Dave’s Politics

Dave has proven, almost an innumerable number of times, that he has as much domain knowledge about politics as Bush has about technology… here are two fine examples of Dave’s particular brand of nonsense.

As to the first… he doesn’t believe that Bush will step down at the end of his term? What sort of ridiculousness is that? “We may be in the last moments of free speech in this country” Really? What gives you that idea? I’ll be impressed if someone can find factual backing for even one of his assertions.

The second… does he not believe in terror or not believe that we’re waging a war against it? “After the latest fiasco in Congress, we’re once again dependent on the courts to uphold our basic values.” Yes… welcome to our system of government… it’s been like this the whole time.

Dave is out there on the fringe of the far left… repeating various bits of propaganda and scaremongering, but very very rarely stopping to actually think. I’m not the person who agrees with everything that Bush does, not by a long shot, but it’s people like Dave (on the left and the right) that are destroying discourse in this country.

11 thoughts on “Dave’s Politics

  1. If you think Winer is on the “far left”. you’ve been in a shell.

    You ought to be paying attention to the fact that the politics of the Bush adminstration have convinced many, many Americans that there is reason to doubt that they have any intention of adhering to the rulings of the Supreme Court, or, in fact, leaving office. Example: the Supreme Court struck down their torture regime and Bush simply jerked his GOP toadies in line and forced them to legaliize it.

    Terrorists pose a threat to Americans. The GOP poses a threat to America.

  2. Dave is not always wrong. And I have a question for you: If you beieve that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11, then where did its two engines go?

  3. “What sort of ridiculousness is that?”

    You could’ve said the same thing six months ago to people who said the Bush administration would advocate waterboarding and other forms of torture. We’re living under a ridiculous president in ridiculous times. Who knows how far they’ll try to take things, especially if they thing the first thing that follows their term of office is prosecution?

  4. Billg: _”Example: the Supreme Court struck down their torture regime and Bush simply jerked his GOP toadies in line and forced them to legaliize it.”_

    I know this doesn’t jibe with what you learned in 8th grade, but this is actually how things are supposed to be done. There are a great many reasons why the Supreme Court might find something. Most of those reasons can be cured by congress. It happens all the time. For example, in _U.S. v. Lopez_, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Court held that congress had no authority to ban firearms in a school zone because such an action exceeded their authority under the commerce clause.

    Congress later fixed the bill by making the fact that the gun had moved in interstate commerce an element of the crime, thereby restricting the law’s reach to only those cases allowed to it by the Commerce Clause. If you read _Hamdan_, you should notice that the Supreme Court’s major concern was the lack of congressional authority for what was going on, it was not a holding of the Supreme Court that Hamdan was being tortured. Congress took that as a cue and shored up what problems they could in the form of a bill.

    There might still be constitutional problems with the bill, and if there are, you can bet that the Supreme Court will take the first case that petitions for cert. to clear that up.

  5. Joel: I have never, ever, suggested that Dave is _always_ wrong. Nobody is _always_ wrong. Dave is just very, very poorly informed when it comes to politics. Reasonable people can and do disagree with a lot of things that the Bush administration does (likewise, reasonable people can and do _agree_ with a lot of the things they do). But there is a difference between a reasonable person who disagrees and someone who spouts whatever liberal or conservative propaganda they read on the internets.

    Before you start off on some conspiracy theorist rant, you might want to watch this video: http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ — education is a wonderful thing.

  6. Rogers: as is often the case with news about politics in the MSM and blogs, it’s not as wonderful as the proponents would have you believe, nor is it anywhere as bad as the opponents would have you believe. Yes, there are some things which will inevitably be pared back by the Supreme Court, but this is a long way from the worst thing congress has ever passed and it is certainly a impossibly far away from creating a dictatorship.

    I think people are over-looking a key point of information here: Bush’s hubris is actually helping justice and the American way. Because of his arrogance, things that have been going on for decades are now being brought to light and codified… which, frankly, is about the only way the judicial branch is going to get any oversight of them.

    Yes, it looks horrible, and a great many people are making political hay out of it, but Bush really isn’t doing anything new or different… he’s just doing it publicly. That doesn’t make it right, of course, and that’s not really something to credit _him_ for, but it is something we should all be thankful for.

    …or at least those among us who realize that this is not a harbinger of the end times.

  7. “I think people are over-looking a key point of information here: Bush’s hubris is actually helping justice and the American way.”

    This kind of reminds me of Ralph Nader’s hoary old “heightening the contradictions” argument that Bush’s win in 2000 would be good for liberals by showing how much worse things are without us running things.

    I hope there’s something good to come from such a bad presidency, but I fear we’re through the rabbit hole here.

  8. “I hope there’s something good to come from such a bad presidency, but I fear we’re through the rabbit hole here.”

    …sounds like the woe-filled lamentations that we heard from the folks on the far right at the end of the Clinton’s term in office. Not surprisingly, Clinton’s attempts to expand the reach of the presidency (skirting purjury laws, line-item vetos, etc…) didn’t have the far-reaching or long-standing effect that some folks claimed they would.

    That, of course, is not _proof_ that this will be exactly the same, but it should at least lend some skepticism that such thoughts are frequent and natural.

    It’s likely that the most indellible effect that Bush’s term will have on the country is the appointment of two young Supreme Court justices and, luckily, it doesn’t look like he managed to appoint another Scalia or Ginsburg.

  9. I’m not the one who’s ranting here; You are, in practically every entry. Although “ad hominem attack” would be a more accurate term. I’m glad we do agree about Dave, but you didn’t address my question: What did happen to those two engines?

  10. I really don’t want to get into this but using terms correctly is sort of a thing with me. So…for the record…”ad hominem” means to attack someone personally while not attacking their argument.

    In other words, you can attack someone’s arguments (e.g. x person said this and that is wrong because of Y) as much as you want and it isn’t an “ad hominem” attack. It is only when you attack their person (e.g. This person is an idiot) that you get into that territory.

    As far as I can tell from reading over the last few entries and from memory of the entries before I can’t think of a time where the author has attacked Dave’s person. It is all fairly topic based (in almost every occasion he goes so far as to quote the post he is responding to)

  11. Joel: Tom is right. In fact, I’d go even farther: an “ad hominem” attack is a logical fallacy in which you claim that a person’s ARGUMENT is wrong because of some supposed flaw in their CHARACTER.

    In other words: “Dave is wrong about RSS because he is a liberal.” is an ad hominem, whereas: “Dave is an idiot” is simply an insult. There is a distinct difference between the two. The dictionary definition of the term doesn’t really do it justice, but in terms of arguments and logic, that’s what it means.

    In fact, I’ve written several times about how Dave mis-uses the term “ad hominem” to discred those who disagree with him instead of responding to their arguments. He manages to use “ad hominem” AS an ad hominem.

    As for the engines… the link I posted goes into great detail about what happened to the engines as well as the rest of the plane. Give it a watch. Science is your friend.

Comments are closed.