![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
pastorlenny.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAnthony Weiner is just another garden-variety scumbag with absolutely no personal integrity.
The question I would like to ask is whether we should really care about this? That is, given the choice, would we rather have people in government who are garden-variety scumbags -- but who advocate for policies that we believe optimally serve the interests of the citizenry -- or people who have high moral character, but are incompetent at governing and/or are completely wrong-headed when it comes to public policy?
My own sense is that I'd rather have someone skim half a million from the public coffers and make decisions that save us billions than someone who is squeaky clean -- but whose incompetence undermines justice and prudence.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/11 08:40 (UTC)You never told me anything of the sort. When I asked you if you could read Wiener's mind, you never replied. Go back to the comment thread and read through it.
Having trouble trying to keep things straight for more than a day?
Not at all. But it appears that you are.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/11 21:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 07:10 (UTC)Wrong again, my friend. Read the comment thread. It's right below this one.
When pastorlenny gave two possible reasons for Weiner caving, you said, "the second one." I replied, "congratulations, good guess!" To which you replied, "I'm not guessing." In my response to this last comment of yours, I said, "Oh, you know for an actual fact that it was the second one? You can read this man's mind?"
That's the statement to which you didn't reply. The mind-reading part was also my sarcastic response to your arrogant assumption that you weren't guessing.
So when you the said, "I'm sure you're just as good at mind reading as I am, which is to say, not at all," that was when I said "You actually admit that you might have been wrong after all about why Wiener caved after I asked you if you could read his mind when you said you weren't wrong."
The assumption, my friend, was made by you when you stated outright that you weren't guessing. Unless you are capable of actually reading minds, you cannot possibly know exactly what was in Weiner's mind.
You can strawman me all you wish, but I promise you that you will never win. The fact of the matter is, I outdrew you and shot all your arguments down. I will hereby blow the smoke from my pistols, reholster them, mount my horse and ride out of town in triumph. Goodbye!
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 07:21 (UTC)Sure I can. People do it all the time. It's not that hard.
And yes, we still haven't dealt with your strawmen. But since I can tell you won't ever get it, I don't care enough to try any more.
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 07:56 (UTC)An absolutely classic strawman response to my pointing out to you precisely what was said, despite your denials.
You, my friend, are a far worse strawman than I could ever attempt to be, and I congratulate you.
However, you're also a very poor loser. But that's your problem. Have a good life.
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 13:25 (UTC)How transparently juvenile.
(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 21:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 23:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 10:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/6/11 10:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/6/11 23:42 (UTC)That said, how transparently juvenile of you to have left such a comment.