McCain and...Leiberman?

[MrRain422]

You assume he doesn't care about baseball just because he's half-black? How dare you sir!

 

Not at all. Pretty sure he's a White Sox fan.

[ikol]

Here's one really big lie. I'll dig up more if you want.

 

Lieberman claims on Meet the Press that the people we're fighting in Iraq are the people who attacked us on 9/11

 

He's wrong on the issues because he believes in a doctrine of starting wars with country's that didn't attack us, he's pro-torture, and he seems as though he'd be content to be fighting in Iraq forever.

 

So there's no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

[Good Old Neon]

So there's no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

 

Technically, the folks who attacked us on 9/11 are dead.

 

True, there is an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, but that is because we sort of lured them there. I think what Mr. Rain is taking issue with, and rightfully so, is the insinuation from the White House, and Lieberman, that Iraq was somehow involved with 9/11

[MrRain422]

So there's no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

 

What is called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not really affiliated with the al Qaeda that attacked us -- they're a rogue group who calls themself that to gain credibility. Also, they account for less than 5% of the people fighting in Iraq.

[Beltmann]

I don't there's much substantial difference between saying "Lieberman is wrong" and saying "I disagree with Lieberman." Everybody understands that the former statement comes with qualification; the latter is generally implied within the former.

[ikol]

I don't there's much substantial difference between saying "Lieberman is wrong" and saying "I disagree with Lieberman." Everybody understands that the former statement comes with qualification; the latter is generally implied within the former.

 

True, but there is a substantial difference between saying "Lieberman is wrong" and "Lieberman is lying."

[bobbob1313]

That would be the naturalistic fallacy, or, the idea that what is found in nature is necessarily good. It is, in part, the basis or justification for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest.

 

Nowadays, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave -- as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be ok.

 

Well, I also believe in social darwinism, so maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

 

True, but there is a substantial difference between saying "Lieberman is wrong" and "Lieberman is lying."

 

That's kind of my whole thing.

[MrRain422]

No it's not. You said that there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying that they are wrong. You didn't say anything about claiming someone is lying. Those are different things.

[bobbob1313]

Well, I think I said that what you think he is lying about, was more of a you disagreeing with him, but I could be wrong. I say a lot of things. Either way, I agree with it, so what does it matter?

[MrRain422]

I'm just busting your balls.

[bobbob1313]

I never liked that expression.

[MrRain422]

Just because you disagree with its usage doesn't mean that it's wrong.

[bobbob1313]

It is supposed to be playful, but if someone was really busting your balls, you would have problems with that person.

[MrRain422]

Sure. It's a metaphor.

[bobbob1313]

Sure. It's a metaphor.

 

Wrong.

[bjorn_skurj]

I have this thing where I have a real problem calling anyone wrong for their beliefs because I disagree with them. Sorry.

 

There have been a lot of problems in this world from one person thinking they are "right" and the other being "wrong" and the "right" person having to take care of the person who is "wrong". That kind of zealotism doesn't appeal to me.

Moral relativity has its problems too. Sometimes, the people I disagree with are, in fact, wrong.

[bobbob1313]

Are the people you agree with ever wrong?

[EL the Famous]

Wow, this whole college student thing has really gotten to you. Don't worry, it'll pass, and you'll end up comfortably bitter and jaded like the rest of us.

 

this made me laugh. i think 90% of the folks arguing w/ bobob sound like the college students...or at least as unrealistically leftist as i was in college.

[bobbob1313]

I'm the stereotypical nihilist college student. My world is full of despair and depression. I just haven't gotten around to hanging my Nietzche poster and painting my room black.

[caliber66]

I'm the stereotypical nihilist college student. My world is full of despair and depression. I just haven't gotten around to hanging my Nietzche poster and painting my room black.

Dude, just get a velvet Elvis and have a beer. Everything will be okay.

[bobbob1313]

I was joking. I'm not any of those things, except a bit of a nihilist. But I have a Pearl Jam poster on my wall.

[cryptique]

Hilarious. From Salon.com's War Room today:

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Remember the Lieberman "hack attack"?

 

Way back in August 2006, the day before Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, the Lieberman campaign's Web site went down. It prompted something of a media frenzy and ugly accusations from Lieberman about his "political opponents" being responsible for the "attack." (Lieberman's campaign manager told reporters, "If Ned Lamont has a backbone in his body, he will call on these people to cease and desist.")

 

The Lamont campaign issued a categorical denial and denounced the incident, offered to help the Lieberman campaign gets its site back online, and even invited Lieberman to put his site on its servers. Nevertheless, Lieberman aides filed a complaint with the U.S. Attorney's Office and other agencies regarding the alleged attack.

 

What of the more obvious, innocent explanation? The Associated Press noted at the time, "The Lieberman campaign denied speculation among liberal Web pundits that the centrist Democrat's Web site had simply crashed because it used a low-budget Web host unable to handle the volume."

 

Good news: The criminal investigation is over. What actually happened in August 2006? Well, it's a funny story:

 

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

 

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

 

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

 

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

 

You don't say. Regardless, all's well that ends well. I'm sure Lieberman will do the right thing, acknowledge his own mistake, express regret to the FBI for requesting an unnecessary and wasteful investigation, and apologize to Lamont supporters for the bogus accusations.

 

Any minute now.

 

- Steve Benen

[owl]

Beat me to it, ya jerk!

 

The Lieberman campaign had implied that supporters of Ned Lamont had hacked and disrupted his Web site.