3 ms·
Not sure how that's relevant at all? The CIA has often operated far outside the law regardless of who is in office.
by wayoutthere 7y ago
Not sure how that's relevant at all? The CIA has often operated far outside the law regardless of who is in office.
- dragonwriter 7y agoThe poster you were responding to seemed to be attempting to illustrate an explanation of why the CIA gets away with that regardless of whoever is in office, so your post explains exactly how it's relevant rather than offering a reason to doubt it's relevance.
- wayoutthere 7y agoAh, that's why I find sarcasm to be a pretty clumsy argumentation tactic -- it confuses the intent of a statement when used without knowledge of the position you're speaking from. Better to just come out and say what you mean.
- dragonwriter 7y agoI don't think it was sarcasm at all; the main bit of rhetorical artistry (beyond merging issues of concern to the same side so that gays and abortion becomes “gay abortions”) is the adoption of first person singular to stand in for third-person plural, which presents the issues distracting the two main factions as affecting a single actor. Replace the second use of “I'm” with “the voters are” and the argument is quite direct.