Oh, of course. Your 2nd example is the key to a lot of them: attacking the President for the motivation of his actions, as opposed to the wisdom of those actions. What many people don't seem to realize is that "Bush only cut taxes to benefit his rich friends in Texas" is not a convincing argument, even if it's 100% true. What if he did it for purely selfish motives but it's still good for the economy (which it seems to be)? Likewise, you can have the noblest of intentions that will still result in bad policy. Like the "drop African debt" movement, which does nothing but strengthen corrupt military dictatorships.

It's fine to question motivations (well, up to a point - you should have at least some proof for it), but first you have to lay down what you think is bad about the policy. A lot of people like to skip straight to Part B.

Normal position with which I disagree: Osama Bin Laden masterminded 9/11, so let's use our military first to combat future attacks rather even bothering with border control and intelligence (which had already identified the islamic fanatics).

That step into insanity: Let's invade Iraq!

thank you for putting into words what i've had in my head for YEAAARS.

Normal position with which I disagree: It's not the government's job to tell us that a man and woman should be married.

That step into insanity: Obviousy, George W. Bush, Conservatives, Christians, and Catholics hate homosexuals and wish they were lined up and shot. ????

note: a common theme: the 'step further' is EMOTIONALLY fueled. that's the difference between conservatives and liberals. emotions fuel one group, logic fuels another. that's why so many more liberals are women, sadly.

He hates children/puppies/old people too!? I KNEW it! God, what the supreme "hater"

hahahaahahaha. i love karol's commenters.

Howard Dean often takes that step into insanity. This weekend a rational person might've discussed how, in the new Iraq, women's rights could be guaranteed while preserving the union of conservative Islamics, Iraqi secularists, etc. - from a constitutional, legal perspective. Obviously it's a challenge. But Dean (cued by Maureen Dowd?) opted as usual for finger-pointing, saying Iraqi women were better off under Saddam. Prototypical. Sorry for the self-promotion but here's where I wrote about this:

http://www.citizen-journal.net/mt-weblog/archives/2005/08/dean_and_dowd_-.php

Kudos for picking up on a broader theme!
Bill
www.citizen-journal.net

liberals are fueled by emotions...OK.

conservatives are fueled by logic, which therefore means that logic is the opposite of emotion. Uh. OK, which in turn makes the conservatives NOT HUMAN.

that makes a lot more sense now.

Thank you Karol. As different as we are, it's nice to know we have common political ideals. You have the ability to remind me why we are working for the same cause. Get you ass down to New Orleans when it cools off a bit. The political climate is heating up.

"conservatives are fueled by logic, which therefore means that logic is the opposite of emotion. Uh. OK, which in turn makes the conservatives NOT HUMAN."

Mia, Mia, Mia...

I can tell you're a lib, since that statement had the requisite leaps in logic of which we're speaking... but conservatives--inhuman?

Hath not a conservative eyes? Hath not a conservative hands? Organs? Dimensions? Senses? Affections? Passions? Fed with same food? Hurt with the same weapons? Subject to the same diseases, cured by the same means? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

And if you debate us, do we not win? :)

If you poison us, do we not die?

And if you debate us, do we not win? :)

Hahahahaha.

You realize that this post is a textbook example of a straw man ("a sham argument set up to be defeated"), right?

Don
Uh, no?
Unless you're going to tell me no liberal has ever accused Bush of going to war for oil.

Giacomo:

That's like saying Crime & Punishment is about Russia. It's factually correct but leaves out a lot of detail.

Jay, Jay, Jay!

it takes a lib to know one!

But your detection for sarcasm and humour has yet to be discovered...

Thank you for trying to set the record straight, but my point was proven by your very poetic words that were fueled by your beautiful human emotions.

My point really was that the person who wrote the original post ["note: a common theme: the 'step further' is EMOTIONALLY fueled. that's the difference between conservatives and liberals. emotions fuel one group, logic fuels another."] made a highly illogical leap and i think that without being fueled by emotion (and passions, and affections, and laughter) we would not be human.

Question(s) If conservatives are so smart as they claim to be, why do they have such a mess leading into the 2006 election? They have been in power in the majority and what have they done? Corruption, incompetence, nepotism and a retarded idea of forcing Democracy in Iraq as if it is all some sort of Football game with Madden sitting on his fat ass calling the shots. Then when the mess gets reported its the "liberal media". Tell me Mr. Conservative, are you playing kill the messenger? Did the liberal media cause this Godforsaken mess you have created? Of course not. The problem is that you and your kind refuse to be accountable for your own arrogance and stupidity. The public is figuring it out although they are a little bit special ed, they will see in time your hypocrisy. Your psychotic bimbo Anne Coulter will not save the day, she is an obvious hypocrite, so obvious. Can Hannity save you, or sell you vinyl siding? Or a used car? Give it up man, your 15 is finished in this country. I am Ben Matheny and I approve this message.