Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-16-2008, 12:05 PM
otto otto is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 129
Default Not that any of them will want to hear it put this way

But the rising prominence of these two has helped compensate for the declining reliability of Mickey's appearances on bh.tv
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-16-2008, 06:05 PM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: Not that any of them will want to hear it put this way

Quote:
Originally Posted by otto View Post
But the rising prominence of these two has helped compensate for the declining reliability of Mickey's appearances on bh.tv
Definitely a "comparing apples and oranges" analysis.

McWhorter-with-Loury is one of the finest BHTV pairings. They have always been thought-provoking. I've loved that they keep coming back again and again.

And Mickey? Yeah, he's "one-of-a-kind" as well. A completely different universe, though. Dunno why, but when I think of Mickey, I just think "anti-matter"?

EW

Last edited by Eastwest; 09-16-2008 at 06:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-16-2008, 12:20 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

It blows my mind that at this stage in American and world history, Glenn Loury thinks the most important thing for him to do is sabatoge the Obama candidacy and help to ensure that McCain is elected. When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.

_______________________

Good to see commercials on BHTV! While I don't like commercials, I do like revenue for BHTV.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 09-16-2008 at 01:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:20 PM
Thus Spoke Elvis Thus Spoke Elvis is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.

Trying to understand how someone could actually make this statement and believe it makes my head hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:53 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

i second that notion
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:31 PM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: In Defense of Glenn Loury

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
It blows my mind that at this stage in American and world history, Glenn Loury thinks the most important thing for him to do is sabatoge the Obama candidacy and help to ensure that McCain is elected. When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.
TS,

This is not a fair response to Glenn. He has no agenda here. He's simply calling them as he sees them. (I do agree with much of what he says here.)

I think the problem for you is more accurately that you are made altogether uncomfortable by the validity of his analysis and, rather than cop to the problems that the candidacy is inherently freighted with (prejudice-ridden voters, etc) and/or the errors Obama has made, and also the weaknesses possessed by Obama which are such as nobody can very easily change at this point (Obama's now-demonstrated inability to provoke emotional resonance in much of the electorate), you instead blame all these problems on the man who articulates the nature of these problems.

Why shoot the messenger?

EW
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-17-2008, 07:05 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: In Defense of Glenn Loury

The idea that Glenn Loury does not have an axe to grind here is pretty off base. Glenn clearly wanted Obama to lose in the primaries and he is holding his breath just waiting for Obama to lose in November so he can sigh a big sigh, shake his head once or twice, and say "i told you so - shoulda stuck with the Clintons".

He is also a rather intelligent, perceptive commenter and i take his critiques seriously. But to suggest that he is just "calling them as he sees them" is perhaps, an overstatement.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-16-2008, 10:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Good to see commercials on BHTV! While I don't like commercials, I do like revenue for BHTV.
Second that. I do hope, however, that a way can figured out to prevent the ad from showing before dingalinked clips. Many of the best dingalinks are only a few seconds long. It's a shame to have to sit through an ad for that -- kills the mood.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2008, 10:22 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
It blows my mind that at this stage in American and world history, Glenn Loury thinks the most important thing for him to do is sabatoge the Obama candidacy and help to ensure that McCain is elected. When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.
Glenn,

Love you on BHTV - but I didn't realize you had such power! According to Twinswords you hold America's Future in your hand. Where Glenn goes, there goes the nation.

Anyway, you and John were Great. Especially, your discussion on the type of intelligence needed to be POTUS.
And here's a thought. If Obama loses - it's Obama fault. McCain is a weak candidate, Bush is unpopular, and its a Democratic year.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-19-2008, 02:26 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

What do you call it when your comment is quoted derisively on Instapundit? Prof. Reynolds might not agree with you, Twinswords, but he's given your statement more exposure than you could have imagined!
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-19-2008, 02:46 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exeus99 View Post
What do you call it when your comment is quoted derisively on Instapundit? Prof. Reynolds might not agree with you, Twinswords, but he's given your statement more exposure than you could have imagined!
I think it would have been much more honorable for Prof. Reynolds to post his objections in this forum. Why didn't he?

Exeus, you probably know I prefer a direct approach. I can't avoid thinking of this kind of tactic as cowardly and self-serving.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-19-2008, 03:17 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I think it would have been much more honorable for Prof. Reynolds to post his objections in this forum. Why didn't he?

Exeus, you probably know I prefer a direct approach. I can't avoid thinking of this kind of tactic as cowardly and self-serving.
Glenn Reynolds almost never participates in fora where he might be subject to feedback. (Though he did do one BHTV segment - credit where it's due.) I think he learned the trick from Rush Limbaugh - it's easier to not sound stupid if you stick to places where there's no chance of a dissenting voice.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-19-2008, 03:22 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Glenn Reynolds almost never participates in fora where he might be subject to feedback. (Though he did do one BHTV segment - credit where it's due.) I think he learned the trick from Rush Limbaugh - it's easier to not sound stupid if you stick to places where there's no chance of a dissenting voice.
Yes, I suspected that. It sounded like a self-enhancement strategy. Oh, well...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-16-2008, 12:34 PM
Markos Markos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 334
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

I'm impressed with John's degree of objectivity in his evaluation of Obama vs. Palin on experience, disturbing though it is for Democrats.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-16-2008, 12:35 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:09 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10
Glenn Loury,
If you're reading this, I want to let you know that your fans Kidneystones and bookofdisquiet are foaming-at-the-mouth right wing fanatics. They are delighted by your efforts here on BHTV.

I remember when Glenn and John started doing diavlogs on BHTV. Glenn used to gently rib John for being a "black conservative."

How things have changed. Now John is the one trying to save the nation, while Glenn enthusiastically promotes the interests of Rush Limbaugh.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:36 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

first of all, i'm not foaming at the mouth. secondly, why do you assume I'm "right wing"? You show your partisanship with comments like these--you don't like hearing the truth do you. Glenn makes fundamental observations about the average middle American voter. I believe those observations, if acknowledged, could benefit either candidate. Obama could have selected Clinton to shore up those voters but he did not. His choice of Biden from "Scranton" was supposed to suffice-- it has not. An Obama/Clinton ticket would have a double-digit lead right now. These are merely truths--if the dems lose it will be because of the failure of Obama to appeal to middle-American voters who aren't necessarily impressed by his intellectualism. I'm a huge fan of McWhorter as well--so don't pigeonhole me.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-16-2008, 06:01 PM
MikeDrew MikeDrew is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

bookofdisquiet writes:

"Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate"

He is certainly perceptive, though I wouldn't say more so than either Bob Wright or Kaus. You could say he is not overtly partisan, though I think you would get some argument from him on that.

What you cannot say is that he does not have an agenda. Go back and review all the links associated with his & John's diavlog on the Obama Wright/race speech. He is all agenda. The Obama candidacy is profoundly threatening to him and his worldview; he is refreshingly open and forthright about this. Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-16-2008, 06:12 PM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDrew View Post
Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.
Well, "agenda" here is getting stretched elastically all over too many connotations.

In any case, if Glenn has an "agenda" at this point, it's still not fair to claim that it is to sabotage the Obama candidacy.

And this "non-intention to sabotage" is what I intended when referring to "not having an agenda," this in contrast to TwinSwords who inferred that Obama-sabotage is precisely Loury's intent.

EW

Last edited by Eastwest; 09-16-2008 at 06:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:06 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

As someone who is neither a professor nor who carries the unfortunate burden of having to check my back for possible signs of arrogance and ivory tower-ness, I just wanted to say:

A discussion of Sarah Palin that does not begin with the fact that the Gibson interview made her seem dumb is not an honest discussion. Whether or not she was knowledgeable, I think, is a whole other issue -- knowing items X, Y, or Z is cosmetic, but her actual thought process was still on display during the interview. And it wasn't pretty.

There's a huge difference between a speaker whose style is essentially populist and simplistic (a matter of style and intellectual aesthetics) and a speaker who refuses to walk you through what they think. The simple populist will still be able to tie their answers back to a larger theme. Palin did not clear that bar. And to me, that bar is what we'd call the bare minimum.

That is why I agree with McWhertor that the Palin pick was uniquely cynical. There are pro-life women in the GOP who *can* clear this bar -- but McCain didn't pick any of them. Palin wasn't picked to stake out an idea, she was picked to trick pro-lifers into believing that the GOP is going to give them something it has no intention of giving them. She was picked to lose, and to fuel anti-media sentiment. She was picked to generate a sense of grievance.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-16-2008, 02:36 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Thumbs down Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

The Palin pick was a daring one to be sure. McCain has a bump from it which I think will dissipate as time goes on. This race is more fluid than I anticipated - I thought Obama would be up 10 points in September. October should be interesting for us political junkies.

John
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-16-2008, 04:09 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Palin-mania may finally be starting to subside:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/09...ity_ratin.html

Still a ways to go, but it's a start. Fortunately Obama/Biden have been very good about focussing on McCain.

Haven't watched this diavlog yet. I'm hesitant. I'm sorta running out of ptience with Glenn's notable preference for bashing Obama rather than McCain. From the comments, it looks like it continues in this diavlog.

PS Bob, I really hope somebody at BHTV will focus on the amazing speech Biden gave yesterday. No lipstick, just real, important issues.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2008, 04:13 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Glenn's final remarks were awesome.

John
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2008, 09:43 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
PS Bob, I really hope somebody at BHTV will focus on the amazing speech Biden gave yesterday. No lipstick, just real, important issues.
Yes, that was superb, wasn't it?

I've got a short clip, and the video of the whole speech, as well as links to the transcript, posted here, if anyone is interested. It really does bear watching.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:07 PM
tottoritodd tottoritodd is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Wow,

I was so happy when I saw these guys were on. But John seems angry tonight. I'm only 12 minutes in, but I hope I'm wrong. Agressively non-reflective???? How can you say this????
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:10 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by tottoritodd View Post
Wow,

I was so happy when I saw these guys were on. But John seems angry tonight. I'm only 12 minutes in, but I hope I'm wrong. Agressively non-reflective???? How can you say this????
What's an example of Palin being reflective?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2008, 01:44 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

The gas pipeline through Canada. Her belief that both sides of the abortion issue ultimately agree that no one really favors abortion--and her promise to work on solutions with pro-choicers like adoption, etc. Her support of issues around special needs children. And, basically anything to do with energy production from U.S. sources.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2008, 06:22 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
The gas pipeline through Canada. Her belief that both sides of the abortion issue ultimately agree that no one really favors abortion--and her promise to work on solutions with pro-choicers like adoption, etc. Her support of issues around special needs children. And, basically anything to do with energy production from U.S. sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
first of all, i'm not foaming at the mouth. secondly, why do you assume I'm "right wing"? You show your partisanship with comments like these--you don't like hearing the truth do you. Glenn makes fundamental observations about the average middle American voter. I believe those observations, if acknowledged, could benefit either candidate. Obama could have selected Clinton to shore up those voters but he did not. His choice of Biden from "Scranton" was supposed to suffice-- it has not. An Obama/Clinton ticket would have a double-digit lead right now. These are merely truths--if the dems lose it will be because of the failure of Obama to appeal to middle-American voters who aren't necessarily impressed by his intellectualism. I'm a huge fan of McWhorter as well--so don't pigeonhole me.
No one is assuming, we read your posts. The top (latest) one is at odds with the lower (previous) one. RCP has Obama-Biden up 2% today, looks like the economy is wearing the shine off the GOP in record time.
Towing the party line is scant evidence of "reflection" in my view. You appear to be in denial about your own partisanship.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2008, 06:26 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

booksofdisquiet:

I'll add a follow-up question: Leaving aside the worth or lack thereof, how does the natural gas pipeline project show that Palin is capable of being reflective?

I agree with you that her answers on the abortion question in the Gibson interview showed some past contemplation.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-18-2008, 06:34 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
booksofdisquiet:

I'll add a follow-up question: Leaving aside the worth or lack thereof, how does the natural gas pipeline project show that Palin is capable of being reflective?

I agree with you that her answers on the abortion question in the Gibson interview showed some past contemplation.
Contemplation, or coaching?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-18-2008, 06:50 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Contemplation, or coaching?
I imagine she rehearsed variations on her answer here, but she did strike me as being a whole lot more real when she was talking about the abortion issue (and stem cells) than when she was talking about everything else. I concede the likelihood that, deep down, she's not as open-minded about abortion as a political problem as she presented herself, but when she talked about the other side's perspective, she sounded far less scripted than she did (or does) when talking about, say, foreign policy or economic issues.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-18-2008, 07:14 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I imagine she rehearsed variations on her answer here, but she did strike me as being a whole lot more real when she was talking about the abortion issue (and stem cells) than when she was talking about everything else. I concede the likelihood that, deep down, she's not as open-minded about abortion as a political problem as she presented herself, but when she talked about the other side's perspective, she sounded far less scripted than she did (or does) when talking about, say, foreign policy or economic issues.
Good point, but I think she's not only more familiar with the issue, it may have been a considered a very critical back peddle for her to articulate to win the Hill people, most of whom would like the Fed's to stay out of the womb.
If I am right, this is more strategy than reflection.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-18-2008, 09:05 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Good point, but I think she's not only more familiar with the issue, it may have been a considered a very critical back peddle for her to articulate to win the Hill people, most of whom would like the Fed's to stay out of the womb.
If I am right, this is more strategy than reflection.
Yes, I think you're right. That's what I meant by her "rehearsing answers" or whatever it was I said -- she'd want to present as more moderate than she probably really is, personally, especially if the McCain people were foolish enough to think there were huge numbers of disaffected Hillary fans just waiting for the next female politician to come along.

So, I'd say "soft-pedal" rather than "back-pedal."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-19-2008, 01:04 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuel sources we have-- it's much more efficient than coal for electricity production. It can be used to replace gasoline in automobiles as well. It's thougtful because it's a long-term solution to our energy crisis and global warming.

For more on the benefits of natural gas see Picken's Plan.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-19-2008, 02:06 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuel sources we have-- it's much more efficient than coal for electricity production. It can be used to replace gasoline in automobiles as well. It's thougtful because it's a long-term solution to our energy crisis and global warming.
Oh, please. Being in favor of extracting a useful resource is not evidence of being reflective. It's a no-brainer.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:10 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Follow-up: here's Sarah Palin, aka the person who "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America," being ... uh ... reflective?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-19-2008, 12:58 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Just because I choose to judge each candidate's policy proscriptions independently and pragmatically doesn't make me a partisan. I voted for Clinton twice, Gore in 00, and Bush in 04 because Kerry was going to pull us out of Iraq. The success of the surge has vindicated that choice. I view history in the long term - 50 to 100 year windows and believe you can't make foreign policy decisions without considering their effects on the next two generations. I reject the theories of "blowback" by Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and the like-- Soviet aggression created the Taliban, not the CIA--it seems easy for our liberal intellectuals to manipulate the chain of causation. In the same vain, it seems all to easy for our conservative intellectuals to dismiss the criticisms of the methodologies we deploy in our democracy promotion as well as economic benefits to U.S. corporations.

I believe in American exceptionalism for these reasons: 1.) we have a system of government that effectively allows for political change without violence; 2.) our institutions of law; and 3.) the ideals of individual freedom are universal; 4.) our country effectively assimilates a diversity of cultures peacefully. I think Japan, Germany, and S. Korea reflect in varying degrees how fundamentally universal the basic premise of the American ideal really is-- I have no doubt Iraq will join their ranks.

I view the world through the prism of freedom or oppression, governance by consent or decree, free market choice or centralized planning (regulatory oversite is not central planning).

I was born and raised in West Virginia and now live and work in San Francisco. I read 30 books a year -- mostly nonfiction.

The bottom line is I'm a pragmatist-- I'm sorry if it's easier for you to label me as a partisan. People like me are going to decide this election.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-19-2008, 05:03 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
Just because I choose to judge each candidate's policy proscriptions independently and pragmatically doesn't make me a partisan. I voted for Clinton twice, Gore in 00, and Bush in 04 because Kerry was going to pull us out of Iraq. The success of the surge has vindicated that choice. I view history in the long term - 50 to 100 year windows and believe you can't make foreign policy decisions without considering their effects on the next two generations. I reject the theories of "blowback" by Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and the like-- Soviet aggression created the Taliban, not the CIA--it seems easy for our liberal intellectuals to manipulate the chain of causation. In the same vain, it seems all to easy for our conservative intellectuals to dismiss the criticisms of the methodologies we deploy in our democracy promotion as well as economic benefits to U.S. corporations.
You make a gook point about blind spots on both sides of the spectrum, but you don't seem to take that evidence to it's logical conclusion, that we all have blind spots we must scrutinize. Yours seems to be loyalty to the military, and the idea that aggression is good foreign policy.
Soviet aggression created the Taliban but why did they support Bin Laden in attacking us? Didn't daddy Bush tell them we had their back, and then hang them out to dry? Oh yea, they are just evil and they hate our freedom. Isn't underestimating your enemy considered a common strategic mistake in military culture, right up there with not protecting your flank, over committing your forces, and letting politicians dictate actions in the field?
Your war is over budget, overbearing, and not even close to over. Your ideological excuse for it is nothing but the biggest back-peddle in American history, we went to depose Saddam and his WMDs Remember? The Shiite government is poised to wipe out the newly friendly Anbar Sunnis as soon as the Americans give them a chance, and allow the exiled Shia reclaim their homes, and the cycle of war may continue for another 10, or 100 years.
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, The fact that you don't advocate the destruction of that dictatorship shoots enormous holes in your delusion of spreading "American exceptionalism" by cavalierly putting our troops in harms way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
I believe in American exceptionalism for these reasons: 1.) we have a system of government that effectively allows for political change without violence; 2.) our institutions of law; and 3.) the ideals of individual freedom are universal; 4.) our country effectively assimilates a diversity of cultures peacefully. I think Japan, Germany, and S. Korea reflect in varying degrees how fundamentally universal the basic premise of the American ideal really is-- I have no doubt Iraq will join their ranks.
Maybe you should examine the attitudes of the people of those countries with respect to your beloved middle eastern occupation. Believing we have superior motives, systems, ideologies, and methodologies is, quite possibly the most dangerous foreign policy ever implemented... again, ask the Germans and Japanese.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
I view the world through the prism of freedom or oppression, governance by consent or decree, free market choice or centralized planning (regulatory oversite is not central planning).

I was born and raised in West Virginia and now live and work in San Francisco. I read 30 books a year -- mostly nonfiction.
The fact that you are impressed enough with your reading to call attention to it in multiple posts, is disquieting indeed. I could scan 30 books a year through my own prism, looking for reasons your war was ill advised, and use the 30 book rule to refute yours, but I don't think anyone would consider this as a valid point, let alone one worth mentioning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet View Post
The bottom line is I'm a pragmatist-- I'm sorry if it's easier for you to label me as a partisan. People like me are going to decide this election.
Pragmatists don't view the world through a prism, they are able to see multiple sides of the picture, and probably wouldn't conclude their world view is good enough to be spread by overwhelming military force. there is nothing pragmatic about thinking that the rest of the world is ready for our system of government and should accommodate our corporate interests, even at the expense of their own values and interests. You are a partisan for the war party, and you are in denial about it. And you are in denial about who's deciding this election, it is time for common sense and true pragmatism to prevail, and there will be no "freedom spreading " on Obama's watch. It's time to get real, and repair the damage you, and those like you, have done to our reputation, our economy, our self image, and our middle class, from West Virginia, to San Fransisco.
It has become painfully obvious to most people IMO, that the idea that the GOP is a "conservative" entity has been proven completely false.

Last edited by handle; 09-19-2008 at 05:17 PM.. Reason: multiple not both
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-19-2008, 08:43 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
You make a gook point about blind spots on both sides of the spectrum, but you don't seem to take that evidence to it's logical conclusion, that we all have blind spots we must scrutinize. Yours seems to be loyalty to the military, and the idea that aggression is good foreign policy.
Not all aggression is good foreign policy (see Vietnam and the Philippines circa 1901) just aggression against islamo-fascists to use an un-PC term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Soviet aggression created the Taliban but why did they support Bin Laden in attacking us? Didn't daddy Bush tell them we had their back, and then hang them out to dry? Oh yea, they are just evil and they hate our freedom. Isn't underestimating your enemy considered a common strategic mistake in military culture, right up there with not protecting your flank, over committing your forces, and letting politicians dictate actions in the field?
There is no perspective from which any one of sound morality can argue that the Taliban wasn't evil--unless of course you're a nihilist. And the Taliban came to power after a prolonged civil war in Afghanistan, not some promise or appointment from "daddy Bush"-- I doubt seriously you or the minions like you would have been in favor of military intervention in Afghanistan in 1996 to fight the Taliban or in our expenditure of funds to help that country. Of course, you can't really give economic aid until there is stability so what could the U.S. have done short of military intervention?

The Taliban supported Osama b/c Mullah Omar shared an ideological belief similar to his-- one that thought it took down one superpower and could now go after a second. Here is Omar's own words on why he supported Bin Laden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Your war is over budget, overbearing, and not even close to over. Your ideological excuse for it is nothing but the biggest back-peddle in American history, we went to depose Saddam and his WMDs Remember? The Shiite government is poised to wipe out the newly friendly Anbar Sunnis as soon as the Americans give them a chance, and allow the exiled Shia reclaim their homes, and the cycle of war may continue for another 10, or 100 years.
WMD's wasn't the only reason for the war and history will be the judge of that argument. 10 million people voting in that first election is all I needed to see it was a success. Honestly, there's no point arguing with someone like you over the necessity or validity of Iraq-- it's pretty clear you're wrong, here's a better summary than i could ever give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, The fact that you don't advocate the destruction of that dictatorship shoots enormous holes in your delusion of spreading "American exceptionalism" by cavalierly putting our troops in harms way.
I'm not a warmonger -- the Saudi Arabian government never tried to assassinate an American President, started two wars, or gassed its own people like Saddam. Bin Laden declared war against the Saudi's b/c they housed our troops on their lands to help them fight Saddam see this. I'm not for blindly committing to war in the cause of freedom as I think you are trying to suggest, only using force when stability, military advantage, and threat dictate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Maybe you should examine the attitudes of the people of those countries with respect to your beloved middle eastern occupation. Believing we have superior motives, systems, ideologies, and methodologies is, quite possibly the most dangerous foreign policy ever implemented... again, ask the Germans and Japanese.
I would love to ask the Germans and the Japanese because they have benefited enormously from the universal notions of freedom and governance by consent. You're such a foolish ideologue you can't even realize that American ideology is simply freedom from oppression by popular consent--that consent being voiced by open and free speech and debate. Germany and Japan have very distinct cultures, institutions, and governments than those in the U.S. but they operate by the same ideals of freedom. Iraq will not be America light-- Iraq will be what the Iraqi people choose it to be through free and fair elections-- it will no longer be the outward expression of a madman who fancied himself the next Saladin. It seems you only believe in freedom if you have it. -- The men and women in Iraq volunteered to serve and have sacrificed for those Iraqi's-- and have fought bravely enough to guarantee that our children and grandchildren won't have to fight there in their lifetimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
The fact that you are impressed enough with your reading to call attention to it in multiple posts, is disquieting indeed. I could scan 30 books a year through my own prism, looking for reasons your war was ill advised, and use the 30 book rule to refute yours, but I don't think anyone would consider this as a valid point, let alone one worth mentioning.
I have read as many books for the war as against it (Imperial Hubris-Hegemony or Survival, Rogue Nation and pretty much everything recently by Gore Vidal), but I'd have to say that what convinced me most was reading a collection of Osama Bin Laden's own speeches and statements and the works of Sayyid Qutb and his influence on Bin Laden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
You are a partisan for the war party, and you are in denial about it. And you are in denial about who's deciding this election, it is time for common sense and true pragmatism to prevail, and there will be no "freedom spreading " on Obama's watch.
No I'm not partisan, just rational-- but you might be in denial about Obama and freedom spreading.


Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
It's time to get real, and repair the damage you, and those like you, have done to our reputation, our economy, our self image, and our middle class, from West Virginia, to San Fransisco.
It has become painfully obvious to most people IMO, that the idea that the GOP is a "conservative" entity has been proven completely false.
I'll agree that this administration is hardly conservative -- it's much more like the JFK administration-- grandiose statements that Americans will fight anywhere for freedom and getting us into a war. Only this time, the public has chose to win because their is no other alternative.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty".
-John F. Kennedy -
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.


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