Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6528)

Bloggingheads 02-23-2011 06:14 PM

Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 

operative 02-23-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Just starting this one, but a recommendation: bring back Ramesh more often. I'd rate him as being among the top voices on the right in terms of insight and analysis.

operative 02-23-2011 07:58 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/344...4:51&out=35:09

That will one day show up in a bhtv special lookback video. Pets II.

Don Zeko 02-23-2011 08:21 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198869)
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/344...4:51&out=35:09

That will one day show up in a bhtv special lookback video. Pets II.

I don't suppose anyone wants to take the time to classify bloggingheads into known cat people, known dog people, and known other types of pet people(Hi wonderment!), do they? It might help us reinforce baseless stereotypes...

Ocean 02-23-2011 08:26 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198872)
I don't suppose anyone wants to take the time to classify bloggingheads into known cat people, known dog people, and known other types of pet people(Hi wonderment!), do they? It might help us reinforce baseless stereotypes...

We can easily do a voluntary classification of commenters in the Life, the Universe and Everything section.

ohreally 02-23-2011 10:03 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
The most important event in the last 20 years is unfolding before our very eyes and bhtv is all focused on whether Israel should get more aid or fox news is fair to the gop race or Mitch Daniels's truce is for real. Pretty sad.

Ocean 02-23-2011 10:19 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
This was also a very good diavlog by two friendly, knowledgeable and intelligent people. If we could only leave the problems that need solutions for Amy and Ramesh to solve!

Don Zeko 02-23-2011 10:23 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
I prefer that BHTV has content about things other than whatever is getting 24/7 coverage on CNN this week. The site is much more worthwhile when it provides interesting diavlogs between people that have some knowledge of what they are discussing. I agree that the protests in Wisconsin are important, but I don't need to hear a DV between two generalists about it right this moment. Besides, I'm sure we'll get plenty of Wisconsin discussion over the next few days.

badhatharry 02-23-2011 10:49 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198886)
I prefer that BHTV has content about things other than whatever is getting 24/7 coverage on CNN this week. The site is much more worthwhile when it provides interesting diavlogs between people that have some knowledge of what they are discussing. I agree that the protests in Wisconsin are important, but I don't need to hear a DV between two generalists about it right this moment. Besides, I'm sure we'll get plenty of Wisconsin discussion over the next few days.

I bet he's not talking about Wisconsin.

Think North Africa and the Middle East

operative 02-23-2011 11:07 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 198884)
The most important event in the last 20 years is unfolding before our very eyes and bhtv is all focused on whether Israel should get more aid or fox news is fair to the gop race or Mitch Daniels's truce is for real. Pretty sad.

Really, the most important event of the last twenty years? Sorry but color me skeptical. In Egypt, one military dictator left and another took over. Libya may finally lose the drunken, mentally unstable megalomaniac it's been saddled with for 40 years. Fun stuff, but most important? Sorry, a lot more has to happen first.

Don Zeko 02-23-2011 11:10 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
On second thought, I probably read ohreally wrong. I could see an ideologue calling either of these events the most important of the past 20 years, and of course they'd be wrong in either case. Although I do agree that, unlike Wisconsin, Libya is being under-covered at the moment.

operative 02-23-2011 11:11 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198892)
On second thought, I probably read ohreally wrong. I could see an ideologue calling either of these events the most important of the past 20 years, and of course they'd be wrong in either case. Although I do agree that, unlike Wisconsin, Libya is being under-covered at the moment.

It's too bad, really, because Gadhafi is one of the five most interesting world leaders of the last 50 years.

Don Zeko 02-23-2011 11:12 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198891)
Really, the most important event of the last twenty years? Sorry but color me skeptical. In Egypt, one military dictator left and another took over. Libya may finally lose the drunken, mentally unstable megalomaniac it's been saddled with for 40 years. Fun stuff, but most important? Sorry, a lot more has to happen first.

Whatever the end result for Libya's system of governance, the death toll thus far suggests that what's going on now will be very significant, both in its own right and through the effects it will certainly have on the behavior of whatever regime controls the country when things die down.

operative 02-23-2011 11:18 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198894)
Whatever the end result for Libya's system of governance, the death toll thus far suggests that what's going on now will be very significant, both in its own right and through the effects it will certainly have on the behavior of whatever regime controls the country when things die down.

Libya could get dicey, internationally. I fully believe Gadhafi when he says that he's willing to stick around until he's dead. And I absolutely believe that he's willing to use any level of violence necessary to maintain his power. It comes down to this: how loyal are those around him? How much blood are they willing to shed? With Mubarak, we saw that the military had no intention of massive bloodshed, but the Egyptian military is a huge and popular institution in its own right in Egypt, and I don't think there's a similar dynamic in Libya.

If this current wave fails, there will be massive bloodshed. We could see tens of thousands of executions. And that would create a very tense international scene. The News Hour had some very good coverage of the situation tonight.

badhatharry 02-23-2011 11:59 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198895)
The News Hour had some very good coverage of the situation tonight.

I thought it was very good, too. I especially liked the interview with the two guys who had actually spent time with Gadhafi, Jim Hoagland and David Mack. I was amazed at the story Hoagland told about Catherine Graham and Gadhafi.

badhatharry 02-24-2011 12:04 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198893)
It's too bad, really, because Gadhafi is one of the five most interesting world leaders of the last 50 years.

http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/u.../gaddafi-2.jpg

Really?? Who are the other four?

chiwhisoxx 02-24-2011 01:17 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
I found this diavlog to be pretty boring actually. Heaps upon heaps of conventional wisdom. I always love Ramesh, but I think he's best paired with someone more combative, because he's never going to be very assertive himself. Amy was pretty passive, and agreed with him for the most part.

DenvilleSteve 02-24-2011 08:02 AM

citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
the government should not be allowed to arbitrarily choose who works for it and who is excluded. Of course job qualifications have to be met. And job performance must be held to a high standard. But if citizen A will pick up the trash or teach a history class at a lower labor price than citizen B, then A should get the job. A fair way to spread the government wealth around is to put government employment up for public auction.

bkjazfan 02-24-2011 08:26 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Congradulations on your new babies and hope your nights aren't too sleepless. Little girls are wonderful - mine was.

operative 02-24-2011 08:55 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 198903)

Mao (who also almost takes the cake for awfulness, beat only by...)
Pol Pot (the worst person ever)
Richard Nixon
Fujimori

Two utterly awful people, one very flawed person, and one also flawed (but over-criticized) person.

I say this because these four, along with Gadhafi, are hard to understand (in Gadhafi's case, not just when he speaks, either). It's easy to understand most of the leaders of the Middle East. Take for instance Khamenei. He came from a certain intellectual tradition that is easily traced and understood. Megalomaniac dictators in post-colonial SSA (eg Mobutu) are also a bit easier to understand, and the more colorful and eccentric ones, such as Idi Amin, likely the result of latent illness (it's thought that Amin had syphilis).

Then there's Mao, who took a reactionary early industrial European work (Marx) and transformed it into a quasi-nationalistic doctrine, infused with his own crazy thoughts. And, Pol Pot, who took Rousseau and Marx, threw in some of the history of Cambodia, and came out with the most brutal death machine on record.

I chose Nixon above Carter (who I also think is mentally deranged) because more people recognize Nixon's mental issues. He was probably clinically paranoid. He was very quirky and a barrage of contradictions--a quaker who would dress in a suit even when going to the beach and yet who would be very vulgar and very racist in his paranoid rantings. And, an idealogical chameleon.

Fujimori was kind of like Nixon--a very bright man whose personal eccentricities brought him down. Only Fujimori is smarter than Nixon was, and not clinically paranoid. He is basically singularly responsible for resuscitating the Peruvian economy. He waged a successful campaign against a vicious Communist insurgency. The problem for Fujimori is that along the way, he got a little delusional. He was kind of like Peru's FDR, only he had the right economic ideas :p

bkjazfan 02-24-2011 09:01 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
So far with this massive job shakeout the private sector has lost most of the jobs. I put up some stats some time ago where they have lost 7to 8 million positions and the public sector has lost very few. Things may have changed a bit but probably not much. Also, the benefit packages received by by public employees usually are far better than those working for small companies which supposedly employ the most Americans. With this in mind I doubt the majority of people are going to support the the government employees in the state of Wisconsin.

Badhat, well done. Gadhafi looks better in drag than his usual get up.

badhatharry 02-24-2011 09:43 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 198914)
With this in mind I doubt the majority of people are going to support the the government employees in the state of Wisconsin.

Let's hope not, but the unions have been launching a campaign designed to make it seem as though the public employees are just hanging by a thread and that the evil governor is trying to take away their only chance of getting ahead. I've been listening carefully and it's a very effective campaign. It will take informed people to see through it.

Fingers crossed that Walker and his folks will stay strong.

badhatharry 02-24-2011 09:56 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198913)
Mao (who also almost takes the cake for awfulness, beat only by...)
Pol Pot (the worst person ever)
Richard Nixon
Fujimori

Two utterly awful people, one very flawed person, and one also flawed (but over-criticized) person.

It's interesting that you could separate out only five deeply flawed yet interesting leaders. I guess I would want to point out that Nixon isn't much like Mao, Gadhaffi or PolPot and I'll probably spend some time today trying to add to your list.

It's not clear, however, what the criteria are.

I was thinking the best thing about Gadhaffi is that the US didn't put him or keep him in power.

Florian 02-24-2011 10:21 AM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198913)
Mao (who also almost takes the cake for awfulness, beat only by...)
Pol Pot (the worst person ever)
Richard Nixon
Fujimori

Two utterly awful people, one very flawed person, and one also flawed (but over-criticized) person.


Interesting that you should choose three sociopaths and two "flawed" politicians as the five most "interesting" politicians of the past 50 years. It would never have occurred to me to use the word "interesting" in....such an interesting way. But then you go on to call Marx a "reactionary," so I suppose you must have some private vocabulary of your own. Your exquisitely subtle sense of history and the history of ideas, according to which Marx and Rousseau are to be blamed for Pol Pot, is also intriguing.

bkjazfan 02-24-2011 02:36 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Palin or Romney in '12: that's the choice! If it is forget about the republican winning.

Don Zeko 02-24-2011 02:40 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 198938)
Palin or Romney in '12: that's the choice! If it is forget about the republican winning.

It's 2008 all over again. I can't imagine any of them winning the nomination.

bkjazfan 02-24-2011 02:54 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198940)
It's 2008 all over again. I can't imagine any of them winning the nomination.

Talking abut a waste of money, there's one.

stephanie 02-24-2011 04:38 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198868)
Just starting this one, but a recommendation: bring back Ramesh more often. I'd rate him as being among the top voices on the right in terms of insight and analysis.

I agree -- he's one of the people who talk a lot about political analysis (as opposed to issues) who I enjoy listening to. I think he's insightful, as you say, and even more important I think his main focus is on analyzing, not spinning.

I like Amy too.

stephanie 02-24-2011 04:43 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198886)
I prefer that BHTV has content about things other than whatever is getting 24/7 coverage on CNN this week.

I'm happy someone made this point, so I can agree with it. (Edit: okay, I misread it, because I didn't see it was a response to ohreally. That said, I do think there tends to be a problem with the diavlogs being too reactive to whatever the partisan story of the week is, even if this one isn't really an example.)

Here, I actually do think the WI story is important (more important than the usual "big flap that bhTV must cover because everyone is talking about it"), but I agree that that doesn't mean that I especially want the generalists on for other reasons feeling compelled to go on about it.

That said, I didn't feel like they spend all that much time on it, and they did reference issues about it that fit in with their overall topics and their areas (I thought Ramesh's summary of the problems posed by the debate over public unions for the Dems was pretty accurate, and it does relate to some inherent conflicts in the party, just as the Palin v. Romney scenario he raised later does re the GOP).

However, I do often think that bhTV thinks that if something is being talked about that we want everyone to do so, and that is so not the case, at least for me.

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 05:01 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 198906)
I found this diavlog to be pretty boring actually. Heaps upon heaps of conventional wisdom.

Agreed. A representative of the Reasonable Right™ paired with a representative of the center-right will tend to produce that.

Compounded by this: one gets her Wisconsin information from her Facebook friends and the other gets his information about "what liberals think" from Mickey Kaus.

badhatharry 02-24-2011 05:03 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 198922)
Interesting that you should choose three sociopaths and two "flawed" politicians as the five most "interesting" politicians of the past 50 years. It would never have occurred to me to use the word "interesting" in....such an interesting way. But then you go on to call Marx a "reactionary," so I suppose you must have some private vocabulary of your own. Your exquisitely subtle sense of history and the history of ideas, according to which Marx and Rousseau are to be blamed for Pol Pot, is also intriguing.

Why wouldn't Marx be considered a reactionary?

And further, I don't think anyone inferred that Marx and Rousseau are to be blamed for Pol Pot. Operative merely said that he were influenced by their ideas. But I do agree that Operative's statements were intriguing. I hope he replies.

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 05:09 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 198940)
It's 2008 all over again. I can't imagine any of them winning the nomination.

That's how McCain won then -- he let them defeat each other, stroked his MSM fan base, and became the last one standing. Will he try this approach again?

Consider his New Conservative Cred!

Quote:

The politician who once best exemplified the idea of a "maverick" independent has shifted so far to the right that he is now tied for the title of the Senate's most conservative member, according to National Journal's 2010 vote ratings.

According to a comprehensive examination of 96 Senate votes taken in 2010, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., along with seven of his colleagues, voted most often on the conservative side. His 89.7 composite conservative score ties him with stalwarts like Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and gives him a more conservative score than Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
(via)

chiwhisoxx 02-24-2011 05:29 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198952)
Agreed. A representative of the Reasonable Right™ paired with a representative of the center-right will tend to produce that.

Compounded by this: one gets her Wisconsin information from her Facebook friends and the other gets his information about "what liberals think" from Mickey Kaus.

I don't know much about Amy Sullivan, but I thought she was a liberal Democrat? A google search also seems to confirm this. Do you consider her center right because she's religious?

handle 02-24-2011 05:44 PM

Re: citizens should be allowed to bid on government jobs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 198911)
the government should not be allowed to arbitrarily choose who works for it and who is excluded. Of course job qualifications have to be met. And job performance must be held to a high standard. But if citizen A will pick up the trash or teach a history class at a lower labor price than citizen B, then A should get the job. A fair way to spread the government wealth around is to put government employment up for public auction.

You really know how to oversimplify things. Did you work on the Perot campaign?
What about citizen C who takes the money saved on citizen A and give himself a raise? The people who do the managing are not allowed collective bargaining rights because they don't need them. They are the ones who run the highway and school departments. This distinction is too subtle for you isn't it? Or is it just an inconvenient fact bogging down your activism in class warfare?

You are aware or the fact that the public sector unions were formed as a result of the large amount of blood spilled by Dept. of transportation workers working on our roadways, right? Upper management refused to provide proper safety measures and equipment, and they were literally getting killed on the job.
I takes this kind of abuse to inspire workers to risk their jobs and organize to protect their rights.

I know these subtleties mean very little to you, but what if, in the quest to save public funds, some politician decides that if they legalize limited immigration, they could cheaply fill public positions and eat up some more of your precious "open spaces" and "natural resources", then you get what you are constantly harping on about, but with unforeseen consequences. The very consequences that pave your slippery slope to ruin.

This is why the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic food chain need to be able to negotiate with those at the top, because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But alas, I'm afraid your thickness and willful ignorance of history, dooms you to learn everything the hard way. I hope you are a billionaire, because if not, your's will be the next head on the chopping block.

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 05:50 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 198955)
I don't know much about Amy Sullivan, but I thought she was a liberal Democrat?

Only when compared to a diavlogging partner best known for writing a book about the Democrats titled The Party of Death.

Quote:

A google search also seems to confirm this.
You mean you saw that said one (1) place, on the first page of results ...

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/254...ychiwhi.th.png

... and concluded that since it was written on the Internet and matched what you wanted to believe, it must be true?

Quote:

Do you consider her center right because she's religious?
I consider her center-right from having listened to her since she started doing Bhtv.

operative 02-24-2011 05:56 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 198919)
It's interesting that you could separate out only five deeply flawed yet interesting leaders. I guess I would want to point out that Nixon isn't much like Mao, Gadhaffi or PolPot and I'll probably spend some time today trying to add to your list.

Well I didn't want to make a list that only consisted of 5 interesting genocidal maniacs :p

Quote:

It's not clear, however, what the criteria are.
The criteria started with "who is difficult to figure out?" As I said, I think that most of the kleptocratic post-colonial sub-saharan African dictators are somewhat easy to understand. Some of our presidents have had interesting lives, but usually they're not all that hard to figure out and don't have the type of quirks as Nixon.

Very few western scholars have really tackled Pol Pot (many more have tackled Mao). His ideology was genuinely bizarre and I'm quite convinced that he had some sort of serious mental disorder, though I'm not sure what it was. There was something very uniquely Cambodian about him and his violent purification narrative, but there's also the whole influence of Rousseau and Marx to tackle. His regime was, imo, ultimately suicidal: left to itself, it would've literally annihilated the entire country.


Quote:

I was thinking the best thing about Gadhaffi is that the US didn't put him or keep him in power.
I'd say the best thing about Gadhafi is that while he became more eccentric with age, he also became less meddlesome in the affairs of other countries. He was instrumental in Idi Amin's regrettable rise to power.

operative 02-24-2011 06:07 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 198922)
Interesting that you should choose three sociopaths and two "flawed" politicians as the five most "interesting" politicians of the past 50 years.

I'm more interested in villains than heroes.

One of the most interesting politicians from the preceding 50 years was Woodrow Wilson, and it was his many flaws--his temper, his intransigence, his awful bigotry, his daddy issues--that make him interesting.

Quote:

But then you go on to call Marx a "reactionary," so I suppose you must have some private vocabulary of your own.
Well, like BHH, I don't see how one can escape labeling Marx a reactionary. He wasn't reactionary in the same way that, say, de Maistre was, but nevertheless his writing, much like Ayn Rand's much later, was reactionary.

Quote:

Your exquisitely subtle sense of history and the history of ideas, according to which Marx and Rousseau are to be blamed for Pol Pot, is also intriguing.
You can ascribe blame if you want. I'm just saying that Pol Pot was influenced by their writings.

chiwhisoxx 02-24-2011 06:27 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198958)
Only when compared to a diavlogging partner best known for writing a book about the Democrats titled The Party of Death.



You mean you saw that said one (1) place, on the first page of results ...

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/254...ychiwhi.th.png

... and concluded that since it was written on the Internet and matched what you wanted to believe, it must be true?



I consider her center-right from having listened to her since she started doing Bhtv.

Um no. First of all, I didn't "want" to believe anything. Why would I care what her ideological affiliation is? There's also stuff about a book she wrote, describing what she thinks fellow Democrats should do. Also, the site calling her a liberal was Salon, not National Review. It was at the beginning of an interview with her, so it would be kind of weird to lie or make that up. I have a feeling this has a lot to do with her not fitting the bill as a down the line liberal, so therefore she is center right!! Anyways, the political spectrum in America isn't your decision. She is known as a Democrat, and holds liberal views. The definition of a liberal isn't someone who has your views, or someone to your left, which we're all thankful for.

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 06:52 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 198965)
Um no. First of all, I didn't "want" to believe anything. Why would I care what her ideological affiliation is?

Because you basically never post except in a kneejerk attempt to contradict me.

Quote:

There's also stuff about a book she wrote, describing what she thinks fellow Democrats should do. Also, the site calling her a liberal was Salon, not National Review.
Thanks for acknowledging the extent of your "research" and the depth of your knowledge.

Quote:

I have a feeling this has a lot to do with her not fitting the bill as a down the line liberal, so therefore she is center right!!
Yes, I think she's not particularly liberal. Ergo, I think she's center-right.

I fail to see why you affect this note of triumphalism, as though you think you've caught me in something.

Well, no. Actually, I know why you affected this tone. See my first sentence above.

Quote:

Anyways, the political spectrum in America isn't your decision.
Right. That decision belongs to the sort of person who looks at a page of Google results, finds one keyword to match his preconceived notions, and declares "case closed." How could I ever have forgotten? How dare I have my own opinions when a junior operative is telling me How The World Works.

ohreally 02-24-2011 07:00 PM

Re: Values Added: So 2011 (Amy Sullivan & Ramesh Ponnuru)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198961)
Well, like BHH, I don't see how one can escape labeling Marx a reactionary. He wasn't reactionary in the same way that, say, de Maistre was, but nevertheless his writing, much like Ayn Rand's much later, was reactionary.

I say you nailed it. Especially since you can replace the word "reactionary" by "biped" and it still works!

Quote:

Well, like BHH, I don't see how one can escape labeling Marx a biped. He wasn't a biped in the same way that, say, de Maistre was, but nevertheless his writing, much like Ayn Rand's much later, was that of a biped.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.