I'll leave it to others who are familiar with my posts to determine whether it is my habit to address whatever issue is under discussion, or instead to rely on attacks and labels.
People who attempt to weave conspiracy theories around the Waco incident - or who insult American political leaders, the American political system, or American culture with scurrilous and base accusations - deserve to be offended.
Get over it. Harold Pinter has been called much worse by many other people. If you'd like to start a Harold Pinter or Arundhati Roy or leading-political-bloviators thread, then we can go into their public statements on Iraq and other matters in detail.
No, this is my way of saying that your attacks have no credibility. I look forward, though not very eagerly, to your next exercise in taking remarks of mine out of context and attempting to demonstrate with them that I do not argue on the basis of fact and logic.
What question would that be? I denied being an extremist. I denied relying on ad hominem or other cheap tactics in debate. I may get in a dig now and then - so what? - but I'm not ashamed of my own dig-vs.-analysis ratio.
Get ready for what you may choose to consider an ad hominem attack - if you can't stand someone telling you exactly what he thinks, then I suggest you go somewhere else. Got it? I now consider you duly warned: Your position is moronic. Okay, that was the topic sentence. If you've recovered, you can now take offense and, with a few points and clicks, drag the words out of context in order to attempt to demonstrate that I merely attack people using generalizations, rather than backing them up with analysis.
Okay, now here's the analysis - which, if you follow one of your favorite tactics, you may choose to ignore: In a political context, the label "extremist" applies to the Timothy McVeighs of the world, the Nazis and Identity radicals on the right, perhaps by the Spartacists and other cultlike revolutionaryies on the left. Sharing a position and a perspective that also happens to be shared by a very substantial number of Americans - the majority according to the most recent opinion polls - cannot justify the use of the term "extremist." It is shoddy language and reflects shoddy thinking. Or maybe, coming from a hypocrite such as yourself, it merely represents your usual self-serving dishonesty.
If attempting to support such a position - that whatever Bush Administration misstatements on the war do not seriously affect the core case for it, as made and accepted - makes one an extremist, then what do you want to call the McVeighs? I guess you don't want to call 'em nutjobs - as that might hurt their feelings (though McVeigh at least is immune). I await your suggestions, though I don't promise to follow them.
I guess they can sue me for the emotional harm.
Hypocrites such as yourself, as well as individuals who make irresponsible charges against public figures or who push lies and distortions on behalf of paranoid conclusions about public policies, while directly or implicitly directing horrendous insults and harsh accusations against all those who disagree with them, deserve to be ridiculed. Ridicule serves a social good in such cases.
Behave with consistency, intellectual honesty, and basic civility, and you won't have to worry about me disturbing your tender sensibilities.
