Re: Lame Duck President
Generalization Warning! Generalization Warning! Semi-Off Topic Warning! Semi-Off Topic Warning! Multiple Warning, Warning!!
What I said, that CJY is referring to, is that "liberals" often throw logic out the window when they see a political benefit to a position. The example I used was that rolmops trusted the same Govt that caused the Walter Reed scandal to manage his health-care. That is illogical to me . . . There are many examples, the US Attorney deal is another. Defending Al Gore is a really good one. The scientific community who is worshipped by the left has shunned the Goracle, yet the left continues to Worship Gore too . . . can't have it both ways = illogical to me. But supporting him helps with an agenda item, so it's OK. I can go on and on and on . . .
Here's a really, really good one: If I knew what I know now I would not have voted to go to Iraq. That's like saying, if I knew that the chicken I ate was covered in salmonella I wouldn't have eaten it. Of course, obvious, stupid, illogical statements, but politically it is advantageous so it's OK . . .
I don't feel the same about conservatives in general, so I lean that direction. It is logical to say that Kyoto as written will hurt our economy, it is also logical that Kyoto as written will not slow Global Warming (scientific position), so regardless of the intended benefits of Kyoto, and the political benefit to be seen doing something instead of nothing, it is illogical to support it, so most conservatives don't. Another example, a majority of the American people want us out of Iraq, it is politically advantageous to agree with the public. It is illogical to publicise a withdrawal date. It is obviously illogical to tell your enemy when you are gonna do anything, and it is illogical to make decisions about a future you cannot see. So, despite the political hit a conservative will take from voting against a withdrawal, most conservatives still do, as that is the logical position.
