Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6482)

Bloggingheads 02-03-2011 02:00 PM

Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 05:14 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Jim's being a bit dense here near the beginning of the diavlog. It's not either/or with regard to a policy of supporting Mubarak or human rights. Support for Mubarak always assumed that he presided wisely over a stable, functioning nation. When the vast majority of Egypt is in revolt, that cancels the agreement.

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 05:21 PM

Floor wax / desert topping
 
David's reference to floor wax is here: SNL via HULU

popcorn_karate 02-03-2011 05:39 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 196934)
Jim's being a bit dense here near the beginning of the diavlog. It's not either/or with regard to a policy of supporting Mubarak or human rights. Support for Mubarak always assumed that he presided wisely over a stable, functioning nation. When the vast majority of Egypt is in revolt, that cancels the agreement.

no. the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army and in exchange he shifted the balance of power in the middle east to clearly favor israel/us interests including in the "war on terror".

not hard to see the obvious once you get those stars out of your exceptionally naive eyes.

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 05:49 PM

Cutter
 
Stephanie Cutter's White House "judicial activism" blog post

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 05:50 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 196939)
no. the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army and in exchange he shifted the balance of power in the middle east to clearly favor israel/us interests including in the "war on terror".

No, the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army who presided wisely over a stable, functioning nation.

Florian 02-03-2011 06:08 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Spengler, the Counter-Enlightenment, Isaiah Berlin..... This is pretty heady stuff for BHTV! But Pinkerton is right, there are distinct forms of civilisation, and it may very well be true that Islamic countries are not destined to become more "western," i.e. secular, as they throw off their despotic regimes and embrace democracy. Democracy and theocracy are not inherently incompatible.

The analogy with the German Counter-Enlightenment (the German reaction to the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and Napoleon), however, is only illuminating up to a point. Germany and France shared a common heritage, and the German Counter-Enlightenment was never, at least until the 20th century, openly hostile to science and philosophy. I wonder if the same can be said of Islamist movements.

Ray in Seattle 02-03-2011 06:41 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 196939)
no. the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army and in exchange he shifted the balance of power in the middle east to clearly favor israel/us interests including in the "war on terror".

Actually, it was Nasser who shifted the balance of power by starting and losing the Six Day War. Anwar Sadat came to power in Nasser's shadow. Sadat shifted it further by eventually signing a peace treaty with Israel. That treaty has probably been the single greatest influence on peace in the region. It has saved the lives of many thousands of Arabs and quite a few Israelis as well. As far as Mubarak being a dictator, what Arab state has ever existed without one? What Pinkerton says (quoting Spengler) is an accurate call IMO.

rcocean 02-03-2011 06:51 PM

Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
He completely underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the average Republican primary voter.

The average Republican Voter won't remember "Romneycare" anymore than he remembered in 2008, McCain stabbing Republicans in the back from 2001-2007 or in 1988, Bush I calling Reagan's economic platform "voodoo economics" or supporting abortion. Or in 1996, Bob Dole supporting Clinton over Gingrich.

Republicans always vote for someone because it's "their turn". They also love establishment types with executive hair, who are both for and against abortion, & who are incredibly dull. They mistrust anyone who has "charisma" thinking that's "dangerous" and "populist".

Romney is really the front runner for 2012.

brucds 02-03-2011 06:53 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Corn's "fluxable" is the best new word since "refudiated."

bjkeefe 02-03-2011 07:06 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196958)
He completely underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the average Republican primary voter.

The average Republican Voter won't remember "Romneycare" anymore than he remembered in 2008, McCain stabbing Republicans in the back from 2001-2007 or in 1988, Bush I calling Reagan's economic platform "voodoo economics" or supporting abortion. Or in 1996, Bob Dole supporting Clinton over Gingrich.

Republicans always vote for someone because it's "their turn". They also love establishment types with executive hair, who are both for and against abortion, & who are incredibly dull. They mistrust anyone who has "charisma" thinking that's "dangerous" and "populist".

Romney is really the front runner for 2012.

So who do you want to be the Republican nominee? (Not who you think can or will win, just who you alone prefer.)

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 07:12 PM

Cancer
 
Is David forgetting about Nixon's War on Cancer?

rcocean 02-03-2011 07:16 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196964)
So who do you want to be the Republican nominee? (Not who you think can or will win, just who you alone prefer.)

Its completely irrelevant who I "prefer". I think Romney WILL be the nominee. Or if not him, someone like Daniels. The "establishment" always wins, the only exception I can think of is Reagan in 1980. As for Obama v. Romney in 2012, it will depend on the economy.

If the country is at peace and prosperous, the incumbent always wins. Even Clinton in 1996 won re-election.

So all you lefties don't need to worry.

Don Zeko 02-03-2011 07:20 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196958)
He completely underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the average Republican primary voter.

The average Republican Voter won't remember "Romneycare" anymore than he remembered in 2008, McCain stabbing Republicans in the back from 2001-2007 or in 1988, Bush I calling Reagan's economic platform "voodoo economics" or supporting abortion. Or in 1996, Bob Dole supporting Clinton over Gingrich.

Republicans always vote for someone because it's "their turn". They also love establishment types with executive hair, who are both for and against abortion, & who are incredibly dull. They mistrust anyone who has "charisma" thinking that's "dangerous" and "populist".

Romney is really the front runner for 2012.

Huh. I read 2008 as a primary in which every candidate was obviously unacceptable to somebody, but in which someone has to win. So it's not that Republican primary voters forgot about all of the reasons they hated McCain, per se, it's that they had an easier time forgetting that than they did forgetting that Romney obviously agreed with them insincerely, or that Rudy Guiliani was a socially liberal New Yorker, or that Huckabee was heterodox on economic issues, etc etc.

oh, and say what you will about McCain, but he doesn't have executive hair.

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 07:23 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196967)
Its completely irrelevant who I "prefer". I think Romney WILL be the nominee. Or if not him, someone like Daniels. The "establishment" always wins, the only exception I can think of is Reagan in 1980. As for Obama v. Romney in 2012, it will depend on the economy.

If the country is at peace and prosperous, the incumbent always wins. Even Clinton in 1996 won re-election.

So all you lefties don't need to worry.

I agree with rcocean. Romney is going to look like the adult in the room, and that's a positive for a Republican. And with respect to RomneyCare not implying national health care, doesn't that fit well with the notion of states' sovereignty?

Don Zeko 02-03-2011 07:26 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 196970)
I agree with rcocean. Romney is going to look like the adult in the room, and that's a positive for a Republican. And with respect to RomneyCare not implying national health care, doesn't that fit well with the notion of states' sovereignty?

I suppose, but I don't think that anyone really cares about federalism in that way. Do you really believe that any Republican primary voters are going to virulently oppose the ACA, consider it socialism, worry about death panels, etc., but think that the same thing at the state level would be a great idea?

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 07:27 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196958)
...or in 1988, Bush I calling Reagan's economic platform "voodoo economics"

That was 1980. Not 1988. It was when he was running against Reagan for the GOP nomination.

AemJeff 02-03-2011 07:30 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196958)
He completely underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the average Republican primary voter.

The average Republican Voter won't remember "Romneycare" anymore than he remembered in 2008, McCain stabbing Republicans in the back from 2001-2007 or in 1988, Bush I calling Reagan's economic platform "voodoo economics" or supporting abortion. Or in 1996, Bob Dole supporting Clinton over Gingrich.

Republicans always vote for someone because it's "their turn". They also love establishment types with executive hair, who are both for and against abortion, & who are incredibly dull. They mistrust anyone who has "charisma" thinking that's "dangerous" and "populist".

Romney is really the front runner for 2012.

Do you really think Romney won't get pounded in the primary for his history regarding health-care? I'm betting that issue, "fiscal conservatism" (let's agree to disagree on the merits of that for now), and immigration will account for more than 90% of the public debate on the R side. Anyplace Romney seems to be ahead, the health care issue will dominate. And as far as I can see, Republican rank and file have an instantaneous Pavlovian reaction to any hint that somebody on their side might have deviated from doctrine on that issue.

Was it George Bush's "turn" in 2000?

operative 02-03-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 196970)
I agree with rcocean. Romney is going to look like the adult in the room, and that's a positive for a Republican. And with respect to RomneyCare not implying national health care, doesn't that fit well with the notion of states' sovereignty?

With Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman likely running, Romney will be facing people who can seriously discuss policy and who don't have a history of expedient flip flops. I don't think Romney's latest defense of Romneycare (that states can force people to buy it, but the national government can not) will fly for too many people. Mitt's a nice guy but he just doesn't have it.

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 196972)
I suppose, but I don't think that anyone really cares about federalism in that way. Do you really believe that any Republican primary voters are going to virulently oppose the ACA, consider it socialism, worry about death panels, etc., but think that the same thing at the state level would be a great idea?

Well, Romney's not going to advocate state level heath insurance for everyone. It matters what state you live in. I don't think Texans really worry too much one way or the other about what we are doing here in Massachusetts.

operative 02-03-2011 07:43 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 196979)
Well, Romney's not going to advocate state level heath insurance for everyone. It matters what state you live in. I don't think Texans really worry too much one way or the other about what we are doing here in Massachusetts.

The problem is that the fundamental issue is whether a government can force a citizen to purchase a product to remain in legal standing. It really doesn't matter whether that government is federal, state, or local. If the individual mandate is struck down in the SC, I can't imagine that MA's law will stand.

bjkeefe 02-03-2011 07:43 PM

Seque of the week!
 
You go, David Corn!

Simon Willard 02-03-2011 07:45 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 196978)
With Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman likely running, Romney will be facing people who can seriously discuss policy and who don't have a history of expedient flip flops. I don't think Romney's latest defense of Romneycare (that states can force people to buy it, but the national government can not) will fly for too many people. Mitt's a nice guy but he just doesn't have it.

You might be right: we'll have to see if Republicans are as logical as you assume ;). But Mitt has something Jon Huntsman doesn't have: name recognition.

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 07:48 PM

Re: Seque of the week!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 196981)
You go, David Corn!

+1

Ray in Seattle 02-03-2011 07:52 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 196939)
no. the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army and in exchange he shifted the balance of power in the middle east to clearly favor israel/us interests including in the "war on terror".

What's your beef? That he denied human rights to the Egyptian people - or that he didn't create enough Arab martyrs for your taste?

As far as human rights for those Egyptians (the ones still alive because he didn't send them off in another tragic attempt to defeat the "Zionist entity") - perhaps if the UN Human Rights Council had been doing the job it was created to do there could have been more pressure on Mubarak for reform.

But then, instead of pressuring the UN, Obama joined the council after Bush left it and he praised Mubarak as a leader in Arab human rights - you know, "engaging" the assholes of the world instead of calling them out and demanding reform if they want US aid and cooperation.

I think "chickens coming home to roost" might be the appropriate phrase here.

ohreally 02-03-2011 07:57 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Corn is a good illustration of the identity of views on US mideast policies between liberals and conservatives. He agrees with Pinkerton on the fact that between human rights and stability among our allies, well, gosh, we've got to choose stability. What's 80K political prisoners and routine torture when it provides stability?

So let's talk about stability... Carter's peace treaty greenlights 1982 Invasion of Lebanon: 20K dead.
Stability!! Two intifadas; two Iraq wars; 2006 Lebanon war; 2008-09 Gaza invasion; 9/11 (for doing in Saudi Arabia what we've done in Egypt). More stability.

How's that working out for you, Corn, your stability calculus?

Oh and did I mention that our two pillars of stability, Egypt and Pakistan, are the countries on earth where the population has the most deep-seated hatred of the US? What a capital of stability we're buying for the future.

Propping up dictators is the recipe for future stability. Ask Nasrallah.

To you rightwingers, you don't know how hard it is to be on the left, stuck with such wet noodles as Corn, supposedly on our side. Take him!

bkjazfan 02-03-2011 08:00 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Too bad the Founding Fathers did not put something in the Constitution that forbade red light cameras that cost $500 a shot.

John

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 08:03 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 196986)
What's your beef? That he denied human rights to the Egyptian people - or that he didn't create enough Arab martyrs for your taste?

I don't know if you have noticed this, but you have this rut you seem to fall into where you imply people are terrorist sympathizers, usually simply because they don't adhere perfectly to your own far-right conception of the universe.

chamblee54 02-03-2011 08:06 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
What is the problem with Mr. Pinkerton's sound?
chamblee54

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 08:09 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 196992)
What is the problem with Mr. Pinkerton's sound?
chamblee54

Ouch.

That's overmodulation.


.

Ray in Seattle 02-03-2011 08:10 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 196990)
I don't know if you have noticed this, but you have this rut you seem to fall into where you imply people are terrorist sympathizers, usually simply because they don't adhere perfectly to your own far-right conception of the universe.

I think terrorist enablers would be more accurate than sympathizers. And that's pretty much what the Obama administration is about these days - to say nothing of the openly anti-Israel left. Obama has set back the chances for peace in the ME by decades and has greatly increased the chances for an extremely destructive war that will have a very high death toll.

Remember, denial is not just that river that runs through Cairo.

Don Zeko 02-03-2011 08:12 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 196994)
I think terrorist enablers would be more accurate than sympathizers.

And this in no way strikes you as over-wrought or excessive? You would have no problem with such a harsh label being applied to you?

ohreally 02-03-2011 08:13 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Corn asks how we get autocrats to go away? Hmm, that's a tough one. Let me think.... Oh I got it! How about stopping giving him a $1.5b check every year?? How hard is it not to write a check?

rcocean 02-03-2011 08:28 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 196973)
That was 1980. Not 1988. It was when he was running against Reagan for the GOP nomination.

Yes, TS, you're absolutely correct. I meant that in 1988 the Republicans nominated Bush I *Despite* his calling Reagan economics "Voodoo economics" in 1980 and *Despite* his supporting abortion rights in 1980. Any intelligent person knew that Bush I was NOT a Reagan Republican no matter what he *SAID* in 1988. But to the Boobish Republican primary voters in 1988, the fact that Bush *SAID* he was a Reagan Conservative Republican was sufficient.

It was precisely the same with McCain in 2008. There was no greater supporter of Amnesty and "Open Borders" than McCain. But all he had to do was mouth a few absurd words about "I"ll build a Goddamn Fence" and the "Base" was satisfied. It didn't matter that McCain had literally risked his political career to join with Ted Kennedy to support Amnesty - as long as he *SAID* in the 2008 primaries that he was for border security, that was enough. In fact, 1/3 of South Carolina Republicans in 2008, thought McCain was against Amnesty!

The same will be true of Romney. All Mitt has to do is mouth a few words - in the upcoming debates - about how he now opposes Obamacare and he was kinda/somewhat/sorta wrong about Romneycare and the boobs will buy it.

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 08:30 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 196994)
I think terrorist enablers would be more accurate than sympathizers.

Well, you suggested that p_k might have a "taste" for terrorism -- for mass murder. A person with a taste for terrorism sounds more like a terrorist sympathizer than a terrorist enabler.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 196994)
Obama has set back the chances for peace in the ME by decades and has greatly increased the chances for an extremely destructive war that will have a very high death toll.

I wonder if you might elaborate on this? In what ways has obama set back chances for peace by decades and greatly increased the chances for a very high death toll?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 196994)
Remember, denial is not just that river that runs through Cairo.

Badompbomp.

Ray in Seattle 02-03-2011 08:36 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 196996)
And this in no way strikes you as over-wrought or excessive? You would have no problem with such a harsh label being applied to you?

The statement that got me was
Quote:

the deal was he got to be a well financed dictator with a big army and in exchange he shifted the balance of power in the middle east to clearly favor israel/us interests including in the "war on terror".
This seems to indicate that "popcorn" doesn't approve of US/Israel interests in the ME or the "war on terror" both of which are primarily focused on the mitigation of terrorism. These have been probably the single greatest expense of the taxpayers for 20 years in the US and 60 years in Israel. He doesn't criticize the strategy but seems to be saying that it's an unjust struggle for us to wage.

If I read it wrong I'll apologize but I'd call that enabling terrorists or at least saying that their goal of ridding the ME of Jews and US influence is suffering because of our policy towards Mubarak.

Added: I don't mean enabling in the sense of sending arms or money to them. I mean supporting US policies that end up making it easier for terrorists to achieve their goals.

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 08:43 PM

Re: Jim is completely wrong on Romney
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 196999)
Yes, TS, you're absolutely correct. I meant that in 1988 the Republicans nominated Bush I *Despite* his calling Reagan economics "Voodoo economics" in 1980 and *Despite* his supporting abortion rights in 1980. Any intelligent person knew that Bush I was NOT a Reagan Republican no matter what he *SAID* in 1988. But to the Boobish Republican primary voters in 1988, the fact that Bush *SAID* he was a Reagan Conservative Republican was sufficient.

It was precisely the same with McCain in 2008. There was no greater supporter of Amnesty and "Open Borders" than McCain. But all he had to do was mouth a few absurd words about "I"ll build a Goddamn Fence" and the "Base" was satisfied. It didn't matter that McCain had literally risked his political career to join with Ted Kennedy to support Amnesty - as long as he *SAID* in the 2008 primaries that he was for border security, that was enough. In fact, 1/3 of South Carolina Republicans in 2008, thought McCain was against Amnesty!

The same will be true of Romney. All Mitt has to do is mouth a few words - in the upcoming debates - about how he now opposes Obamacare and he was kinda/somewhat/sorta wrong about Romneycare and the boobs will buy it.

I think it all depends on how high the level of rage is in the GOP base during the 9 months leading up to November 2012.

If the GOP base can sustain levels of rage on par with what we saw from August 2008 through about January of 2010, you could probably nominate Sarah Palin or someone equally pleasing to the Fox News/Tea Party/Talk Radio/Libertarian-Authoritarian element. But for now, I think GOP rage is waning.

There were three key turning points: (1) Scott Brown's election, a reminder to a base dizzy with fear of Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" that conservatives could still win elections. (2) The 2010 elections, which gave enormous confidence to conservatives that they could regain control of the country without resorting to some extra-constitutional "plan B." And finally, (3) The Arizona shootings, which made people who had been calling for blood for over two years feel conspicuous about such open displays of rage and hate.

The big question now is whether Fox News and the corporate sponsors of the GOP can amp up the rage to 2009 levels in time for the 2012 elections. We know this much: the whole organized professional class of the GOP, from the media branch to the corporate sponsors to the elected officials, will be marching in lockstep to make Americans as angry and frightened as they can possible make them in time for the election.

Ray in Seattle 02-03-2011 08:50 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 197000)
Well, you said suggested that p_k might have a "taste" for terrorism -- for mass murder. A person with a taste for terrorism sounds more like a terrorist sympathizer than a terrorist enabler.

That was sarcasm - and was framed as a question - not an assertion or suggestion.

Quote:

I wonder if you might elaborate on this? In what ways has obama set back chances for peace by decades and greatly increased the chances for a very high death toll?
Radical Islamic forces throughout the region have been greatly energized since Obama took office. Turkey and Iran are now trying to settle who will be the next center of Islamic anti-western power in the region. Islamists now realize that Obama will do little or nothing to check their grab for power there over any remaining moderates - who now realize they will get no support from the US - and so are making deals, like Hariri in Lebanon and Kharzai in Afghanistan. A major war with Israel, this time waged with US weapons sold or given to Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, the Palestinians and Egypt and that we allowed to be developed in Iran - is now quite likely IMO.

TwinSwords 02-03-2011 08:55 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 197001)
The statement that got me was

This seems to indicate that "popcorn" doesn't approve of US/Israel interests in the ME or the "war on terror" both of which are primarily focused on the mitigation of terrorism. These have been probably the single greatest expense of the taxpayers for 20 years in the US and 60 years in Israel. He doesn't criticize the strategy but seems to be saying that it's an unjust struggle for us to wage.

If I read it wrong I'll apologize but I'd call that enabling terrorists or at least saying that their goal of ridding the ME of Jews and US influence is suffering because of our policy towards Mubarak.

Added: I don't mean enabling in the sense of sending arms or money to them. I mean supporting US policies that end up making it easier for terrorists to achieve their goals.

I can kind of understand what you're trying to do.

Sometimes people on the left will say the GOP wants to starve the elderly and drive them into the streets where they will die homeless. How else could you explain the attack on Social Security and the willingness of the libertarians to eliminate a critical social safety net for our society's most vulnerable citizens?

The problem is that although it may well be true that the effect of libertarian policies will be to create levels of starvation and homelessness among the indigent elderly that are only found in impoverished third world countries, there are very few libertarians who would ever actually agree that this would be the outcome of their policies. Rather, libertarians believe that elimination of social security would lead to a great blossoming of human potential that would dramatically increase the wealth of the elderly.

So, you can say popcorn is unwittingly enabling terrorism. But you say he has a "taste" for it. Like he's actively wishing for the slaughter of innocent Israelis. It's rather inflammatory.

I'm tempted sometimes to do the same to libertarians. "They have to know," I tell myself, "their policies are going to kill old people - and they just don't care."

Don Zeko 02-03-2011 08:56 PM

Re: Counter-Enlightenment Edition (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 197001)
The statement that got me was

This seems to indicate that "popcorn" doesn't approve of US/Israel interests in the ME or the "war on terror" both of which are primarily focused on the mitigation of terrorism. These have been probably the single greatest expense of the taxpayers for 20 years in the US and 60 years in Israel. He doesn't criticize the strategy but seems to be saying that it's an unjust struggle for us to wage.

If I read it wrong I'll apologize but I'd call that enabling terrorists or at least saying that their goal of ridding the ME of Jews and US influence is suffering because of our policy towards Mubarak.

Added: I don't mean enabling in the sense of sending arms or money to them. I mean supporting US policies that end up making it easier for terrorists to achieve their goals.

Let's review. There are a fair number of liberals (and conservatives) that think that US support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East is unwise or unjust. You also have a lot of people in the middle east, many of them living in these oppressive regimes, who think that the US should stop supporting them. And then you also have a minority of people in the Middle East that also oppose these oppressive regimes, but think that that opposition, as well as their opposition to Israel's continued existence, should be acted upon violently. Given all of this, you conclude that, because they arrive at some shared goals for wildly different reasons, Liberals who consider our dealings with the Mubarak regime over the past 30 years corrupt are enabling the terrorists?

This is ridiculous reasoning. No, that's not strong enough. This is poisonous, destructive reasoning. It prevents you from drawing distinctions between your own countrymen that share most of their basic values with you and mass murderers who would gladly kill everyone participating in this forum. I know it's fun to demonize your political opponents. I know that you think that Popcorn Karate's policy preferences would have bad results. But you badly need a sense of perspective if you think your argument here is fair.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46 PM.

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