No, I think you would have to work hard to call it a straw man.

Now, I will admit that your taking the comment completely out of context of the back-and-forth does help your gambit; but you still fail in it.

If you want me to lead you through my thinking on what he said and what was implied then I will, but I doubt you really want to. Let me know.

I will say that while I was out today I got to run his argument in favor of LBJ past some very liberal Catholic friends at a meeting. They hooted at the thought that such a man could live. They were all over 50, and that might have played a part in it.

Codswallop is hard to pass by people who lived it.

You can not literally, of course. You can discredit the ideology to the point that it is effectively destroyed. Only fools call themselves "Nazis" these days; and I do believe that ideology has been put to the waste heap of history.

Can we just talk here, or must we write every sentence as if people were intending to aggressively misread the words?

(damn, to ask some questions is to answer yourself by the asking) :-(

...It gives me no pleasure to write this, and I've avoided it as long as I could, but I can't any longer forebear commenting on ...

That was one well written article on many, many levels. You are close to enlightenment.

Thanks for the words.

... An ideology is a mental construct with no physical existence. To this extent it is much like language or religion (the latter being in general more complex that the average ideology). The only way to "destroy" any of these is to destroy everyone who holds this particular mental construct. ...

I doubt even that would do it if you take the word "destroy" literally, as some damn fool would think of it all over again someday.

However, in a thread filled with talk about language usage, can we not fit into our rhetorical theory the use of "destroy" in this context? What word is a replacement that is as good, and as brief?

(note: I thought it was allegory, is it not?)

... "He's already been told in no uncertain terms that he's totally misrepresented my argument. (The original strawman.) So he goes out and repeats the strawman argument to others (strawman's clone), and comes back to report that 9 out ten doctors smoke camels. ...

My you are off today. From the weekend, I did expect much better.

First, I would like to inform you that I do not live here in this comment area; and I do go away a bit once in a while. In fact, I hardy ever see each post as they occur. Hence, if you respond to a post on page 35 and I am on page 20 --- I am not going to see it for a long while.

Second, I would tell you that no one on this blog has shown me that there is a strawman anywhere in anything I have written. Any of it. Now you may bluster and play to the crowd that loves you, but you and I know you tried to pin LBJ's war on the Republicans. Historian after historian has given lie to your assertion that LBJ was "forced" into that horrible war by right-wing "new" McCarthyism. (code for Republicans)

Third. Just because you (or anyone) says a thing does not make it so. You are just mad because I see you as just a mirror image of a Limbaugh ditto-head. all these personal attacks will not change my mind, but might show your friends a thing or two.

"...There's a very important lesson here: trolldom is not necessarily a function of a person's political POV. ..."

Yes, it may be an old regular trolling for fights with any newcomer that might see him for the fraud he is. Then, we could explain your behavior today. You have tried your best to keep attacking the poster Bucky and only mention any difference of opinion between us if it helps your attack. You are attacking the man, not the words he wrote.

What to call you? Even LWM dropped the attacks on my person today. Why can you not?

We can talk LBJ all day --- you start a topic and I'll give you all you want ever so politely if you will stop this charade of trying to get others to see me as a troll just because I know what a blowhard you can be.

I'll start. LBJ was a mass murderer. (go to town on that one)

Does anyone here recognize the similarity between these comments and the ones made here? Does anyone understand why Carter was vilified for his speech containing these quotes?

I think you will find that, fairly or unfairly, Mr. Carter was vilified for a horrible economy. The economy was so bad that almost anything the man said was treated with aggressive misreading of the words. You of all people should understand the concept.

We find common ground this AM. Who knew?

Both parties have been guilty of bad economic moves since 1864 at least. However, the President who is in office when the downturn hits always gets the blame.

Mr. Carter got the blame for the economy as if everyone else in government were just innocent bystanders.

My labor union Dad used to say, "it is always about the pocketbook issues, son." This was true at least back in his lifetime.