Either you are being sarcastic, in which your own previous comments make no sense whatsoever, so you are in a massive rear-guard action to willfully misunderstand the meaning of the term "hypocrisy."

Put it this way: if I was out agitating for people to chain themselves to old-growth trees, while myself refusing to do the same, you could call me a hypocrite. Otherwise, you could call me any number of other names, but not that one, any more than you could call me, you know, a lamp or an iguana.

There has got to be some corollary of Godwin's Law that covers bringing Clinton into an otherwise unrelated thread.

I suppose they figure that if the straw man keeps getting batted down, the straw Clenis will work better...

@RealName, @scooter242:

You are transparently trying to change the subject from hypocrisy to armchair quarterbacking, and absolutely NO ONE is buying it.

Gods, it must rankle to be reduced to tenth-grade debate-society tricks against people you so clearly disdain.

In general, I agree with the fictional Equity Lord Alexander Chung-Sik Finkle-McGraw's position on hypocrisy, much as it is often used as a cop-out by the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Right:

http://www.no-treason.com/weblog.php?id=P608

We are all, it is true, hypocrites to one degree or another. Mere personal hypocrisy of the Bill Bennett variety is annoying, but for the most part uninteresting. However, it is IMHO an order of magnitude worse to call for people to fight and die for a cause that you have no intention of supporting with anything other than to wave bloody shirts. Especially when such rhetoric is accompanied by lusty denigrations of the virility of anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Svensker, I have been here before, but in the name of a certain Desert Father whose philosophy I no longer share:

http://letters.salon.com/b3d0ae0ebdde019718db0832e845204d/author/

The wolfskin of the ancient Roman Pan seemed to suit me better. Call it a change of clothes.

It is just getting harder and harder to parody these people.

Can we send over to LGF for some fresh trolls? These all come pre-clowned.

How do you feel about wearing a burqua?

No, this tears it, really. If you seriously believe that the U.S. - where people don't even obey laws against getting shitfaced drunk before driving SUVs at freeway speeds down city streets - will ever be subject to shari'a law, well more power to you.

I don't argue with madmen on the street, either, and for the same reason.

only a PC fanatic would harp about such things.

The four, employees of the private US firm Blackwater Security Consulting of North Carolina, were killed Wednesday in an ambush and their vehicles set ablaze in Fallujah, 50 kilometers (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

Two of the charred bodies were then dismembered and publicly paraded as a gleeful mob cheered and shouted encouragement.

Speaking at a graduation ceremony at Baghdad's police academy, an angry Paul Bremer, the US overseer in Iraq, said: "The acts we have seen (Wednesday) are despicable and inexcusable."

This sort of stuff has been a part of every war in history, after all.

We have one who thinks we are fighting Osama bin Laden in Diyala province, but haven't been able to find him because of the heaps of flowers thrown by our Iraqi "allies."

We have one who's quaking in his boots waiting for the coming of the American caliphate, with burqas and clitoridectomies for all.

And finally, there's the anonymous onewith the Oedipal thing.

To hell with better trolls. I'd trade 'em all in for one guy with a line of argument he didn't buy for fifty cents at the Dollar Store.

John Choon Yoo was born in South Korea under the military dictatorship of Park Chung-hee, and raised in Philadelphia under the police dictatorship of Frank L. Rizzo.

Have at it, you guys, but scooter lost me when he began shrieking about the evil Mahometans overrunning our country to impose shari'a on all of us useful dhimmi.

I mean, if it's fun for you, go ahead - just remember, scooter fixes facts around the Bush policy, so play rhetorical whack-a-mole at your own risk.

I believe the relevant expression is "hoist by their own petard."

Benvenuti davvero! Vieni, vieni, parliamo di cose diverse - e solo noi e William Timberman potremo capire! :-)

I have no problem with anonymity per se; as has been pointed out, we're mostly except for the few that post under their own names, anonymous (or at least pseudonymous anyway).

What is unsettling is when there is an extended conversation going on with multiple anonymice involved, and you can't be sure who is who.

I support the idea of some sort of serialised anonymity - a kind of discreetly discrete identity. perhaps someone could get one anonymous ID per story: if you want to be anonymous, you're anonymous139 for this story only.

Otherwise, I am fairly agnostic about it - I know tons of sites where there is no anonymity that are positively crawling with trolls. It appears, like mosquitoes and car alarms, this is one nuisance we will have to live with.

I hereby rescind all calls for better trolls. Ours are priceless.

Nazabblrbbrbblmxyzptlk, have you read the bible?

Gods. Thank you. I have felt like the dumbest kid in class for not understanding this.

what is it that our American soldiers DO that prevents violence?

I kept thinking: there must be some way that Strykers and army bases the size of Chico prevent truck bombs at markets but I just... can't... figure it out.

I'll be waiting for the simple answer to that simple question. Since it's central to our continued presence in Iraq, surely one of our Elite Media will be right on it...

Brava!! Quindi possiamo fare scherzi alle spese di scooter e nazabblbbbfr e non capiscono niente...!

Also, "bizarre."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/but_seriously.html