quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I don't think those two statements follow.

First, the point "We interfere overseas so therefore we shouldn't care about our officials colluding with foreign governments to influence elections here" is obviously not a wash. That's the point.

Second, what I think about how we conduct foreign affairs is a whole other matter -- one I've been critical of most of my adult life. So your amusement and observation of hypocrisy is in your imagination only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I don't think those two statements follow.
First, the point "We interfere overseas so therefore we shouldn't care about our officials colluding with foreign governments to influence elections here" is obviously not a wash. That's the point.
Second, what I think about how we conduct foreign affairs is a whole other matter -- one I've been critical of most of my adult life. So your amusement and observation of hypocrisy is in your imagination only.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I don't think those two statements follow.
First, the point "We interfere overseas so therefore we shouldn't care about our officials colluding with foreign governments to influence elections here" is obviously not a wash. That's the point.
Second, what I think about how we conduct foreign affairs is a whole other matter -- one I've been critical of most of my adult life. So your amusement and observation of hypocrisy is in your imagination only.

The (d)OP(ey) started a thread about how Clinton sent an operative to Russia to fuck with their elections. Your response was that you care about US law and US sovereignty.

Stating those two things implies you don't care about the laws of other countries, nor their sovereignty, and that the actions pointed out in the OP don't matter.

I posted two sentences, and separated them both. The first was directed at "you" and was intended as being used in the personal sense, since I had just quoted your post. The second sentence, separated from the first uses a different pronoun - intentionally. It was meant in a general sense. Adding in that both parties were guilty and mentioning "people" (plural, yanno), should have been enough cues to show I wasn't specifying you.

I still stand by both points I made in my initial post in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yeah. It really doesn't imply that.
You want to insist that it does, have your fun.
If you want to proceed now that I've clarified my meaning and position, grand.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, but go with that if you need to.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, but go with that if you need to.

Great discussion, MM. Thanks for the input.