[eDebate] korcok is close to his grand nixon defense

Jake Stromboli infracaninophile
Sat Jul 8 17:38:30 CDT 2006


i know this is aggravating and you've block this email.   i know that when i 
use shoot the messenger tactics it's anti-debate but when karl rove makes a 
career out of it it's ok.

let's look @ your "defense" of the bush administration on public debate.

you don't have one.  instead you divert attention to the monolithic left who 
block debate because of their "ideological" commitments.    korcok. this 
time the "monolithic left"'s ideological commitment is to public debate and 
the importance of public debate for democratic policy formation.   wake up, 
your argument is a straw man.   (connect up comments below about a 
constitutional democracy movement below if you can)  korcok said recently:

"they have made up their minds and simply CANNOT say anything good about any 
major Bush policy".

that's because we are debaters and we don't like to see an executive branch 
that views public debate as an obstacle to national security.   can you say 
anything good about the denigration of public debate by the bush 
administration?     those 60s radicals were the same way with nixon 
ideologically opposed to secrecy, CIA murders, executive abuse of power, 
warrantless wiretapping, COINTELPRO etc.   your characterization of your 
opponents as ideologues because they will never support documented fascist 
practices is your big defense of cheney and easily could be used to defend 
nixon/watergate/vietnam/chile.   do you think that we should leave open 
possible intellectual endorsement of republicans reintroducing death squads 
modelled on the old El Salvador training teams?   does it make me 
ideological because i categorically reject the old Republican clandestine 
death squads?

"cannot say anything good about any major bush policy" -- the california 
electricity crisis was magnificent, the Enron drafting of energy policy 
superb, the prescription drug deal on health insurance was comprehensive, 
the immigration bills have been going well, the privatize Social Security 
plan should have been passed, the Patriot Act was fabulous for democracy, 
Afghanistan is free, Iraq is free, North Korea fortunately abandoned, the 
Israeli peace plan is great, international support of US policies is at an 
all time high, veteran's benefits are up, soldiers are properly armored, 
Lyndie England was hot in Abu Ghraib, the UN was bugged, gas prices are too 
high, i can't wait to pave Alaskan wildlife with concrete,,    bush is 
tackling all the issues.

that argument is so sad.   ideologues opposed to fascism also cannot say 
anything good about any major hitler policy during nazism.    i am giving 
you the opportunity to historically apply your lightweight theories so that 
we can see your defense of nixon.   all of the cheating and secrecy was 
overall on balance worth it because ---fill in the blank---, korcok.  
likewise, all of cheney's cheating and secrecy is overall on balance worth 
it again this time, because ---fill in the blank---, korcok.

the burden of proof is on you.   over 50% say that bush is the worst leader 
in 60 years.    there is a good argument for him being the worst president 
that will be made by many scholars.   if bush's defense is only that his 
opponents blindly oppose him and there is no response to the specific 
arguments against most if not all of his policies along the korcok model, 
then the worst president stigma is going to stick.   thank you, keep up the 
good straw defense.    the burden of proof is on you to present one good 
bush policy,   he was elected by crooked, rich people and enacted a bunch of 
bad policies to make life easier on their stealing more money from the poor. 
   (that's a joke mike on your ideological anti-leftism).   oh yeah, the 
evangelical christians elected bush too along side the rich people and they 
wouldn't know a bad policy if it burned down their church (that's another 
joke mike on your anti-religion crusade).  you are the ideologue because 
your arguments are so terrible that you have to focus all of your attention 
on the opponent's identities.   here's korcok in a debate round about the 
war and the administration: "on all the arguments against the 
administration, the war, the denigration of debate.   group 'em.  stroube is 
crazy and so are all of the ideological left.    they can't say one good 
thing about bush.   we win."   you sound like the rove team attacking 
leopold's personal drug history ignoring the dynamics of the case and his 
indictment.

you can see exactly where korcok's position on public debate goes.      it 
goes in the direction of eliminating debate because the opponents of the 
bush administration will never stand with bush for the blatant abuse of 
power.   bush's opponents won't even consider for a second that's it a good 
idea to basically resort to total misinformation to fabricate an argument 
for a war.   given the scope of the misinformation campaign, they distrust 
most policy implemented by bush since his sincerity about democratic 
processes of decisionmaking is in question. independent korcok toes the 
republican party line against debate with the impossible left.  it's not 
even worth debating them because as korcok said:

"there is a difference between public debate and harassment.
and too many folks on the far left have no interest in public debate: their 
interest is in getting their voice heard, their message out, in getting 
their way, in denigrating and harassing those who disagree with them. that 
is using debate as an excuse to play politics. the far right does the same 
thing when they are out of power and out of ideas."

nope, korcok, rove has done it as his bread and butter move in any election 
for decades.   the republicans denigrate and harass those who disagree with 
them as a tactic to win elections and then when they get in power they keep 
denigrating and harassing opponents intimidating and chilling debate.   
that's the whole plame affair that centers around rove and cheney's office.  
  you have some nerve to keep leaving this claim unanswered and keep trying 
to foist the dirty tricks you tacitly endorse onto your opponents.    your 
silence is fucking disgusting and actually borderline fascist.   you have 
too high a tolerance for anti-democratic practices.    you are delusional 
about the history of dirty tricks that goes with the republican party and 
the CIA.   right now blind boy, the far right is in power and they have been 
intimidating and harassing their opponents which comes from the white house. 
   what planet are you on?   how come you can not 1) recognize that it is 
happening and 2) publicly reject it.   you can't hide.  there is no status 
quo correlate of lettist harassment and intimidation to the plame affair.   
do you want more Judith Miller moles at the NYT or what mr. fair and 
balanced voice of reason?

you have no defense of rove or his biography.   here's a starter plate.

http://namelesscynic.blogspot.com/2006/06/suffering-from-rove-rage.html

"Karl Rove's entire career has been built around dirty politics. Any history 
of his career mentions him sneaking in to the headquarters of Illinois 
Democrat Alan Dixon, stealing some official letterhead, and sending out a 
thousand invitations to a party at the Democrat's headquarters, promising 
"free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing." (This was in 
1970, before home computers and printers, when "letterhead stationary" meant 
a lot more than it does today.)

Or in 1986, Rove was working for Republican Bill Clements. Right before a 
debate between Clements and Democrat Mark White, Rove told reporters that 
the Democrats had bugged his office. Oddly enough, the battery in the bug 
was so small that it needed to be changed every few hours, and it had just 
been changed out before Rove showed it to the press. The police and FBI 
dropped the investigation. But White's reputation was shot, and he 
subsequently lost the election. endquote

i bet you can't say one good thing about karl rove except that he always 
wins because he plays the dirtiest.   you can not name one leftist or any 
other opponent to the administration who compares to karl rove and dick 
cheney in terms of stifling public debate through harassment and 
intimidation.  you're crying wolf like a little republican boy " victim".   
edebate is miniscule in terms of the scope that your two heroes work on 
which includes controlling the mass media.   i feel sorry for your crappy 
debating skills because you have been harassed and intimidated by people 
more powerful than rove and cheney--the old monolithic mean spirited 
ideological left that is.   sorry for pointing out how terrible your 
arguments are and that you are a bad coach.   i know it's harassment and 
intimidation to pummel a novice who thinks he's good at debate.  i'm sorry 
mike.   i feel so bad i can almost overlook how miserable a debater you are. 
  i feel sorry for you and what has happened to you here on edebate but i 
don't feel sorry for wilson and plame because they weren't really harassed 
by the far right in power near as much as you here on edebate.   so 
relatively small was the intimidation and harassment against wilson and 
plame that it's not even necessary to condemn it like we condemn stroube and 
the ideological leftist edebaters.   smooth silence is all that is warranted 
by that intimidation and harassment.

your only little pathetic argument in defense of this administration on 
public debate gets a big fat turn that makes you look totally stupid.

the problem for you, eagle's nest mike, is not whether you initiate the ad 
homs or make impersonal attacks as opposed to personal attacks on your 
opponents.   no, the problem for you is that all you have that withstands 
debate judging scrutiny is ad homs regardless of whether or not they are 
personal or impersonal.   your arguments are all bad.   i am not ideologist 
to say so.  if you beat the same team 50 times in one year on consecutive 51 
to 0 panel decisions that doesn't make you an evil ideologist it makes you a 
better debater.   if the same team loses those 50 debates because they 
always dropped all of their arguments and never answered any of yours that 
doesn't make you an ideologist, it makes you a better debater.    you are 
correct, sir, when you continually invoke your right and the 
administration's right to make bad arguments but that is in no way a defense 
of public debate in the status quo and instead a major cowardly cop out to 
the anti-debate forces.   if only bad arguments can be presented in defense 
of this administration on public debate, then you will more likely see 
debaters develop a strategy of self defense beyond the confines of 
competitive tournaments.   keep trying korcok,  you are helping us mobilize 
our "ideological" commitment to public debate.   keep up the machine gun 
strategy maybe you'll get lucky and hit something for once.   next, call us 
Black Panthers or Weather Men, anything to avoid actually entering the 
debate about the bush administration's assault on public debate.   and 
mike's first argument in defense of the administration on public debate is 
---fill in the blank -- korcok.

i would be scared if korcok was my coach and would consider transferring to 
another program.   let's help him, kids.   to make an argument here, you 
need to say "the bush administration has done X to promote public debate and 
does not do all of the things claimed to stifle public debate".   that would 
be an argument.   "crazy leftists have made an argument that is impossible 
to answer" is not an argument.   it's a whine.  you lose again and everybody 
flowing knows it.

debaters know to stand against indefensible policies.   korcok keeps proving 
the indefensibility of this administration by trying to defend them and 
losing badly every time.   the weak structure of his arguments unbecoming of 
a coach proves more than anything what argumentative ground this 
administration stands on.   his only response to well structured arguments 
and turns against all of his identity claims about ideology and religion is 
to re- resort to identity claims about ideology and religion.    "the party 
that most recruits evangelical christians is pro debate even though karl 
rove is their master strategist because they are not the monolithic 
harassing, intimidating left".   you sound like a letter from the FBI 
COINTELPRO files.

as mentioned, that is not an argument for debate but a possible 
administration alibi for eliminating debate.

all of your appeals to balance and reason are hollow when they are levied in 
support of an extremist administration that used extreme trickery to 
unbalance the case for an unjustifiable war.
"saddam is bad to his people" would never have garnered enough public 
support to start the war so your heroes fabricated other make believe 
justifications.   extreme executive power at the expense of balanced 
congressional oversight and balanced public debate is bad.   this is not a 
leftist argument against the capitalist means of production.   this an 
argument to rollback all of the bad bush administration tactics to nullify 
the influence of public debate on executive policy formation.   we will 
never under no circumstances except a debateless society for national 
security reasons.   we can't understand why you support that direction and 
given that you do why you keep your debate affiliation?   korcok, this is a 
constitutional democracy movement against unparalleled executive power 
consolidation.   your old nixon FBI COINTELPRO backfiles don't apply to ross 
smith and ron suskind.   you need to go the library and get some new cards 
if there are any or like karl rove used to do in high school debate rounds 
you can keep trying to intimidate and harass us with your empty note cards.

in the end, korcok, i think you are faking it.   i think your arrogant 
replication of rove's dirty rhetorical trickery shows that really you think 
secrecy is good and public debate hinders national security.   the 
mediocrity of your arguments would make this your more likely "closet belief 
system".   i think you are too much of a chickenshit to promote the 
undiluted cheney belief system on edebate because it's fucking sick and has 
almost zero appeal to any one ever seriously affiliated with debate except 
our one attention hound, eagle's nest mike core-cock!!!

there is no good defense of the bush administration on public debate 
promotion, dumbass.   your only ground on this resolution is to defend 
public debate bad.   there are no leftists ideologues making anti-capitalism 
arguments to defend the constitution.   it's republican arlen specter, 
dipshit.   you can go to sleep for 30 years and wake up firing your machine 
gun and hope to be known as a successful debater.   we are simply saying 
that too much executive power is bad and what particularly "aggravates" us 
is the explicit strategy to extricate policy formation from meaningful 
public debate.   this strategy ridicules the competitive policy debate 
framework of hypothetical policy formation decided by argument.   shut up 
and debate is a nice slogan that, again unbecoming of a debate coach, 
encourage students not to question the slide down the slippery slope against 
public debate.   oversimplifications are good for mike because he is arguing 
for the same cause as fox news.

sympathy and regards
stromboli

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement





More information about the Mailman mailing list