pinions of buddy don: a pox on both thar houses

i half to add mitt to bein disgusted with bof them dimcrats n publicans. whut gut me a'goin wuz lookin into the latest attempt by the rite to deefleck criticisum of thar pallcies n ackshuns by trine to pin the tail on the clinton donkey, even tho them publicans has been controllin all three branches of gummint fer nigh onto five strate years. they dont anser cindy sheehans questchun; the questchun her past n her associayshuns, they publish everthang they kin find bout her deevorce, yew name it.

now the rite is on its hi horse bout able danger n whuther clinton shoulda stopped osama way back when. tiz cunvenyunt fer them that folks caint hardly member the recent past, witch ifn ye thank bout it, whenever clinton tride to do innythang agin osama, the rite wuz playin wag the dog.

so i dun a google of these terms:

"wag the dog" clinton

ifn ye do the same n read sum of them articulls frum bof sides, yer lackly to spoil yer brakefuss. tiz a shock to find out that bout thonly publican that spoke up fer clinton bombin osamas base in afghanistan n bombin saddam with the hep of the brits wuz newt gingrich. aint we cum to a weerd fork in the rode when newt starts to seem lack a moderutt?

but whut i cum away with the most bout my lil trip thru that google result is how neethur side seems to keer bout innythang but cunvintsin folks thar rite. period. dont matter whut is true, long as they kin cunvints folks thar rite.

artistotles critcisum of deemockrussy cums to mind on a counta he knew that usin sofisticull arguments ye kin cunvints folks that druther not half to thank to bleeve mos innythang.

how? tiz simple. ye use these fallacies (see ifn ye kin member em bein used):

• ad hominum attack -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye attack yer opponent as if the truth couldnt cum out of a mouth that ye have slimed, whuther the slime cuntained inny truth or not
• ad hominem tu quoque, also known as the you too fallacy -- in sted of defeatin yer opponents argument, ye point out that yer opponent has been inconsistent in the past or even sed thangs that disagree with the argument yer opponent is now a'puttin forth
• appeal to bleef -- whar in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye claim that sum people thanks sumthin else, witch fer sum reason folks is satisfide to thank that sumhow that disprooves yer opponents argument when all it really prooves is how folks bleeves differnt thangs, even thangs that aint true
• appeal to common ackshun -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye point out that folks has always practissed thangs a sartin way, witch sumhow ifn they always dun it, tiz spozed to be true, but agin, that aint proof of innythang since histry is loded with folks doin thangs that dont make sense, whuther tiz the greeks cunsultin the oraculls revealed by the innards of ded burds or nancy raygun n near everbidy else in amurka cunsultin thar horoscopes
• appeal to emoshun -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye appeal to folkses emoshuns by usin thar patriotisum or thar reljus bleefs or thar luv of fambly to keep em frum eggzaminin yer opponents argument
• appeal to fear -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye appeal to whut thar afraid of, witch ye been seein thisn used overn over agin ever since 9/11, speshly with this speshus line of argument: we wuz attacked by scary islamick terrsts so we gut to attack a scary cuntry that has islamicks, even ifn thay aint no cunneckshun atall twixt the terrst that attacked n the cuntry we invaded
• appeal to ridicule -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye make fun of his hair or claim he looks french or that he has a stupid way with the english langwage
• appeal to tradishun -- in sted of deefeatin yer opponents argument, ye claim that folks has always bleeved a sartin way, so that way must be true, witch that wood proov reincarnayshun in india n hell fire in alabam ... these days thays usin it to claim ye caint give gay folks the same rites of union that strates git since they aint never had em n folks has always bleeved twuz ok that they dint

i aint gut time to go thru all them fallacies, but ye kin bet thays all bein used, by bof sides, tho i half to add mitt, them publicans is much better at it on a counta they dont seem to know thar even a'doon it. (ifn ye wonta study up on em, ye kin read a verr good account of how they wurks here.)

heres a simple truth bout osama bin laden. bush wuz tole bout im by the clinton addministrayshun. whuther or not clinton had dun everthang possibull to stop osama, bush dint do everthang possibull to stop osama, witch thats been prooved time n agin by folks in his own addministrayshun that left it (n gut slimed fer makin thar claims, witch thang is, they never disprooved whut them folks -- clarke, oneil, wilson, etc -- wuz sayin but they did do thar bes to attack em -- ad hominem seems to be the mos poplar fallacy by far, lease fer the rite.)

bush sed he wood git osama, ded or alive. osama wuznt never in iraq n dint have innythang good to say bout saddam, witch it has been well-documented how osama figgerd saddam wuz the enemy of islam on a counta havin a secular gummint. osama has sed all along how he wonts a islamick theeocrussy. but bush deecided to turn away frum gittin osama sos he could invade iraq, witch tiz clear that wuz on his mind befor he wuz putt in offus by the supreme cort.

i aint sayin them dimcrats is inny better. ifn ye read them lanks off that google search, yer a'gone see that them clintons also bleeved in attackin saddam. the big differnts fer me is how thay wuznt no way clinton wood be allowed to attack innybidy without folks screamin wag the dog. tuther thang is that clinton never had a invashun of afghanistan dun with osama cornerd. bush did.

but thats purty much splittin hairs. neethur side has dun a nuff. bof sides has used ever event they could cum up with to justify whut they alreddy wonted to do. aint hardly nobidy innerested in findin the truth. in sted, thar rootin fer thar teams uniform, no matter whos a'wearin it n no matter whut they do.

i wonta jes say, 'a pox on both thar houses.'

problem is, tiz our house.