and implements policies that do bring the USA back to life, Obama will get the credit. “See? Obama knew what he was doing all along — it just took a little more time for the payoff, that’s all…”

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  18. CM says:

    Did you forget how to comprehend English?

    I was going to ask you the same question.

    I find four prime examples of you commenting on or bringing up the entire Libby/Plame thing on your own (including two threads you felt necessary to start yourself after researching articles about it), and I found jack shit? And where exactly did I blame you for not being more vocal?

    You said you remembered me being “quite vocal” about the Plame issue. I wasn’t. MW wasn’t the same as RT. I posted significantly more at Moorewatch forums (for a variety of reasons) and many of us discussed far more issues in greater detail and through a number of different threads. The whole thing worked quite differently. Not only is there no comparison in terms of the subject issue, there’s not really a comparison between MW and this place. There are literally hundreds, of not thousands, of threads at MW that I’m sure the authors didn’t feel “necessary to start”.
    Guess we have quite a different idea of what “being quite vocal” means. You could choose dozens of other issues/topics that I was more “vocal” about than that. An advanced search of my name and ‘Plame’ brings up a whole 6 threads in which I mention the name. Out of 14500 posts. You could find another example which brings up double the amount and it still doesn’t mean I was “quite vocal” about whatever it is. I was extremely vocal about the Iraq War and climate change. An advanced search brings up 9 results. So you were 50% more vocal than me (and apparently, based on your system, we can assume that you were supporting Libby/Cheney etc). And yet all you have to offer here is “Somehow it’s Bush’s fault.”? C’mon now, you were literally screaming the house down etc etc.

    In your first example I just quote a list of questions at the end of a 3 page thread. It’s my first post in the thread. 54th post of the thread. Surely if I was hot on this issue I would have entered a lot sooner, and with something forthright.
    In your second I pointed out that what I linked to is damning of Miller and the NYT.
    In your third example I’m wondering if it wasn’t Libby, who will it be?
    The fourth one is a poll about ethics, the Plame issue is only one component.

    It’s fine that you were vocal about it back then.

    Again, not sure how you’re defining that. You know how it worked back at MW so not sure what you’re trying to do or why.

    I’d just expect the same sort of comments if you were as unbiased as you always claim to be.

    What sort of comments would you expect from me on this issue (being something quite different)?

    But nope. We just get to hear about how some day everything will be Obama’s fault (like today isn’t too early for holding him responsible for his policies).

    Was just following your lead – “Somehow it’s Bush’s fault.”

    But misrepresent away – as I say, you have the power to mislead the lemmings if you wish to use it. I certainly don’t.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  19. CM says:

    Feel free to call the new Administration on it when and if they do start blaming Obama for their own policies. I’ll agree with you then.

    Deal.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  20. Section8 says:

    I was going to ask you the same question.

    Well of course you were. It’s all about the I know you are but what am I response you give to just about everything that spirals these threads into the garbage. Try something new for once.

    He called you out on your bullshit no matter how you try to spin it. Just live with it. Your ridiculous argument that since you took a shit in the woods instead of on the toilet means you didn’t really take a shit is silly.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Well of course you were. It’s all about the I know you are but what am I response you give to just about everything that spirals these threads into the garbage. Try something new for once.

    You must have stopped reading there. The rest of it explains how/why. So the exact opposite of what you are inexplicably attempting to claim.

    He called you out on your bullshit no matter how you try to spin it. Just live with it. Your ridiculous argument that since you took a shit in the woods instead of on the toilet means you didn’t really take a shit is silly.

    I either did express a strong opinion on the Plame issue (so as to make me a hypocrite now) or I didn’t. It’s either a valid comparison (the leaking) or it isn’t. There are obvious and clear answers to both of those questions.
    But you’re doing exactly what I outlined.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  22. Section8 says:

    But I’m sure that was all posted/said, and the research taken to find those links was just to impartially further discussion, right?. Or whatever you try to convince yourself of when playing the unbiased martyr in discussions. I don’t care that you brought any of it up. But to play the unconcerned bystander now is disingenuous.

    He clearly explained his point with his quote above which we all clearly understand. Maybe one of us can draw you a picture and while I’m sure even that will do no good, you could at least print it out and go color it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. CM says:

    That’s all you got?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  24. Section8 says:

    That’s all I need :)

    Anyhow I’ll check back later. Don’t get too dizzy chasing your tail around.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Iconoclast says:

    You said you remembered me being “quite vocal” about the Plame issue.

    I think the point being made is that you seem to be rather non-vocal about the current situation; compared to your apparent lack of response to the Obama Administration’s revealing of the name of a CIA operative, you were apparently quite vocal about the Plame affair, as the four links provided by Xetrov would indicate. Xetrov is only saying that you were vocal about the Plame affair relatively speaking, whereas you are attempting to equivocate by inferring he meant you were vocal in some absolute sense, which is ridiculous. Context matters.

    If you had posted links about the current affair, showing poll data indicating how low Obama’s approval ratings are due to this incident, then Xetrov would have no case. But you didn’t, although you apparently did do so on the Plame affair, when Bush’s approval ratings were being impacted. This is why your claims of objectivity ring so hollow. And the fact that the MooreWatch forums “work differently” is irrelevant to the fact that you approached the two incidents (Plame vs. current leak) differently. Your initial response to the current affair was nothing more that a rather cynical-sounding, “I can’t wait until everything is Obama’s fault. That will be fun. And around and around we go.” As if pinning the blame on Obama for the current affair should be trivialized and dismissed.

    Trying to obfuscate by claiming to have been “more” vocal about a thousand other things is nothing more than equivocation and deflection. And trying to dismiss Xetrov’s links as “jack shit” is pathetic denial.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  26. CM says:

    I think the point being made is that you seem to be rather non-vocal about the current situation; compared to your apparent lack of response to the Obama Administration’s revealing of the name of a CIA operative, you were apparently quite vocal about the Plame affair, as the four links provided by Xetrov would indicate.

    1. What has one got to do with the other? They appear to be quite different, with the only aspect in common being that a name got leaked.
    2. It was less than a day between it being posted (first I’d heard of it) and my post. We still really don’t know what happened. And yet Xetrov is attempting to compare that with all discussions on the much larger Plame issue. So another false comparison.
    3. If anything the four links demonstrate the opposite, as noted.

    So the ‘point’ very clearly fails completely, “your knee-jerk denials notwithstanding”.

    If you had posted links about the current affair, showing poll data indicating how low Obama’s approval ratings are due to this incident, then Xetrov would have no case. But you didn’t, although you apparently did do so on the Plame affair, when Bush’s approval ratings were being impacted.

    It would be completely random if I’d posted poll data about this event. What a ridiculous suggestion, but how very typical of you.

    This is why your claims of objectivity ring so hollow.

    What a complete steaming pile of horseshit.

    And the fact that the MooreWatch forums “work differently” is irrelevant to the fact that you approached the two incidents (Plame vs. current leak) differently.

    The two incidents aren’t comparable and of course it’s relevant.

    Your initial response to the current affair was nothing more that a rather cynical-sounding, “I can’t wait until everything is Obama’s fault. That will be fun. And around and around we go.” As if pinning the blame on Obama for the current affair should be trivialized and dismissed.

    Alex:

    How much do you want to bet that Holder and the left all tell us this is nothing to worry about and that this is just a manufactured scandal, huh?
    Karma is a bitch you leftards. Do that dance. Squirm. Show us that the only standards you have are double standards. Line up to see the excuse making. This is going to be fun.

    But you’ve no problem or issue with that, even though it’s based (yet again) on pure speculation. As per usual. Such a hypocrite.
    Trying to blame Obama for everything, which what many of you do, should be mocked. Just as many of you mock those on the left for continuing to blame things on Bush. I’m sorry that your partisan blindness and ongoing erection keeps getting in your way.

    Trying to obfuscate by claiming to have been “more” vocal about a thousand other things is nothing more than equivocation and deflection.

    Let me know when you’ve got something that actually makes sense.

    And trying to dismiss Xetrov’s links as “jack shit” is pathetic denial.

    Your entire post is what is pathetic. Why even bother with something so obviously lame? Why would you choose to step in and reveal that you actually have nothing? Is this what being so proudly non-objective leads to?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  27. Iconoclast says:

    What has one got to do with the other? They appear to be quite different, with the only aspect in common being that a name got leaked.

    Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Plame affair happened during the Bush (who was absolutely hated and reviled by the media) Administration, while this event took place during the Obama (who is worshipped and adored by the media) Administration. The two incidents couldn’t possibly be more dissimilar.

    We still really don’t know what happened. And yet Xetrov is attempting to compare that with all discussions on the much larger Plame issue.

    If we “really don’t know what happened”, then we are not in a position to judge whether the Plame issue is “much larger” than the current issue. It could turn out that this issue dwarfs the Plame issue. But then again, the MSM, and its on-going love affair with everything Obama. Even if this affair is bigger than the Plame affair (which the MSM milked for all it was worth), the media could always bury it, like it did with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS “phoney” scandal, etc., etc.

    If anything the four links demonstrate the opposite, as noted.

    Sure. Whatever you say.

    It would be completely random if I’d posted poll data about this event.

    But it wasn’t “random” when you posted the equivalent during the Bush Administration. I think your use of the word “random” is random…

    What a complete steaming pile of horseshit.

    Well, your claims do ring hollow whether you like it or not.

    Trying to blame Obama for everything, which what many of you do, should be mocked. Just as many of you mock those on the left for continuing to blame things on Bush.

    And the word “continuing” should be a clue for you, but apparently it isn’t. Blaming the sitting President for events occurring under his watch is one thing (and no, it shouldn’t automatically be mocked, your pontifications to that effect notwithstanding), whereas blaming current crises on the previous Administration, especially after one full term for the current Administration, is completely different and absolutely should be mocked.

    I’m sorry that your partisan blindness and ongoing erection keeps getting in your way.

    Wow, what irony. I’m sorry you’re having such a bad day. Mate.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  28. CM says:

    Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Plame affair happened during the Bush (who was absolutely hated and reviled by the media) Administration, while this event took place during the Obama (who is worshipped and adored by the media) Administration. The two incidents couldn’t possibly be more dissimilar.

    What does that have to do with whether I have personally demonstrated a double-standard?

    If we “really don’t know what happened”, then we are not in a position to judge whether the Plame issue is “much larger” than the current issue. It could turn out that this issue dwarfs the Plame issue. But then again, the MSM, and its on-going love affair with everything Obama. Even if this affair is bigger than the Plame affair (which the MSM milked for all it was worth), the media could always bury it, like it did with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS “phoney” scandal, etc., etc.

    Pretty gymnastics you got there. If we are not in a position to judge then how/why should I be ‘as vocal’ (as I was about something I wasn’t very vocal about).

    Sure. Whatever you say.

    It was an observation backed up with an examination of the evidence. But sure you can prefer “Nah nah nah nah nah” if you like.

    Well, your claims do ring hollow whether you like it or not.

    Right, because “nah nah nah nah nah”.
    You’re proudly non-objective, so why would anyone give any credence to your assessment? Or do you try to have it both ways?

    And the word “continuing” should be a clue for you, but apparently it isn’t. Blaming the sitting President for events occurring under his watch is one thing (and no, it shouldn’t automatically be mocked, your pontifications to that effect notwithstanding), whereas blaming current crises on the previous Administration, especially after one full term for the current Administration, is completely different and absolutely should be mocked.

    Not what I said though.

    Wow, what irony.

    Says the (proudly non-objective) guy who has injected himself in here for no apparent reason other than to pile on and to reinforce that he’s looking to play the man and not the ball. Noted and whatever.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  29. Iconoclast says:

    What does that have to do with whether I have personally demonstrated a double-standard?

    I’m not claiming it does, but illustrating the MSM’s double-standard would seem to be a sufficient starting point.

    It was an observation backed up with an examination of the evidence.

    And I explained how your “examination” failed, “but sure you can prefer ‘Nah nah nah nah nah’ if you like.”

    You’re proudly non-objective…

    It would be more accurate to say that I realize nobody is truly objective, so therefore don’t buy into pretenses people may have about allegedly being objective, and try to avoid such pretenses myself. But then accuracy isn’t your strong suit when it comes to judging people who disagree with you. Calling me “proudly non-objective” is nothing more than “Nah nah nah nah nah”. It’s just slightly more sophisticated sophistry, nothing more.

    Noted and whatever.

    Translation: “Nah nah nah nah nah”.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    It would be more accurate to say that I realize nobody is truly objective, so therefore don’t buy into pretenses people may have about allegedly being objective, and try to avoid such pretenses myself. But then accuracy isn’t your strong suit when it comes to judging people who disagree with you. Calling me “proudly non-objective” is nothing more than “Nah nah nah nah nah”. It’s just slightly more sophisticated sophistry, nothing more.

    That needed to be said – twice – because this seems to escape the person in question, so I am doing it….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  31. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  32. Iconoclast says:

    For anyone to demonstrate a double-standard the event would need to be sufficiently similar.

    Which, of course, begs the question of what constitutes “sufficient”. It goes without saying that you will choose a criterion that disqualifies the events in question.

    They’re not.

    As I was saying…

    Where did you explain it? In this paragraph?

    Nope. The previous paragraph, wherein I differentiated between being “vocal” in an absolute sense and being “vocal” in a relative sense. You were arguing the former, and I the latter.

    So you decided to…

    Since you’re attacking the wrong paragraph, your rant is meaningless.

    I recognise that too, but the major different is that I also recognise the critical importance of attempting to be as objective as possible.

    Which is meaningless when it comes to “blaming Obama” vs. “blaming Bush”. I live in the USA. I am watching her demise up close, and this POTUS is squarely to blame. When Obama was a Senator, he preached “The Buck Stops at the Oval Office” with the best of them. Now that he occupies the Oval Office, he shirks blame and responsibility left, right and center. He is lawless, and trashes the Constitution on a regular basis. The latest example of his using the COTUS as toilet paper to wipe his ass with is this Marx-forsaken prisoner exchange deal, which he did without Congressional approval. He released 5 dangerous men who are Taliban top brass, and in return we get a bozo who, by all appearances, is a fucking deserter/traitor.

    Prior to that, there was Benghazi, where he lied through his teeth to the American people about why 4 Americans, in service to their country, were unceremoniously murdered during an al-Qaeda backed terrorist attack. The lies continue to this day, and the purpose of the outright lying was purely political — Obama needed to get re-elected, and the “al-Qaeda Is On The Run” narrative had to be maintained, apparently at any cost.

    And speaking of Benghazi/Libya/al-Qaeda, there was the whole unauthorized military intervention in Libya; again, no Congressional approval. And it may have been completely unnecessary:

    It now seems that the entire war in Libya — where thousands died in a civil war in which no U.S. interest was at stake — might well have been averted on [Hillary Clinton's] watch and, of course, that of President Obama’s. How? In March 2011, immediately after NATO’s punishing bombing campaign began, Muammar Qaddafi was “ready to step aside,” says retired Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, U.S. Navy. “He was willing to go into exile and was willing to end the hostilities.”

    What happened? According to Kubic, the Obama administration chose to continue the war without permitting a peace parley to go forward.

    Kubic made these extremely incendiary charges against the Obama administration while outlining his role as the leading, if informal, facilitator of peace feelers from the Libyan military to the U.S. military. He was speaking this week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., where the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was presenting its interim report.

    You yourself argued in favor of the military action. “Qaddafi was a threat to his own people”, I recall you saying. Well, according to Rear Admiral Kubic, you were wrong, wrong, wrong. And of course, it’s entirely plausible that this military (mis)adventure that led to Qaddafi’s demise created the vacuum into which al-Qaeda grew and blossomed, leading to the Benghazi tragedy, which our fearless leader subsequently lied about.

    When you then consider Fast and Furious, the IRS “phoney” scandal, the killing of an American citizen via drone attack, and so on, and so on, not to event mention Obamacare and Obama’s unilateral rewriting of the law for political gain, well, the notion that “attempting to be as objective as possible” is of “critical importance” begins to lose its luster, and comes across as phoney posturing, nothing more. It’s easy for you to be “objective” when watching a foreign country fall apart while yours seems to be humming alone fine. It’s good that you have a projected budget surplus, which, of course, was achieved by your government’s spending cuts.

    During their six-year tenure the Nationals have cut taxes — particularly for companies and high earners — and social benefits. Their tight rein on government spending has put New Zealand on track for a budget surplus in the fiscal year through June 2015, its first since 2008.

    So yeah, a couple of decidedly conservative principles seem to be working for you. Too bad we can’t get our government to apply the same here. Obama seems utterly incapable of even considering spending cuts, let alone implementing them.

    Except that it’s also an accurate summary of what you just said.

    If you’re delusional, it is. I mean, you might as well preach to me that I am “proud” to be bald. After all, it is another fact about myself that I don’t attempt to hide. I make no pretenses by wearing a toupee or a wig, I am not a member of the Hair Club for Men, I don’t use Rogaine, and I certainly don’t part my hair 1/4 inch above one hear and comb it over my dome to the other ear. Fortunately, I don’t see much of that last one anywhere any more, but it was the norm a couple of decades ago. No, I simply cut my hair short as possible and forget about it. You may see “pride” in that, but I see simple pragmatism.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  33. Seattle Outcast says:

    You might want to consider using Rogaine to lower your PSA levels. Your hair won’t come back, but your urologist will be happy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    Which, of course, begs the question of what constitutes “sufficient”. It goes without saying that you will choose a criterion that disqualifies the events in question.

    Sheesh.
    How are they similar, in the context of how I’ve demonstrated a double standard? I’ve pointed out how they are sufficiently different, why don’t you explain how they are sufficiently similar to enable the charge to have any merit.

    Which is meaningless when it comes to “blaming Obama” vs. “blaming Bush”.

    I would say trying to be objective is never meaningless, you can still attempt to be objective. IMO we all should try, all the time. My comment was simply noting how it’s going to be interesting when the next GOP President arrives in office. It was more about Bush apparently being blamed for everything now, and my prediction that after Obama leaves office he’ll be blamed for just as much but it won’t be mocked, it will be a genuinely held belief. “This time it’s different” etc etc. But of course it won’t be – thus, my ‘around and around we go’ comment.

    And it may have been completely unnecessary:

    That certainly is interesting. This is the second time (at least) that you’ve referenced that. Last time I couldn’t find anything else to support the claim. I’d like to see some corroboration because it’s pretty important. Certainly if was a real chance to avoid military intervention then I would favour that, and I would certainly want to know if it was just ignored. There was always the opportunity to avoid military action in Iraq but of course the narrative was always the opposite (it was always “why shouldn’t we?” when the question was always actually “why should you?”)

    He released 5 dangerous men who are Taliban top brass, and in return we get a bozo who, by all appearances, is a fucking deserter/traitor.

    Wouldn’t they need to be released at some point anyway? Or are they being kept forever?
    Isn’t getting your guy back a separate to issue to whether he’s a deserter/traitor?

    Nevertheless, the criticism of Obama not seeking Congressional approval (more than once) is totally understandable and warranted. And yes I can totally see plenty of valid criticism of Obama which is objective. No doubt.

    It’s easy for you to be “objective” when watching a foreign country fall apart while yours seems to be humming alone fine.

    Why do you put speech marks around the word objective? It’s not a trick or being used in a false way. I would argue that trying hard to remain objective is even more important in that situation.

    It’s good that you have a projected budget surplus, which, of course, was achieved by your government’s spending cuts.

    Partly. It was more ‘restraint’ more than cuts – any cuts have certainly have been very minimal, and certainly haven’t been to front-line services. I’m actually pretty happy with how the centre-right government has performed overall. Which doesn’t do much for my reputation as a communist, but then I guess I could just be pretending.

    Cost-cutting included delaying payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and reducing Government contributions to Kiwisaver, while increases in operational spending allowances have generally focussed on core areas such as health and education, with other departments seeing little or no new cash.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budget-2014/10048613/Budget-2014-The-essential-guide

    So yeah, a couple of decidedly conservative principles seem to be working for you.

    Well spending restraint, high prices for exports, high terms of trade, positive net migration and low interest rates have been the main factors. And the Christchurch rebuild. Many of those factors are only marginally within our control. We’re still just a tiny paper boat afloat in a large ocean.

    You may see “pride” in that, but I see simple pragmatism.

    But do you actively mock/chastise people for growing hair because they can?

    When this issue first arose (a while back) you said that you weren’t pretending to be objective. Like it was a bad thing to even try it, like because nobody can be 100% objective it’s pointless even attempting. But if you’re not trying to be objective, then what is the point? You’re only running the real risk of fooling yourself and trying to fool others.

    How old are you?
    I’m 40 on Saturday and I’m losing my hair fairly rapidly now, it’s getting pretty thin on top. Fortunately (not) it seems to be growing in other places instead.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Santino says:

    [blockquote] Fortunately (not) it seems to be growing in other places instead. [/blockquote]

    Oooh, can we play a game and guess where?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Iconoclast says:

    Wouldn’t they need to be released at some point anyway?

    Nope, they should be tried by tribunal and executed. These guys are fucking murderous thugs, for Marx’ sake.

    Isn’t getting your guy back a separate to issue to whether he’s a deserter/traitor?

    Nope, not when you consider the price that was paid (at least 6 American lives + 5 Taliban thugs being released) for getting him back, and considering that he voluntarily left the fold in the first place.

    But do you actively mock/chastise people for growing hair because they can?

    All analogies fail at some point, but I would mock a guy wearing a toupee (trying to appear something other than bald) if he chides me for being bald.

    But if you’re not trying to be objective, then what is the point?

    I believe it’s simply not possible to be objective in many cases, but that being said, I am all for being as informed as possible, from all sides of a given issue. But even at that, I recognize that personal biases will still color how we perceive objective information, and also there is the issue of those presenting information and how their biases color the presentation.

    You’re only running the real risk of fooling yourself and trying to fool others.

    I see it the other way around; those advocating for “objectivity” are more likely to fool themselves into thinking they really are objective.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      

Leave a Reply