Is that fair to say?
If it is, and Obama is responsible for what is happening, what can he do? I'd like to see him earn that Nobel Peace Prize. He received it prematurely, which wasn't his doing. But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him.
November 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
311 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 311 of 311"I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them."
Not once have you acknowledged that I wrote this IN THIS THREAD that I can see. That seems dishonest that you refuse to recognize my evidence against your charges that I paint ALL cons one way.
"If you can clarify your statement to include cons, but not all cons, then cons can clarify their statment to include lbs but not every lib. Right? "
Except that there are Libertarians, libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, neocons, Tea Party conservatives, Christian conservatives, paleo-conservatives, etc., with diverse viewpoints here. (Although most of us know a wholly incompetent POTUS when we see one - Obama - just as we knew a partially incompetent one when we saw him - Bush.)
By comparison, there are only articulate lefties and inarticulate lefties, all of whom are groupthinkers, except for Cookie, who is possibly a real, live Marxist.
Jr.,
What you fail to see is that there are degrees to how far one leans, on both sides and those who are truly independent. Perhaps it's better to use the caveat of the word "some" when speaking in generalizations. Most people understand this though.
"Not once have you acknowledged that I wrote this IN THIS THREAD that I can see. That seems dishonest that you refuse to recognize my evidence against your charges that I paint ALL cons one way. "
"Republican" and "conservative" are not synonymous.
"Perhaps it's better to use the caveat of the word "some" when speaking in generalizations. Most people understand this though."
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
By accepting the award, Obama became complicit in it. Then he became the all-time leader for drone killings by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, which I'm sure secretly rankles the Scandis who gave it out.
In any case, Obama only does campaigns, golf and partying. If there is serious work to be done, like killing Bin Laden, someone else will have to do the heavy lifting, and Obama will have to be yanked off the golf course for the photo op.
Make peace in the Middle East? Who do you think he is, Jimmy Carter?
Clyde
That's going to leave a mark!
I resist the notion of assuming "some" is implied in blanket statements when it is not included, and I refuse to do so because doing so encourages things I absolutely refuse to encourage, much less condone. And I say that despite my own imperfection, which I am well aware of and do acknowledge.
phx: I saw what you keep pointing to the first time and have no problem acknowledging its existence. My opinion stands, however, since I'd already taken that into account. That said, I don't really feel invested enough to carry it beyond my original comment (I'm writing this paragraph only because you asked for acknowledgment of a passage). That's all I had to say or suggest, I said it, and whatever anyone or everyone wants to do thereafter is their business.
Regards,
L
@Inga, I'm a mathematician so most brains are wired very differently from mine. Remember those algebra problems you flunked? I do something even more complex than that just to warm up in the morning.
The real world has this characteristic that it is real. You can look at the equations and say that they are all just conservative talking points (and it seems to me that you and phx already have done so). But the numbers are very real and if responsible Democrats don't elbow Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to the side then the crash is inevitable. And I don't see how they're going to do that, do you?
The main difference between myself and other fiscal conservatives is that some think that most Democrat leaders are every bit as aware of the coming crash as fiscally responsible conservatives, just that they see it as providing opportunity. Others, like myself, think that the Democrat leaders just don't get the scale, nor do they understand the extent to which they will be held responsible.
@JR565 You make charges that I'm a hypocrite because I believe ALL cons are a certain way, then you ignore my comment that shows I don't feel that way.
You were apparently arguing dishonestly all along, even though I took you seriously. Maybe I learned something about you that I didn't know or presume before.
phx: I saw what you keep pointing to the first time and have no problem acknowledging its existence. My opinion stands, however, since I'd already taken that into account. That said, I don't really feel invested enough to carry it beyond my original comment
Well that's dishonest too. "I saw your exculpatory evidence but my opinion still stands and I'm not going to say why."
Let me guess why you don't "really feel invested" to say how my evidence falls short of clearing me from some fool's charge of hypocrisy.
Big Mike, ironic how you are left brain dominant and I right brain dominant. Don't brains know how comical this is?!
(it's a joke)
A couple of intellectually dishonest cons arguing an untenable position on Althouse, ignoring what doesn't fit with their argument. What's new here?
Nothing to see, move along.
@phx, knock it off already. You come across like some recent college grad who's spent too much time in courses ending in the word "studies" and not enough time learning how to be a mensch.
Here's a link to a web site that will help you understand the reference.
I'm not getting drawn into an argument with you, phx. If you want to think me dishonest, so be it. I believe you when you say you don't think *all* cons are *whatever*; however, I think you don't project that well when, in subsequent comments, you proceed to use blanket terms and make blanket statements and don't take the time to routinely insert such words as "some" when that's what you mean, as you say you do. You're welcome to think I'm dishonest, or tell me to go screw myself, or fuck off, or whatever, but that's what I think. And that's all I have to say. (I hope!) Take care.
Regards,
L
I'll say again for PHX, since this seems to be the point he took issue with
"Dems had NO problems calling everything BUsh did reprehensible. You should expect a similar response".
That doesn't mean that I personally will say that everything that happens is Obama's fault. I'm describing the nature of the game. As was done to Bush, so too shall it be done to Obama. Don't like it? Where were you when dems were doing it to Bush for 8 years? Hiding under a rock?
Only,lets be clear, it was done A LOT worse to Bush than it was ever done to Obama.
There have been movies about killing Bush. there have been articles about wanting to hurt him, he has been called a war monger killing soliders only to enrich his Haliburton buddies, and that he was personallly involved in 9/11 either allowing it to happen or even setting charges to bring down 7WTC and faking an attack on the PEntagon. Michael Moore mocked him because when he heard about the attack while being read to by children he didn't IMMEDIATELY jump up and run out of the room. And he got to set with Jimmy Carter as a person of honor at the dem convention.
HE was accused of deliberately not caring about black people and taking his time during Katrina. Even if you say that was just Kanye and not ALL dems, its still bull, considering the media all talked about how we needed to have racial dialouges (implicit in that is that somehow this WAS about race and not the natural outcome of the worst natural disaster this country has faced).
And then of course the dems continued in the current election. Tea partiers are all racists, there are hidden code words that signify racism on the part of the cons, and they keep saying those buzz words (whichof course only libs can hear).
In short, the amount of vitriol hurled at both Bush and cons from YOUR SIDE has been monumental. And yet suddenly you get all mad that the other side uses the same tacticts, and demand reasaon and fair play. Puh-lease.
Big Mike
I have no opinion on Inga's math skills, but well said, the magnitude is breath taking. The "party of science", but not math, will reap what they sow.
phx wrote:
You were apparently arguing dishonestly all along, even though I took you seriously. Maybe I learned something about you that I didn't know or presume before.
Why so? YOu argued nuance in one instant and then argued with a blanket statemetn in another. Do you think you wont find such responses if you look at all cons postings on ALthouse? Sometimes they are angry, sometimes they are nuanced. but the fact that you argued against cons with a blanket statement means that you too, are guilty of the crime you say cons unfairly targeting Obama are guilty of.
"A couple of intellectually dishonest cons arguing an untenable position on Althouse, ignoring what doesn't fit with their argument. What's new here?
Nothing to see, move along."
Althouse disingenuous cons smugly showing their lack of acuity while their fearless leader gets his butt kicked by an African/American Muslim born in Kenya.
Perfect, as they're still at ((( stage 2 ~ anger !!! )))
Indeed, what radical/extreme cons er con billionaire war lords/overlords are selling, voters aren't buying.
It's that basic, as presidential elections aren't that complicated!
blessings
@j565 Still won't acknowledge my evidence, will you?
Inga wrote:
What you fail to see is that there are degrees to how far one leans, on both sides and those who are truly independent. Perhaps it's better to use the caveat of the word "some" when speaking in generalizations. Most people understand this though.
I understand this perfectly? Do you understand that the side you're against is just as varied?
Of course, Jr. My comment was directed at both sides. Seems like everything needs to be spelled out.
phx here's your chance to prove that you're not a complete douche.
PLease respond to this statement and tell the person making it that he is arguing in bad faith:
Althouse disingenuous cons smugly showing their lack of acuity while their fearless leader gets his butt kicked by an African/American Muslim born in Kenya.
Perfect, as they're still at ((( stage 2 ~ anger !!! )))
Do you really think taht all cons are birthrs, or that we have an issue with Obama kicking our "leaders" (?) butt simply because he's Kenyan, or black or whatever, the meme is that liberals ascribe to conservatives?
YOu argued nuance in one instant and then argued with a blanket statemetn in another.
It wasn't a blanket statement it was an ambiguous statement. My comments in this thread showed I have no such blanket judgments of cons, but you want to ignore that.
I'm sure you don't care but you and rcommal both fell here in my esteem.
Jr. I think you miss Crack Emcee, huh?
phx wrote:
It wasn't a blanket statement it was an ambiguous statement. My comments in this thread showed I have no such blanket judgments of cons, but you want to ignore that.
IT was a blanket statement. If you want to say that another statement you made was more nuanced, that may even be true. I was simply pointing to you that you are not as innocent as you think.
If you want to say that another statement you made was more nuanced, that may even be true.
I didn't say anything about "nuances". You know what I said.
You're just intellectually dishonest. I owned up to not qualifying my statement that "cons want to play games" with the word "many".
You lived down to a real piss idea of what an honest argument is.
Obama's foreign policy.(acccording to Stilton
Knock-knock
Who's there?
Muslim Brotherhood.
Come in.
Do you allow yourself to engage in language or behaviors towards Obama that you would normally think weren't fair or just because in your view others did the same thing to Bush?
Yes, I do, ironically because my sense of fair play demands it. Think of it as "leveling the playing field." After all, it would be terribly *unfair* if one side was held to completely different standards, don't you agree?
I'll look the whole thing over to make sure I'm not missing anything or going easy on myself.
"Do you really think taht all cons are birthrs"
No, I think a good majority of cons and especially die hard cons who post at con blogs are totally pissed Obama easily was re-elected ie it wasn't close.
Now die hard blogger cons may be equally pissed that Willard was a train wreck, trying to catch a clue candidate, but that's digressing. The irony of many Althouse cons sayin' what a great candidate he was ... right up to the point he got crushed by Obama.
Again, the yin/yang of political winners/losers.
Yes, I do, ironically because my sense of fair play demands it. Think of it as "leveling the playing field." After all, it would be terribly *unfair* if one side was held to completely different standards, don't you agree?
No, I don't agree. I think there's strength in holding to principle even when your opponents don't.
Other people on both sides set low standards - they cancel each other out more or less. If I keep high standards for myself, regardless of what others are doing, I sleep better, and I find a strength that I think those who fight in the mud don't have.
YMMV.
phx. Though I disagree with nearly every point you make I do appreciate your seeming sincerity. Tempered though, at times, when you just loft dem talking points over the wall, for effect, or, possibly, affect.
phx wrote:
No, I don't agree. I think there's strength in holding to principle even when your opponents don't.
Do you have a problem when your allies don't hold to that same principle?
Shorter version.
Yea, yea Obama crushed Willard, but he's still a poopy head!
>
ie deja vu for many libs who felt the same about Bush after he was re-elected. But that was a self-fulfilling prophecy as Bush had a 25% job approval rating, Oct. 10-12, 2008. And highest job disapproval rating, ((( 71% ))) in Gallup history.
And yes, Bush's approval has improved slightly as he stays invisible lol, go figure!
>
Again, not to worry as McConnell will make sure Obama is a (2) term president. Honest!
DeMint ~ fond memories! :)
shiloh wrote:
The irony of many Althouse cons sayin' what a great candidate he was ... right up to the point he got crushed by Obama.
In comparisoin to what? OTher republicans who were perhpas more conservative? Probalby not.
In comparison to Obama who oversaw 4 of completley atrocious economic policies and equally bad or innefectual foreign policy? Absolutely (coming from a conservative perspective that is).
First, the failed Hillary Clinton campaign midwifed the birth-er meme, while Obama was rat fucking the Clintons for being RACIST.
Secondly, the election is over, Obama won, and we are just waiting for him to cease campaigning and lead, six years of campaigning is enough.
We all wait with baited breath for Obama to lay out a plan for the impending crisis and lead, enough with the divisive rhetoric.
Most conservatives viewed Romney as a deeply flawed candidate. A Rhino of the first water. It was the Obama lies that painted a squishy Rhino as the second coming of Barry Goldwater. To most conservatives even a Rhino was far preferable to the miserable failure that is Barack Hussein Obama.
But 51% of the rest of the country did not agree. They bought into it hook line and sinker. They won a base election.
And now he is your problem.
The lies that he told will come back to bite him in the ass. He is free to be more "flexible" but we know he will bend in only one direction. The far, far left.
Conservatives will just hunker down and ride out the next four years.
As Abba said quite eloquently :D ~ I feel like I win when I lose! er Althouse disingenuous cons in a nutshell.
And junior, feel free to continue w/your irrelevant, whining generalizations ...
President Obama should get all the support and deference and help from Republicans that Democrats gave President Bush in his second term.
No more and no less.
shiloh wrote:
ie deja vu for many libs who felt the same about Bush after he was re-elected. But that was a self-fulfilling prophecy as Bush had a 25% job approval rating, Oct. 10-12, 2008. And highest job disapproval rating, ((( 71% ))) in Gallup history.
And yes, Bush's approval has improved slightly as he stays invisible lol, go figure!
It just goes to show that you can win a second term with a high approval rating and yet still end up with a low one. That usually happens during the lame duck second term, but more so when people start holding you accountable for your policies. Do you think this wont happen to Obama (granted it probably wont go as low as Bush)? Do you think democrats running after him are going to run on OBama's record?
No, I don't agree. I think there's strength in holding to principle even when your opponents don't.
Experience shows otherwise. The way to *win* is to abandon all principles and engage in the maximum possible amount of smear tactics you can engage in without damaging your own image. Sometimes, if your opponent is popular and decent, this amount is very small. If your opponent is unpopular or indecent as well, it will be a very large amount.
This is very basic stuff.
P.S. I think where you got into trouble in this thread is when you claimed not to have a "side." It seemed to people, I think, that you were claiming a mantle of objective neutrality, of equal-opportunity critic. I think you were trying to say something else, actually, but you sometimes need to slow down a little bit.
junior just how did Bush go from 90% job approval Sept. 2001 to 71% job disapproval Oct. 2008? Rhetorical.
Indeed, a lot of water under the bridge lol as "daddy" might be considered worse ie 89% Feb. 1991 to 29% July 1992.
All fame is fleeting ...
Althouse disingenuous cons smugly showing their lack of acuity while their fearless leader gets his butt kicked by an African/American Muslim born in Kenya.
Perfect, as they're still at ((( stage 2 ~ anger !!! )))
Indeed, what radical/extreme cons er con billionaire war lords/overlords are selling, voters aren't buying.
It's that basic, as presidential elections aren't that complicated!
Big Mike, I don't think these guys do math.
Presidential elections aren't complicated but the results can be. You have no idea what is coming.
I am continuously impressed by the lack of interest in real things by the left. The party is almost over and you will not have a chair when the music stops.
Of course, we are all screwed but, at least, we know it.
Obama wars, Obama economy, Obama gitmo, Obama drones, Obama Middle East. Obama fiscal cliff. Obama tax hikes. Obama unemployment. Obama food stamps.
Cool. LOL, Har. Lol
shiloh wrote:
junior just how did Bush go from 90% job approval Sept. 2001 to 71% job disapproval Oct. 2008? Rhetorical.
Indeed, a lot of water under the bridge lol as "daddy" might be considered worse ie 89% Feb. 1991 to 29% July 1992.
All fame is fleeting ...
The amount of demonization had an effect on Bush's popularity.
He had the high in 2001 after 9/11, but it was short lived. He was about 50-60% during the 2004 election. And then it dropped after he was accused of being Bush/Hitler/warmonger/responsible for 911/hating blacks and taking his time while they died Katrina. Stuff like that will tend to bring down your approval rating.
Which is why I ask phx, are you kidding me? Suddenly you're outraged about insane charges against a sitting presideint and how we need to stop such language? Are you kidding me?
Sofa King wrote:
No, I don't agree. I think there's strength in holding to principle even when your opponents don't.
Experience shows otherwise. The way to *win* is to abandon all principles and engage in the maximum possible amount of smear tactics you can engage in without damaging your own image. Sometimes, if your opponent is popular and decent, this amount is very small. If your opponent is unpopular or indecent as well, it will be a very large amount.
This is actuall the truth. And it seems that phx doesn't want this to be true when its happening to his candidate, but doesn't particluarly care when his side is doing it. Considering how effective it was in turning Bush into Hitler, and Romney into an arch conservative, why should conservatives not play the same game?
though in the case of Obama, most of the charges against him by conservatives are actually true. So no smearing necessary.
(This is not true across the board. The idea that he was born in Keny is one of those examples. THough it should be noted, taht Dems levelled the same charge against Mccain - that he was ineligable because he wasn't born in the US).
Obama either doesn't know the history or comprehend the dynamic in that region, or he has ulterior motives to replace national, secular regimes with imperial, Islamic interests.
The funny thing about this is that you all think you are actually debating something.
Anyone want to talk about what is actually happening in the Mideast and what Obama actually can or can't do about it, or even should he try?
Nah, didn't think so.
But a note to BigMike. You're partially right. PHX isn't a douche. He's a smug douche. Without the smug, he'd have nothing.
Inga - it's happening under his watch, he's to blame.
phx, knock it off already. You come across like some recent college grad who's spent too much time in courses ending in the word "studies" and not enough time learning how to be a mensch.
These recent college grads are so eager to show how everyone else is so so wrong.
The Democrat Party Propaganda Arm (NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN) are so effective, liberals rarely have to defend sloppy arguments or face up to reality. This results in the main method of arguing being finding the appropriate excuse to avoid addressing challenges to the liberal groupthink.
This results in appalling double standards, blaming Bush, ad hominem attacks, and when all else fails, claiming that anything a conservative says is whining.
Being a liberal means abandoning any/all self-introspection.
I take back the douche comment, since I see Big Mike didn't say that. But the rest of his comment is spot on. He just needed to add the "smug."
Liberals in general have this horrific attitude about Israel. Basically they would be very very sad if Israel ceased to exist, but every policy they support ensures Israel's destruction. But at least when Israel is destroyed you can count on all the liberals to give a nice eulogy.
If I were an Israeli, I'd tell all these liberals to FOAD and do whatever it takes to survive.
Alex@3:26 on Israel.
Exactly. This is why I reluctantly think the US should stand off on this one.
Like a kid in the schoolyard, the palli's provoke a fight knowing that a teacher will come along to break it up before anyone really gets hurt.
We've played teacher long enough. Israel just has to be careful enough not to provoke Egypt. However, I wonder how enthusiastic the Egyptian military would act at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood?
CWJ - ask Egypt about how they did against Israel in 1967 & 1973. Do they want a repeat ass kicking?
... ask Egypt about how they did against Israel in 1967 & 1973. Do they want a repeat ass kicking?
Do you realize how long ago that was? No, hardly anyone still in uniform would remember. I'm sure they're eager for another go.
phx wrote:
I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them."
Ok, so lets take on this statement. When you say that some republicans really do want the president to succeed and are looking forward, what do you mean? Succeed at what? Succeed at passing policies that they think will be detrimental to the country as a whole? Wasnt' that the whole reason why a republican WOULDN"T vote for Obama in the first place? And it's you suggesting that its the Tea Party that is extreme. Are you sure that conservatives feel that way about the Tea Party? It seems like you're referring to the group of conservatives who by and large are democrats. Like say a Meghan Mccain.
Who are the extremists you are referring to? I bet a lot of what you would consider extremism would be stuff like, don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession on rich people or the middle class, or raising the debt to such obscene levels is both upatriotic and dangerous (both policy decisions initially suggested by Obama) or If you don't agree that bankrupting the coal industry is sound policy then you hate the environment. Or whatever.
YOu're the one ascribing extreme motivations towards the various people in the conservative party. Only the extremism of said positions are often in the eye of the beholder.
suppose in the next election the EXTREMISTS of the tea party and republicans win the presidency. When they started enacting their EXTREME policies would you be supportive of them and hope the president succeeds (in implementing his EXTREME policies)?
Do you realize how long ago that was? No, hardly anyone still in uniform would remember. I'm sure they're eager for another go.
Sigh - they never learn. Oh well time to teach the new generation again.
Alex wrote:
Liberals in general have this horrific attitude about Israel. Basically they would be very very sad if Israel ceased to exist, but every policy they support ensures Israel's destruction. But at least when Israel is destroyed you can count on all the liberals to give a nice eulogy.
Most liberals I know would not be sad at all if Israel were wiped off the map.
jr565: Agreed. and in the place of Israel there would be a "country" that could not build a bicycle if they had the plans, the materials and one hundred years to get it done.
I don't give one * about what Obama does in the Middle East, personally. We have problems here.
I also don't think it's his obligation to fulfill the promise that idiots projected onto him. Yeah, he allowed it, even courted it, but they're still the ones that allowed themselves to get conned into the whole Obama SuperJesus mindset. No one can fulfill that.
Keep in mind guys, there's a far higher percentage of Copts in the Eqyptian military than in the general population.
suppose in the next election the EXTREMISTS of the tea party and republicans win the presidency.
Do we really need to indulge your fantasies?
Indulge me if just to answer the question as to whether the libs would SUPPORT that president and hope he succeeds (in enacting his EXTREME policies).
To add to my coment even further I'll say this:
Most liberals I know would not be sad at all if Israel were wiped off the map. many of them are in fact Jews ( mostly secular).
"It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail."
Shouldn't you be attributing that to racism while your at it?
If you'll remember during the Bush years, activists and the media were actually trying to make Bush fail with things like Abu Ghrab on the front page of the NYT for 30 days straight, protests in the streets and congress, including a Mr. B. Obama working his mouth overtime to discredit the surge that he now takes credit for. There is nothing like that taking place yet. We are talking here, that's it. Your side significantly lowered the bar back then, and conservatives have not even come close to bowing low enough to meet it...ever.
"The amount of demonization had an effect on Bush's popularity."
(NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN)"
hmm, ad nauseam con whining notwithstanding, how the hell did Reps take over the House in 2010?
ok, ok, con billionaire overlord $$$ plus young folk and minorities stayed home.
Indeed, Rep governors/Sec of States tried their best to suppress/disenfranchise voters, but didn't quite work out. In fact, it had the opposite effect as libs/Dems were more motivated than before.
>
Maybe a different strategy for cons going forward ... or not!
>
Keep and eye on 2010 MI/OH/FL/PA/WI/ME governor's races as Reps will be wishin'/hopin'/prayin' for low turn-out.
Not to mention the 2009 VA/NJ gov's race.
Let the games begin er continue as AZ/TX get more purple daily.
that is all ...
Rather, keep and eye on 2014 as Rick Scott/Rick Snyder/Tom Corbett's etc. job approval is subterranean.
hmm, Kasich vs. Strickland again as Kasich only got 49% in a 2010 wave election for Reps.
Happy trails ...
2010? 2009?
Has there been a shift in the time continuum and nobody told me?
: )
Right now we are as far away from any future election as we will ever be, and all some people care about is the next freaking horse race. It's time to govern, time to lead, time to take responsibility.
"shift in the time continuum"
Indeed, as cons want to go back to the future er back when women/minorities couldn't vote.
Lead, follow or get the hell out of the was as Reps are still totally discombobulated! Bless their little hearts ...
out of the way ...
"take responsibility."
Like Willard who is blaming everyone and their brother er Althouse cons who are whining like ...
ok, ok, no change re: Althouse cons.
A whole lot of comments to wade thru and not enough time for me to digest them all.
I believe that foreign policy is totally separate animal from domestic policy except to say that a strong economy is fundamental to American foreign power. That is an issue to me.
From 1945 tio 1989 our foreign policy was pretty much tied to the cold war--and that foreign policy was fairly straight forward and rested, ultimately, on mutual assured destruction as the strategic engine.
That world view, IMO, has changed dramatically with the rise of militant islam. It is not clear to me that American foreign policy as an overarching view, and if anyone could explicate it, I would be appreciative. My thought: a clearly defined American policy that reflects the world situation in this day and age is important.
Presidents, IMO, are prisoners of events that happen off shore. Our political processes are important in dealing with internal events; ie, the economy. Our current policy is simply inchoate and again IMO driven more by domestic and electoral considerations than geostrategic considerations. Certainty in this regard is more important than uncertainty with respect to those who choose to do us harm.
My .02
apologies once again--the 5:53 comment by "unnown" was mine--still havent learned to change accounts.
jr565 wrote,
"Most liberals I know would not be sad at all if Israel were wiped off the map."
You don't know many, then. Or the ones you do are members of your invisible friends.
phx. Though I disagree with nearly every point you make I do appreciate your seeming sincerity. Tempered though, at times, when you just loft dem talking points over the wall, for effect, or, possibly, affect.
@XRay I appreciate that brother.
P.S. I think where you got into trouble in this thread is when you claimed not to have a "side." It seemed to people, I think, that you were claiming a mantle of objective neutrality, of equal-opportunity critic. I think you were trying to say something else, actually, but you sometimes need to slow down a little bit.
@sofa King I appreciate that too, brother.
I didn't intend to not have a "side" as much as I meant to say while I may agree with the the "liberal side" most of the time (not all) that doesn't mean I feel responsible for anything they say that I don't agree with. That is, just because the liberals express my point of view more often, I don't feel at all responsible for what every one of them say at any given time.
Probably didn't express that clearly as I want either. Some smart conservative is going to say for me what I intend to say.
Experience shows otherwise. The way to *win* is to abandon all principles and engage in the maximum possible amount of smear tactics you can engage in without damaging your own image. Sometimes, if your opponent is popular and decent, this amount is very small. If your opponent is unpopular or indecent as well, it will be a very large amount.
That's not a game I can bear to play. Also, though you call it basic stuff, I don't think it's a principle you will find in The Art of War for instance. For me, and as always, I speak only for myself (you guys have heard me say this countless times, haven't you?), it's a losing stand.
Sofa King wrote:
The way to *win* is to abandon all principles....
You are SO faking. At least I hope you are.
PHX isn't a douche. He's a smug douche. Without the smug, he'd have nothing.
I must have dissected your sorry ass sometime in the past, huh? Just a non-entity that must have made no impression on me with anything you ever said.
PHX: "It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail."
BAGHO20: "Shouldn't you be attributing that to racism while your at it?"
I've been trying to scrupulously honor your request that I just pass over your comments (you said i couldn't understand them or some such nonsense) - if you remember. So I gather we're done with that? Because you're welcome to take your shots at me, but don't ask me to ignore you then.
It's time to govern, time to lead, time to take responsibility.
Time to accuse others of calling you a racist.
Speaking of never too early to start thinkin'/plotting the next presidential election.
The night of Obama's inaugural ...
On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.
In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).
Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich
During the four hour meeting:
The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.
These Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours. No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy.
hmm, how did that work out for the party of Lincoln? Rhetorical.
>
Attended a Management Skills seminar in the mid '90s and the only useful info I remember was:
((( Meetings can be a real waste of time! ))) :-P
btw, the thought of Luntz leading anyone, anywhere is somewhat amusing ...
Waiting for leadership on Looming war. Waiting for leadeship on looming fiscal cliff.
Not much fun not campaigning.
phx. Let's not get carried away. I'll accept "brothers" only in the sense that we are (if you are) fellow Americans. Both interested in the long term survival and success of the greatest thing to have happened to the world. American exceptionalism. In the sense of freedom for the individual, such freedom requiring individual responsibility and accountability.
@shiloh, is your 6:43 post the new version of the Illuminati conspiracy? Or is it more like an updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Or perhaps it's the new form of "truther"?
Just so you and phx (and Inga, if she's lurking about) understand, one has to understand Obama's goals before you can determine whether Republicans want him to fail. If his goal is a vibrant, economically thriving, financially sound United States of American then we are all for it. But when we compare his policies with what we know about finance and economics, there are precisely two possible conclusions. The first is that he desires such a goal, but his policies are wildly misguided and will make the US less free and more miserable. The second possibility is that he does not desire an economically thriving United States for some reason which may be related to the belief of many liberals that the Democrats are best positioned to take advantage of financial chaos.
Either way, Obama's policies -- his policies, not necessarily the person -- must be opposed. To the extent that you and phx conflate Obama with person with Obama's policies then the mistake is yours.
Interesting history resulted in this.
BM, the people have spoken. deal w/it as you must.
btw, Luntz is a political consultant, pollster, and Republican Party strategist. An as such, Dems can rest easy until he is replaced by another GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister. lol
btw, speaking of loser strategists/chairmen, con billionaires love them some Reince Priebus, so he's good for another (2) years. Scott Walker be afraid, be very afraid! :-P
phx. Let's not get carried away. I'll accept "brothers" only in the sense that we are (if you are) fellow Americans.
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
"Alle Menschen werden Brüder".
In a philosophical sense, I'll grant. In reality, you're a dreamer.
I am a dreamer, I do dream.
But you're not the only one who dreams, and the dreams don't have to take the same forms, much less be the same--though often enough, dreams overlap despite the differing, even clashing, even fighting forms.
The way to *win* is to abandon all principles....
You are SO faking. At least I hope you are.
Of course I am not. Perhaps you are a bit naïve as to exactly the kind of people who are winning elections?
That said, there are fates worse than losing an election (or never being a candidate at all.) I doubt any one of use here could be so unprincipled as to be a viable candidate, exception Shiloh maybe.
More often, of course, they get killed and destroyed in the crossfire. That's reality, full stop. Anyone gotta problem with that?--go talk to yourself.
That's what I've learned, anyway.
And you should.
Indeed, XRay, indeed.
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
United Brethren?
shiloh said...
You just keep swingin' there, sparky. Someday you'll say something intelligent and surprise us all.
Althouse, Rusty is your typical disgruntled, childish con who thinks he's clever ~ congrats!
ok, ok, at least you provide a safe haven for con children to play ...
Another day.
More rocket attacks.
Yep. And I'm reading conflicting stories about leaflets being distributed to residents in parts of Gaza to evacuate while others are telling them to stay. Worrisome. Despite reports of an impending ceasefire, there appear also to be signs of potential ground warfare. Not a good situation, to say the least.
shiloh said...
Althouse, Rusty is your typical disgruntled, childish con who thinks he's clever ~ congrats!
ok, ok, at least you provide a safe haven for con children to play ...
The child lashes out. Be still, young one, your bus will be along in a moment.
Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner. A clear case of "premature exultation"! Isn't there a pill for that?
Post a Comment